According to this article, the spigots have opened from GOP donors and the money is starting to pour into the pro-Trump superPACs. It’s quite the change from a month ago when “Trump only had $1.3 million in his campaign account. Both SuperPACs were also cash poor. One only had $500,000 in funds, and another only had a little over a million dollars in useable funds.”
That’s a far cry from this weekend because the Rebuilding American Now superPAC “received a single $3 million donation from Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus and held a fundraiser at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Cleveland Wednesday evening, with 25 high-powered donors in attendance.” Thanks to those things, the pro-Trump superPACs have started showing signs of life.
That isn’t the only good news on the pro-Trump superPAC front. Another bit of good news is that another “pro-Trump superPAC called Great America PAC held a 100-person dinner on Monday. Dorothy Woods, a widow of the terror attacks in Benghazi spoke in an attempt to rally the crowd.” As a result of these events, Hillary will face a mini-barrage of ads this upcoming week:
Trump ended June with $41 million in reserves, according to FEC records. The large fundraising boost granted by the convention will enable the Republican Party to take control of a portion of the news cycle during the Democratic National Convention starting Monday in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Let’s hope Trump uses some of that money to run a negative ad that asks this simple question: Are you safer now than you were 8 years ago? Finish that ad by asking if the threat of terrorism is greater than it was 8 years ago. The other ad would be about the economy. I’d have that ad ask whether the Obama recovery passed you by. Finish that ad by saying that Wall Street did well but Main Street didn’t do so hot, that green energy got guaranteed loans while coal miners got pink slips with more heading their direction.
In June, Hillary outspent Trump $57,000,000 to $4,000,000. The polls tightened in Trump’s favor. Let’s see whether the polls start shifting in Trump’s direction if the advertising is competitive.
I’m certain that Politico’s article, especially the headline, was published with the intent of attempting to smooth over the bitter feelings Bernie Sanders voters are experiencing. I’d be surprised if Ms. Brazile’s non-apology apology will have that effect.
Eight paragraphs into the article, it’s reported that “National Democrats tried to smooth over the bitterness. DNC vice chairwoman Donna Brazile had dropped in on the meeting of Sanders-aligned Rules Committee members and apologized for how the emails came out.”
I’ve paid attention to Twitter today. Specifically, I’ve paid attention to #DNCLeaks. I can say with total certainty that Bernie’s supporters were upset with what they perceived as the DNC’s corruption. They especially were upset with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to the point that they started a separate hashtag, this time creating #Demexit. While there’s little doubt a majority of Bernie’s supporters will vote for Hillary, it’s highly likely that many will vote for Jill Stein or stay home. Hillary can’t afford that. She needs turnout to be better than Obama’s 2012 performance. That’s impossible if 30% of Bernie’s voters stay home or vote for the Green Party candidate.
Throughout the meeting, Sanders adviser Mark Longabaugh and Clinton counterpart Charlie Baker went in and out of backroom negotiations to try to hammer out some kind of compromise on superdelegates, and Sanders’ moves to open up caucuses and primaries, a big wishlist item.
In the end those negotiations satisfied both parties. “We strongly support the unity commission,” a Clinton aide said. “It appears we’re going to come out here with a great big win on Rules,” Longabaugh said.
That’s all nice at that level but it doesn’t do a thing to heal the rift that was caused by the DNC intentionally and unjustly tilting the nominating process in Mrs. Clinton’s favor. It remains to be seen whether that gets smoothed over or whether this divide doesn’t heal. At this point, it’s anyone’s guess which it will be.
This month-old article takes on additional importance in light of the new Wikileaks-DNC scandal. The thought that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC has to fight a class action lawsuit is terrible news for Hillary.
According to the article, attorney Jared Beck said “‘The first is a claim for fraud—against the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz—based on the revelations from the recent Guccifer 2.0 documents purportedly taken from the DNC’s own computer network.’ The Guccifer 2.0 documents include internal memos in which the DNC broke legally binding neutrality agreements in the Democratic primaries by strategizing to make Hillary Clinton the nominee before a single vote was cast.”
