Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Oh, God. Why does Clinton refuse to run on the Democratic Party platform? And against pro-Citizens United justices?

The Clinton campaign today made a key concession about its analysis of the fundamentals of the race. This concession was made almost in passing, as an afterthought, in a statement released late last night by Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri:

“One upside to Hillary Clinton’s break from the trail was having time to sharpen the final argument she will present to voters in these closing weeks.  So when she rejoins the trail tomorrow, Hillary Clinton will deliver the second in a series of speeches laying out her aspirational vision for the country: that we are “Stronger Together.” Tomorrow’s remarks will focus on what has been at the core of who Hillary Clinton is as a person and the mission of her campaign — how we lift up our children and families and make sure that every child has the chance to live up to their God given potential.

“Our campaign readily admits that running against a candidate as controversial as Donald Trump means it is harder to be heard on what you aspire for the country’s future and it is incumbent on us to work harder to make sure voters hear that vision.”  [Boldface in original.]

Hillary Clinton’s campaign just admitted she has a real problem, Greg Sargent, yesterday morning


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments (11) | |

September 13, 2013, the date of publication of the initial Orlando Sentinel article reporting that Bondi’s office was considering joining the New York AG’s fraud lawsuit against Trump U., was … a Friday. The Trump Foundation’s check to Bondi’s PAC arrived on September 17, the following … Tuesday. Bondi’s office responded to the Sentinel reporter’s Aug. 29 inquiry HOW many days before the article was published, exactly? And WHAT was the date of that late-summer phone call Bondi made to Trump?

Look, here is the actual check from the Trump Foundation (remember, all just an innocent mistake, heh-heh!), dated 9/9/13. Totally undercuts the idea that Trump bribed Bondi to head off an investigation, doesn’t it? [Photocopy of front and back of canceled check.]

Except not so much. Even the Times acknowledges, this doesn’t absolutely clear up anything, since

“Even as he has denied trying to do so in this instance, he has boasted brazenly and repeatedly during his presidential campaign that he has made copious campaign contributions over the past two decades, including to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, in order to buy access and consideration for his business dealings.”

Tags: , , , Comments (7) | |

Did Trump backdate his charity’s $25,000 check to Pam Bondi’s PAC by four days? Or was it sent, as Bondi AND Trump now say, in response to Bondi’s phone solicitation of a donation from Trump made (according now to Bondi herself) not weeks before the Orlando Sentinel reported that Bondi’s office was considering joining a fraud lawsuit against Trump U. but instead—coincidentally, of course—only a few days before the Sentinel reporter phoned Bondi’s office and inquired about the office’s plans regarding that lawsuit?

Last night I clicked on the NYT website and saw a prominently-featured article by Kevin Sack and Steve Eder titled “New Records Shed Light on Donald Trump’s $25,000 Gift to Florida Official.”  The article lays out a sequence of events concerning Trump’s charity’s Sept. 2013 check to Florida AG Pam Bondi’s 2014-reelection-campaign PAC.

The check, it was reported earlier in various news articles in the last three months arrived at the PAC four days after an article was published in the Orlando Sentinel reporting that Bondi’s office was considering joining a lawsuit** filed two weeks earlier by New York AG Eric Schneiderman alleging concerted fraud by Trump University and Trump Institute victimizing a significant number of New Yorkers.  The fraud also victimized a number of Floridians.

Most of the news reports on this came earlier this month after it was reported that nonprofit Trump Foundation had paid a $2,500 fine to the IRS for violating tax law concerning the political donation.  It hadn’t been of sufficient importance to the political news media and punditry to give these reports real attention, partly, I think, because it hadn’t been of sufficient important to Hillary Clinton to mention this and drive it home in public statements; only news about the content of this or that Clinton email, especially if it tied in, however trivially, with the Clinton Foundation, could (and did) attain news-media-frenzy/inundation-of-coverage status.

And Clinton and her campaign didn’t think to have Clinton herself educate the public about this or anything else about Trump if it didn’t already come out of Trump’s mouth or his Twitter feed.  Anything about Trump that Trump wanted hidden managed to be hidden almost completely from most of the public that doesn’t read the Washington Post or the New York Times.  Or the Orlando Sentinel.  And Clinton was fine with that, apparently.  Or fine enough not to make an issue of any of it, since Trump himself wasn’t talking about it.

But here’s something that those news reports from earlier this month reported, concerning the timing of a phone call from Bondi to Trump, reported initially back in June when the story first broke nationally (for roughly three minutes), in which she solicited a campaign donation from him, according to Bondi herself.  And it conflicts materially, as AGs would say (“material” and “materially” are big in legalese), with what Bondi is now saying was the timeline.