Think of this as the anything-but-democratic Democratic Party. As I wrote in this post, the more fitting word to describe the DNC is oligarchy. The definition of oligarchy is “a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.”
I’m not a legal eagle but this doesn’t sound good for the DNC:
The third claim alleges the DNC and Wasserman Schultz participated in deceptive conduct in claiming the DNC was neutral during the Democratic primaries, when there is overwhelming evidence suggesting favoritism of Clinton from the beginning.
These 19,000 documents make it difficult for the DNC to testify under oath in court that the DNC was neutral. Not only are the documents proof that the DNC wasn’t impartial but it’s proof that they put this plan in motion with the intent of tipping the race to Hillary. This won’t help DWS either:
This isn’t going away any time soon, though CNN and MSNBC are doing their best to minimize its impact.
The news that the Democratic National Committee, aka the DNC, rigged the Democratic primaries so Bernie Sanders didn’t have a chance is proof that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were right. They said that the system was rigged, although they said it in terms of meaning that the economy was rigged. This article exposes how the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders.
Early in the article, it says “In its recent leak of 20,000 DNC emails from January 2015 to May 2016, DNC staff discuss how to deal with Bernie Sanders’ popularity as a challenge to Clinton’s candidacy. Instead of treating Sanders as a viable candidate for the Democratic ticket, the DNC worked against him and his campaign to ensure Clinton received the nomination.”
It’s clear that the DNC is corrupt to the core. The Democratic Party that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz runs with Donna Brazile’s help is the poster child for political corruption. These emails aren’t the only proof of that. This article highlights the lengths to which the DNC, or rather a small group of members of the DNC, were willing to go to hand Hillary the nomination:
The Democratic National Committee is “clearing a path” for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday’s primary debate. Speaking on the condition that she isn’t identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it “early on.”
The committeewoman is supporting one of Hillary’s rivals for the Democratic nomination, and said she spoke freely because she believes the former Secretary of State is benefiting from unfair favoritism inside the party.
Clinton aims to be the first female to occupy the Oval Office, and “the party’s female leaders really want to make a woman the next president,” the committeewoman said, rattling off a list of the women who she said are the “real power” in the organization. “I haven’t heard anyone say we should make Hillary undergo a trial by fire,” she added. “To the contrary, the women in charge seem eager, more and more, to have her skate into the general [election].”
Further, this DNC committeewoman identified the women who were intent on putting a Democratic woman in the White House:
Based on how the women leading the DNC have behaved, there’s little about the Democratic Party that’s democratic. The definition of democratic is “pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all.” Having virtually the entire leadership team of the DNC putting their thumb on the scales in Hillary’s favor doesn’t fit the definition of democratic. The word that best describes the DNC in its current state is oligarchy. The definition of oligarchy is “a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.”
This isn’t a little thing that will disappear over the weekend. This story will hang over the Democrats’ convention all week. Bernie Sanders’ supporters have every right to tell Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her minions that they’ll walk away from the Democratic Party if major structural changes aren’t made to eliminate this type of corruption, starting with Ms. Wasserman-Schultz’s immediate resignation.
There’s little doubt that the media will do its best to minimize this story. They can’t totally hide it but they’ll do their best to minimize its impact. If I was advising the Trump campaign, I’d run ads all week long during the convention highlighting this corruption. It shouldn’t take much to put a snappy ad together to highlight the Democrats’ corruption. The Democrats’ corruption the weekend before the DNC is like handing Trump a case of dynamite and a box of matches.
UPDATE: Eric Zaetsch has linked to my post on his blog. Eric is definitely a Bernie fan. Eric’s post does a nice job from a progressive standpoint of making the case for dumping Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. I agree that the DNC stall “needs to be mucked.” I heartily agree.
Technorati: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Donna Brazile, Hillary Clinton, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Corruption, Bernie Sanders, Democratic National Convention, Donald Trump, Republicans, Election 2016
Terrorists hit another soft target in western Europe today, this time hitting Munich. Reuters is reporting that “Gunmen attacked a busy mall in the German city of Munich on Friday evening, killing at least eight people and sending shoppers running for their lives from what police said was a terrorist attack.” Later in the article, it said “A police spokesman said there was no immediate indication that it was an Islamist attack but it was being treated as a terrorist incident.”
In the same article, however, it reports that “There was no immediate claim of responsibility but supporters of Islamic State celebrated on social media. ‘The Islamic state is expanding in Europe,’ read one Tweet.”
Also according to Reuters’ reporting “it was the third major act of violence against civilians in Western Europe in eight days. Previous attacks in France and Germany were claimed by the Islamic State militant group.”
During the Bush administration, there weren’t 3 terarorist attacks in 8 years. With those statistics, it’s difficult to say that we’re safer now than we were during the Bush years. This is a problem for Hillary. It isn’t that she’s got blood on her hands on this one. It’s that she, along with President Obama, can’t say she’s blameless after she destabilized the Middle East.
Personally, I can’t picture people being comfortable with the increased number of terrorist attacks. While many have happened in Europe, people know that they could easily happen here.
Saying that Hillary Clinton will want to change the subject of this article is understatement. Let’s start by saying that articles like this virtually guarantee that she’ll announce her VP pick this afternoon. The bad news for Mrs. Clinton is that this ties into the case that Donald Trump emphasized during last night’s acceptance speech.
According to the article, “John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5” in Philadelphia, criticized Hillary for “inviting relatives of victims of police shootings to speak at the Democratic National Convention next week, but failing to include relatives of slain police officers.” It’s still possible for Mrs. Clinton to invite some police officers to speak time-wise, though I don’t think it would go over well with Democrats in the hall. Think of how Black Lives Matter and the New Black Panther Party would react to police officers talking about what they face while protecting the public.
President McNesby read from a prepared statement while expressing his disgust with Mrs. Clinton:
The Fraternal Order of Police is insulted and will not soon forget that the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton are excluding the widows and other family members of police officers killed in the line of duty who were victims of explicit and not implied racism.
Then he said this:
He said it’s “sad that to win an election Mrs. Clinton must pander to the interests of people who do not know all the facts, while the men and women they seek to destroy are outside protecting the political institutions of this country.
“Mrs. Clinton, you should be ashamed of yourself, if that is possible.”
I’d expect the Trump campaign to jump all over this unforced mistake. This fits perfectly into Trump’s narrative that he’s the law and order candidate. Further complicating this situation is that these officers are stationed in Philadelphia, the site of the Democratic National Convention. If these officers wanted to cause trouble, they could invite Mr. Trump to a quickly-organized rally right outside the Democrats’ convention hall.
McNesby wasn’t too happy in this clip:
Suffice it to say that this isn’t the last time Mrs. Clinton will find herself defending the decision to invite the mothers of Michael Brown and Eric Garner to speak at the Democratic National Convention. I’d bet the proverbial ranch that Mr. Trump will emphasize this as proof that Hillary Clinton is soft on crime and that she’ll to the Democrats’ special interest groups in order to win votes. Let’s see if that works.
Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Michael Brown, Hands Up, Don’t Shoot, Ferguson, Eric Garner, New Black Panther Party, BlackLivesMatter, Democratic National Convention, Donald Trump, Law & Order Candidate, John McNesby, Fraternal Order of Police, Philadelphia, Republicans, Election 2016
Politifact’s fact checks are notoriously questionable. This Politifact fact check is among the sloppiest fact checks they’ve ever published.
Politifact’s fact check of Trump’s claim about Syrian refugees is rated as half-true. That’s based on Mr. Trump’s statement that Hillary Clinton “has called for a radical 550 percent increase in Syrian … refugees … despite the fact that there’s no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from.”
Politifact says “The 550 percent figure is correct. To say that there’s no way to screen them to find out who they are or where they come from ignores the extensive screening they undergo.” That last statement would surprise FBI Director Jim Comey and Jim Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence. This article publishes information that directly contradicts Politifact’s fact check when it says “Virtually no database of information exists to screen Syrian refugees coming into the United States, according to the FBI Director James Comey. The statements were made by Comey while testifying to the House Judiciary Committee about the security risks involved in taking in Syrian refugees.”