In the reports earlier this month, Bondi was saying that her phone solicitation of Trump occurred several weeks before the Sentinel article was published on Sept. 13, 2013, reporting that “saying that Ms. Bondi’s office would ‘determine whether Florida should join the multi­state case.’”  If I recall correctly, one article quoted Bondi or her spokesperson as placing the timing of the phone call as sometime in July.

In any event, Bondi was saying earlier this month that her phone solicitation of Trump was part of a midsummer series of routine campaign solicitations to wealthy Republicans who lived mostly or largely in Florida (as Trump does), and that therefore she could not reasonably be said to have been trying to extort a donation from Trump, whose foundation’s check arrived at her PAC four days after the Sentinel article was published.

But now Bondi is claiming, according to the Sack and Eder article (which no longer is anywhere on the Times’ opening online page, best as I could tell, even though it was published online only last night and appears on the front page of today’s paper), that her phone call to Trump actually occurred in … late summer 2013, although no precise date is offered.  And that Bondi—and Trump—are now saying that Trump’s foundation’s check indeed was sent in response to Bondi’s phone solicitation.

But, not to worry, folks.  The Times story reports that the foundation’s check, signed by Donald J. Trump—is he the foundation’s treasurer?—is dated Sept. 8, 2013.  The article includes a photocopy of the front and back of the check.

That’s right; the check arrived four days after the Sentinel article was published, but it was dated four days before the article was published.*

The Sack and Eder article, however, reports that the Sentinel reporter first contacted Bondi’s office by phone on August 29, 2013 to inquire whether her office would be joining the New York case on behalf of 23 Floridians who had filed fraud complaints with that office, one filed after Bondi assumed office in January 2011, the others during her immediate predecessor’s term.  And that the phone call set off a series of internal inquiries resulting in a response to the reporter from Bondi’s communications director, to whom the reporter had placed the call, saying that “We are currently reviewing the allegations in the New York complaint.”

Sack and Eder detail what occurred:

It was Aug. 29, 2013, an unremarkable day inside Florida’s whitewashed Capitol, and a typically sweltering one outside among the mossbearded oaks and sabal palms. Around 3:45 p.m., Jennifer Meale, the communications director for Attorney General Pam Bondi, fielded a seemingly routine call from a financial reporter for The Orlando Sentinel. The attorney general of New York had recently filed a lawsuit against Donald J. Trump alleging fraud in the marketing of Trump University’s real estate and wealth­building seminars. Had Florida ever conducted its own investigation, the reporter asked.

The call set off an exchange of emails between Ms. Meale and top lawyers in the office. She learned that 23 complaints about Trump­related education enterprises had been filed before Ms. Bondi became attorney general in 2011, and one since. They had never generated a formal investigation, she wrote the reporter, but added, “We are currently reviewing the allegations in the New York complaint.”

The Sentinel’s report, which was published on Sept. 13, 2013, paraphrased Ms. Meale’s response and took it a step further, saying that Ms. Bondi’s office would “determine whether Florida should join the multi­state case.”

Four days later, a check for $25,000 from the Donald J. Trump Foundation landed in the Tampa office of a political action committee that had been formed to support Ms. Bondi’s 2014 election. In mid­-October, her office announced that it would not be acting on the Trump University complaints.

The proximate timing of the Sentinel article and Mr. Trump’s donation, and suspicions of a quid pro quo, have driven a narrative that has dogged Mr. Trump and Ms. Bondi for three years. It has intensified during Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, peaking this month with the filing of ethics complaints, calls for a federal investigation by editorial boards and Democrats in Congress, and a new investigation of Mr. Trump’s foundation by New York regulators.

But documents obtained this week by The New York Times, including a copy of Mr. Trump’s check, at least partly undercut that timeline. Although the check was received by Ms. Bondi’s committee four days after the Sentinel report, and was recorded as such in her financial disclosure filings, it was actually dated and signed by Mr. Trump four days before the article appeared.

The check’s date does not categorically demonstrate that Mr. Trump was not seeking to influence Ms. Bondi, a fellow Republican. Even as he has denied trying to do so in this instance, he has boasted brazenly and repeatedly during his presidential campaign that he has made copious campaign contributions over the past two decades, including to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, in order to buy access and consideration for his business dealings. Politicians in Florida, which Mr. Trump considers his second home, have been among his leading beneficiaries.

An analysis of public records shows he has contributed at least $375,000 to state and federal candidates and political committees here since 1995, accounting for 19 percent of the roughly $2 million he has given to campaigns nationwide, other than his own. Although not unprecedented, his $25,000 gift to And Justice for All, the committee supporting Ms. Bondi, is among his largest.