In other words, FBI Director Comey testified to the House Judiciary Committee that “virtually no database of information exists to screen Syrian refugees coming into the United States.” That directly contradicts Politifact’s published statements.
Then there’s this statement published in Politifact’s questionable fact check:
Compared to other countries, the United States has accepted very few – about 2,000 last year, for example. Half are children. Only about 2 percent are single men of combat age, the mostly likely demographic for a would-be terrorist.
That statement is directly contradicted by this information:
During the hearing, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) pointed out, according to the U.N., more than 43 million people worldwide are now displaced because of conflicts. Children constitute close to 41 percent of all refugees worldwide and women almost half.
However, the percentages are significantly different when it comes to the Syrian refugees. Of the close to 380,000 arrivals across the Mediterranean Sea from January through September of this year, 15%were children, 13% were women and 72% were men. Gohmert quoted Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as saying, “This provides a prime opportunity for Islamic State groups to attack Western targets … It’s a disaster of biblical proportions.”
This video must be watched for verification:
Based on FBI Director Comey’s testimony and DNI Director Clapper’s statement, I rate Politifact’s fact check mostly false. It ignores congressional testimony that directly contradicts their statements.
Donald Trump’s acceptance speech last night has been characterized as being scary or dark by Democrats. Mo Elleithee, a former Hillary campaign spokesman, said that this was a dreadful week for the GOP. That’s spin but not very good spin.
Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s pollster, said that she expects Trump and Hillary to be tied in all of the major swing states when the swing state polls start coming out. While it’s wise to take anything from a candidate’s pollster with a grain of salt, I’ve watched Mrs. Conway since she was Ms. Fitzpatrick. She isn’t a spinner. She’s earned the benefit of the doubt with me.
As for Trump’s speech, it was different in important and profound ways. He stripped away the façade that the Obama administration has hidden behind for 8 years. It started when Mr. Trump said “It is finally time for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation. I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore. So if you want to hear the corporate spin, the carefully-crafted lies, and the media myths, the Democrats are holding their convention next week. Go there.”
Think of that as Trump’s way of telling the elitists in the media and in the Democratic Party (pardon the repetition) that America would hear the truth. Here’s an example of that truthfulness:
These are the facts:
Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement. Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60 percent in nearby Baltimore.
In the president’s hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And almost 4,000 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office. The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50 percent compared to this point last year.
Democrats say that the speech was dark. Let’s ask this question: Are those the type of statistics that should make us feel happy? Or are they the type of statistics that make your heart ache? If that wasn’t enough information to make a decision on, this will help thoughtful people make the right decision:
One such border-crosser was released and made his way to Nebraska. There, he ended the life of an innocent young girl named Sarah Root. She was 21 years old and was killed the day after graduating from college with a 4.0 grade point average. Her killer was then released a second time, and he is now a fugitive from the law. I’ve met Sarah’s beautiful family. But to this administration, their amazing daughter was just one more American life that wasn’t worth protecting. One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders.
There’s no spinning that story. If I were to put it in tennis language, that story would be “Game. Set. Match. Championship.” Thoughtful people can’t hear that story and think we need to continue this administration’s immigration policies.
This is a powerful indictment of Hillary’s incompetence:
In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map. Libya was stable. Egypt was peaceful. Iraq had seen a big reduction in violence. Iran was being choked by sanctions. Syria was somewhat under control.
After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have? ISIS has spread across the region and the entire world. Libya is in ruins, and our ambassador and his staff were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos. Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis that now threatens the West. After 15 years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.
This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: Death, destruction and terrorism and weakness.
That’s a devastating and accurate before and after portrait of Hillary’s incompetence. Think of it as the indictment the Justice Department didn’t attempt to get.
Technorati: Donald Trump, Acceptance Speech, Law Enforcement, Sarah Root, Violent Crime, Terrorism, Republican National Convention, Hillary Clinton, Illegal Immigration, Libya, Iraq, ISIS, National Security, Democrats, Election 2016
Moments ago, Fox News announced that Roger Ailes resigned as Chairman and CEO of Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network. They also announced that “Rupert Murdoch will assume the role of Chairman and acting CEO of Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network.” Murdoch then issued a statement saying “Roger Ailes has made a remarkable contribution to our company and our country. Roger shared my vision of a great and independent television organization and executed it brilliantly over 20 great years. Fox News has given voice to those who were ignored by the traditional networks and has been one of the great commercial success stories of modern media. It is always difficult to create a channel or a publication from the ground up and against seemingly entrenched monopolies. To lead a flourishing news channel, and to build Fox Business, Roger has defied the odds.