What is more, when Mr. Trump wrote that check, he still theoretically had reason to be concerned that Florida’s attorney general could become a player in the legal assault on Trump University. Through 2010, when the company ceased operations, Florida had been one of the most lucrative markets for his unaccredited for­profit school. It ranked second among states in purchases, with 950 transactions, and third in sales, at $3.3 million, according to an analysis of sales data revealed in court filings.

The lawsuit by New York’s Democratic attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, which was announced on Aug. 25, 2013 — two weeks before Mr. Trump wrote the check to And Justice for All on Sept. 9 — did not cite allegations from consumers in Florida. But news organizations had reported as early as 2010 that the attorneys general of Florida and Texas had fielded complaints from consumers who had paid up to $35,000 for Mr. Trump’s seminars and mentoring programs. His contribution, therefore, could have been a pre­emptive investment to discourage Ms. Bondi from joining the New York case.

And then the coup de grace paragraphs of today’s Times article:

Brian Ballard, Mr. Trump’s lobbyist in Florida, said it was “ridiculous” to think his client sought to buy off Ms. Bondi. “I’m the Trump Organization lobbyist, and he has never, ever brought up Trump University with me,” he said. “It wasn’t something of concern to him. With Donald Trump, if a friend calls up and says, ‘Listen, I’m running for XYZ, could you help me?’ his instinct is to say yes. That’s all it was.”

Yet, even those who doubt anything nefarious between Mr. Trump and Ms. Bondi acknowledge that they bear blame for the intensifying focus on the appearance of a conflict. For his part, Mr. Trump fanned the embers by sending the contribution from his nonprofit foundation, which cannot under federal law make political donations.

When questions arose this year, he agreed to refund $25,000 to the foundation from his personal account and pay a $2,500 penalty to the Internal Revenue Service. Trump officials have called the mix­-up an inadvertent error by his staff. Ms. Bondi, meanwhile, has failed to explain why she accepted Mr. Trump’s check even after learning that her office was examining the New York case against Trump University. Six months later, she allowed him to host a $3,000­-per­-head fund­raiser for her at his Mar­a-­Lago Club in Palm Beach. Mr. Trump attended the event, which records indicate raised at least $50,000.

No, on second thought I think maybe this is the coup de grace in the article:

Now, with the revelation of the date on Mr. Trump’s check — which came in a release of correspondence by Mr. Schneiderman — it appears that Mr. Trump and Ms. Bondi had in their possession a piece of favorable evidence that they bewilderingly failed to disclose.

“All these things come together in a way that if you don’t unpack the whole thing, the unspoken implications coalesce to create this great suspicion,” said Mac Stipanovich, a longtime Florida Republican strategist and lobbyist who disdains Mr. Trump and has never worked with Ms. Bondi. “The optics are terrible even though there is not a shred of evidence that Pam Bondi solicited a bribe or that Donald Trump provided one.”

Mr. Trump and Ms. Bondi have said they share a long friendship, but the origins of it are not apparent. Ms. Bondi, who declined requests for an interview, initially backed former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida for president. After he withdrew from the race, she endorsed Mr. Trump the day before Florida’s March 15 primary, snubbing the state’s other favorite son, Senator Marco Rubio.

The only woman currently holding statewide elected office in Florida, she has since become an enthusiastic Trump surrogate. Ms. Bondi became a conservative darling in 2010 when, as an assistant state attorney, she won her post in her first campaign of any kind. Her political future is unclear as she faces a two­-term limit and has said she will not run for governor in 2018.

It was in late summer 2013, as her re­election campaign was gearing up, that Ms. Bondi called Mr. Trump to solicit the donation, aides to both of them have said; they have declined to provide a precise date. Records show that Mr. Trump had already donated $500 to Ms. Bondi’s campaign on July 15.

His daughter Ivanka Trump donated another $500 on Sept. 10. The Texas attorney general’s office, then under Greg Abbott, a Republican, had also decided in 2010 not to act on complaints against Trump University when it left the state. Mr. Trump later donated $35,000 to Mr. Abbott’s successful 2014 campaign for governor. Mr. Abbott’s office has denied there was any connection. No other attorneys general have joined Mr. Schneiderman’s litigation.

The Times, of course, can’t explicitly suggest in a news article that Trump may have backdated by a week of so that check from his foundation to place its issuance to a barely-comfortable and conveniently clairvoyant four days before publication of the Sentinel article.  But it can, well, intimate it, by, say, saying:

Now, with the revelation of the date on Mr. Trump’s check — which came in a release of correspondence by Mr. Schneiderman — it appears that Mr. Trump and Ms. Bondi had in their possession a piece of favorable evidence that they bewilderingly failed to disclose.

But accepting the date of that check as accurate, the date coupled with the Aug. 29 2013 date in which the Sentinel reporter first contacted Bondi’s office—and the admission now by both Bondi and Trump that Bondi’s phone solicitation to him came not in July and not several weeks before the article was published but a couple of weeks before it was published and likely after the Sentinel reporter first inquired to her office about whether that office might join the New York lawsuit filed two weeks earlier.

A phone inquiry likely prompted by a call to the business reporter by one of the complainants to the Florida AG’s office upon learning of the New York AG’s lawsuit.  I mean—donchathink?

Which highlights three things: One, that Trump habitually pays to silence government officials and private individuals about his scams—including possibly some bank-loan scams that were never investigated for what they sure sound like they were.  Why weren’t these investigated?

Another is how perfect an example of what Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have made so central to their political messages: that the economic and legal systems are rigged by people and industries that sponsor political campaigns, not on issues but of candidates including officials running for reelection or higher office.

And finally, this: Why is it that Republican AGs—the self-styled champions of the working class—in the states in which the largest numbers of fraud complaints against Trump U. and Trump Institute unconcerned about the complaints?  But all the way back in 2013 the New York state AG, unlike, say, Bondi and Abbott, a member of the elite—was?

I don’t expect the questions I’ve raised here, including in that last paragraph, to be mentioned by pundits or by Clinton, since they don’t involve anything that Trump has said or tweeted within the last 24 hours (or ever), and they have nothing to do with racism, xenophobia, misogyny, anti-gay sentiment—or foreign affairs.  And therefore since moderate Republicans, to the extent that they care at all, are fine with the issues I’ve discussed.

Still, on the remote chance that Clinton and some pundits could actually draw attention to them, I hope that someone who matters reads this post.  Although I won’t hold my breath, because I want to be alive to continue posting about this kind of stuff.

Even if ignored.


*Sentence corrected 9/16 at 9:20 a.m.  The cut-and-paste error, in which the clause after the comma was the same as the clause before the comma, was evident.

** Link added 9/16 at 10:00 a.m.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , Comments (15) | |

Garbo—er, Clinton—talks! (Here’s what she should say.)

“Generally, I’m concerned, frankly,” said former Democratic Senate leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.). “It still looks positive, and I think if you look at the swing states and where she is right now, she’s got a lead. But it’s certainly not in the bag. We have two months to go, and I think it’s going to be a competitive race all the way through. I would say she’s got at least a 60 percent chance of winning.”

At the same time, Daschle said, “all the things that Trump has done, the numbers should be far more explicitly in her favor, but they’re not.”

Among Democrats’ concerns is the fact that Clinton spent a great deal of time over the summer raising millions of dollars in private fundraisers while Trump was devoting much of his schedule to rallies, speeches and TV appearances — although many of those didn’t go as well as his campaign may have hoped.

Clinton has focused more heavily on fundraising than Democratic strategists had hoped would be necessary at this stage, partly to help Democrats running for Congress and state offices who would be useful to Clinton if she is president and partly to hold off further erosion in the polls.

One new goal for Clinton now, aides said, is to spend more time trying to connect directly with voters by sharing a more personal side of herself — and by telling them where she wants to take the country.

Democrats wonder and worry: Why isn’t Clinton far ahead of Trump?, Anne Gearan, Jenna Johnson and John Wagner, Washington Post, today

Back in the late 1920s, after The Jazz Singer, the first Talkie, proved a hit and foretold the rapid end to the silent-movie era and therefore to the careers of any of the stars of that era who could not make the adjustment, the newspapers would cover the transition by writing about various silent-screen stars’ first Talkie.  A famous headline in some tabloid—probably a Hearst paper—shouted: Garbo Talks!

But Garbo also became known for a line of her own, made to a Hollywood reporter: “I vahnt to be uhloohn.”

To be confused with, “I want to be with my close circle of longtime minions and my very wealthy friends and acquaintances.”

I thought of Garbo last week when I read that Hillary Clinton was stepping out after her six-week mostly-hiatus from speaking to the hoi-polloi and her months-and-months-long failure to speak to reporters except once-in-a-while to one or another chosen one.

The latter which wouldn’t have been such a bad thing had she actually said anything to those chosen reporters, rather than simply tried to seem appealing.  And I don’t mean just to talk about her own policy proposals.