His grasp of policy and his ability to make profoundly important issues accessible to a broader audience stand in stark contrast to the self-serving elitism that characterizes far too much of the media. I am personally committed to ensuring that Fox News remains a distinctive, powerful voice. Our nation needs a robust Fox News to resonate from every corner of the country. To ensure continuity of all that is best about Fox News and what it stands for, I will take over as Chairman and acting CEO, with the support of our existing management team under Bill Shine, Jay Wallace and Mark Kranz.”
Ailes built an amazing company in the 1990s. He grew FNC in the 2000s. He’d started building a credible news agency in the 2010s. Unfortunately, he allegedly mistreated women. I’m not going into that. That’s for a jury to potentially decide.
In his primetime speech Wednesday night, Ted Cruz self-destructed because he put a higher priority on political opportunism than he put on keeping his promise. The opening of the speech was actually pretty good, drawing lots of applause from those in the hall. Unfortunately for Sen. Cruz, to use a gymnastic metaphor, he didn’t stick the dismount. Actually, that’s being charitable.
Last night, Ted Cruz showed, above all else, that he’s a political opportunist masquerading as a principled conservative. Let’s be clear. It isn’t that I think Sen. Cruz isn’t a principled conservative. It’s that I think he’s a political opportunist first and foremost. Let me explain.
At the first debate last summer, Ted Cruz raised his hand and pledged to support the nominee whoever it was. Amanda Carpenter, appearing on CNN’s panel, said that Sen. Cruz should have the right to renege on that promise after Trump criticized Sen. Cruz’s wife and after Trump all but accused Sen. Cruz’s father of being part of the team that assassinated JFK in 1963. That’s a fair argument that reasonable people can see from the other person’s perspective.
If Sen. Cruz wanted to be a principled conservative and not endorse Donald Trump, the thing to do is to say outright that he wouldn’t support Trump in a statement, then explain why he wasn’t endorsing Trump. That would’ve been the honorable thing to do.
Instead, Sen. Cruz wanted to have it both ways. He didn’t want to endorse Trump but he definitely wanted a primetime speaking slot at the Convention in the hopes of positioning himself for a presidential run in 2020.
In the end, the activists in the hall booed him:
After getting booed off the stage, Sen. Cruz tried visiting Sheldon Adelson’s booth. It didn’t go well:
On the donor suite level, people approached Cruz and insulted him, a source told CNN’s Dana Bash. One state party chairman reacted so angrily that he had to be restrained. Cruz, who has long sought the support of GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson, was turned away when he tried to enter Adelson’s suite.
Andy Abboud, a senior aide to the Las Vegas casino magnate, said Cruz was initially invited to come up to visit the Adelsons, but when he failed to endorse Trump the invitation was rescinded. “When he didn’t endorse, they were stunned and disappointed,” Abboud told CNN. “We could not allow Ted Cruz to use the Adelsons as a prop against Donald Trump,” he added. “The Adelsons support Donald Trump and made that clear. They like Ted Cruz, but there was no way the Adelsons were going to be the first stop after not endorsing. That would be disrespectful to our nominee.”
I can’t help but believe that there’s now a ton of bad blood between the activists in the hall and Sen. Cruz. If Donald Trump doesn’t win this November, those activists will blame Sen. Cruz’s speech as being a major contributing factor for that loss.
Was Cruz thinking about 2020 not 2016. Is that why he didn’t endorse? How does that unite the Republican Party. Sad and Selfish
Here’s Gen. Flynn’s tweet:
I’m sorry, but tonight Ted Cruz demonstrated he is willing to place self before country.
I’ll just add that, as a strategist and as an opportunist, Sen. Cruz isn’t too bright.