I mean, at least as much, to talk about the several really, really important things some mainstream journalists had uncovered about Trump—such as his extortion payment to Florida AG Pam Bondi; his silencing of the plaintiffs who had sued him in the 2000s for what clearly constituted not just civil fraud but also criminal fraud in a Soho condo project, by settling the lawsuit for enough money to cause them to sign a silencing agreement which—for some mysterious reason—also had the effect of killing a criminal investigation because, um, the plaintiffs stopped cooperating in the criminal investigation.

Prosecutors and law enforcement agencies such as the F.B.I. have subpoena powers that trump such silencing agreements.  But, y’know … whatever.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments (23) | |

I doubt that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee.

I’m not sure whether this is a serious post or not.

How likely is it that Donald Trump, if elected, would serve more than a few months of his term?  How likely is it that he will even continue as the nominee much beyond the convention?, Me, Angry Bear, Jun. 3

That sentence is how I ended that post.  A few days later I read, on Politico, I think, that conservative Republican donors (yes, that’s redundant, but that’s what the article said) are trying to persuade the RNC to pass an emergency rule change at the opening of the convention to release the delegates from their primary commitment on the first ballot.  (The article said this group was leaning toward favoring Scott Walker as the nominee, to which I said to myself, “Please do.  That’ll put the Rust Belt states in your corner!”)

But last night, after I posted this post arguing that the Dems and progressive pundits should not conflate media coverage of and about Trump himself, which obviously is extensive, and media coverage of Republican congressional policy proposals, which is almost nonexistent and which Ryan says Trump has assured him that he will help implement, I read this piece by the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank.  It’s titled “Trump exploits Orlando’s tragedy to smear Muslims and Obama.” Posted at 6:35 p.m. it ran through all of Trump’s many statements yesterday, and one by Trump surrogate Roger Stone.

As I read that, I realized that Trump likely won’t be the nominee.

I recalled reading a news report late last week that I had expected to gain significant traction.  Titled “Florida AG sought donation before nixing Trump University fraud case,” by CNN’s Tom LoBianco, Drew Griffin and Scott Zamost, it is stunning even by current standards: The Florida AG, Pam Bondi, announced in 2014 that she was considering having Florida join litigation by several states alleging fraud by Trump U.  There had been many complaints to Bondi’s office by former victims.  A few days later, Bondi, who was running for reelection, solicited a $25,000 campaign donation from Trump, who obliged.  A few days after the check was received, Bondi announced her decision against having Florida join he lawsuit, claiming insufficient evidence.

My first thought was that Trump wouldn’t be calling Clinton “Crooked Hillary” much longer.  My second thought was that Trump will be indicted after a plea deal with Bondi.

The article was posted at 9:31 p.m. on Friday.  Perfect timing for Sunday’s papers.  Then there was the Orlando horror, barely more than 24 hours later.  And Trump’s appalling reaction, on Sunday and throughout the day yesterday, and I guess into today.

And mainstream Republicans’ reactions to Trump’s, which Greg Sargent recounts.

Politico’s Jake Sherman reports today that Trump will meet with House Republicans on July 7:

“Since Mr. Trump became the presumptive nominee, members have asked for us to organize an opportunity for our conference to spend time with him before the convention,” an aide to McMorris Rodgers said. “The chairwoman announced to members at the morning’s conference that on July 7th they will have the chance to meet with Mr. Trump; share their policy priorities, learn about his plans to unite the party; and get details about his plans to move America forward. This was the first date that worked with everyone’s schedules for a special conference. Details of exact time and location will be forthcoming.”

I’m interested in what they tell Trump are their policy priorities.  And what happens 11 days later, when their convention begins.


UPDATE: Greg Sargent writes:

After President Obama ripped Donald Trump today for betraying American values and further endangering the country with his ban on Muslims and all around hatemongering, Trump responded in a brief statement to the Associated Press:

“President Obama claims to know our enemy, and yet he continues to prioritize our enemy over our allies, and for that matter, the American people.

“When I am President, it will always be America First.”

He titles his post “Republicans discover nominating world’s most famous birther might not be a great idea.”  Perfect.

I meant to say in my original post, but for forgot to, that I think the Republicans will say that their primary motive in refusing as a party to nominate Trump is based not on ideology but on Trump’s clear mental instability, which poses am existential threat to this country.  For some of them, that will be their motive.  For others it will be ideology.

I think they’ll point out that Trump did not win a majority of that primary and caucus popular vote, and they’ll say that since the effective end of the primary season more than a month ago Trump’s mental instability has become obvious enough that some voters who voted for him probably would not do so now.

I do suspect–possibly naively, I recognize–that for many party elites, concerns primarily about ideology and even the likelihood of devastating electoral losses are starting to seem like unaffordable luxuries.

Added 6/14 at 5:16 p.m.

Tags: , , , , , , , , Comments (67) | |