Trump’s First TV Ad Cites Known White Supremacist Organization for Anti-Immigrant Stats

Donald Trump is out with his first TV ad of the general election, and it’s predictably dishonest: an image of “Hillary Clinton’s America” being flooded with refugees and “illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes” while “the system stays rigged against Americans.” The ad has drawn comparisons to the infamous anti-immigrant ad that California Gov. Pete Wilson ran in 1994 as he was trying to push through a ballot measure imposing draconian penalties on undocumented immigrants.

The ad, also unsurprisingly, cites the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the group whose reports provide a constant stream of ammunition to anti-immigrant politicians despite its troubling roots in white nationalism and history of skewing the facts.

The CIS citation comes about 10 seconds into the ad, when the narrator warns that in Clinton’s America, “illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes get to stay, collecting Social Security benefits, skipping the line.”

The ad’s citation appears to be referring to an April 14 CIS article on the implications of U.S. v. Texas, the Supreme Court case on President Obama’s DAPA and expanded DACA executive actions, which extended temporary deportation relief to some people brought to the country as children and some of their parents. This appears to be where the Trump campaign got the “collecting Social Security benefits” line, which it dishonestly links to its smear of “illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes” (the DAPA and DACA programs bar people convicted of most crimes from eligibility). Those who receive eligibility to work under the programs do become eligible for Social Security, which they pay into like nearly every other American worker, under rules that existed long before President Obama took office.

It’s telling that the Trump campaign is getting its arguments about immigration policy from CIS. The group is one of a large network of anti-immigrant organizations started by John Tanton, an activist with white nationalist leanings and a troublingly extreme “population control” agenda including such things as supporting China’s brutal one-child policy.

CIS itself is more conservative in its rhetoric than its founder—allowing it to gain a foothold among members of Congress and others eager for research supporting an anti-immigrant agenda—but the agenda it promotes is one that demonizes immigrants.

As RightWingWatch.org noted in a recent report on CIS and its fellow Tanton-linked organizations, CIS has been a proponent of the idea “that instead of embracing a moderate position on immigration in order to win back Latinos who favored George W. Bush, the GOP should put its energy and resources into expanding its popularity and increasing turnout among white voters, in part by scapegoating people of color”—a strategy that Trump’s campaign is putting to the test:

CIS spokespeople regularly make this argument, along with another one that has long been popular among white nationalists: that Latino immigrants will never vote Republican because they are inherently liberal. During the debate over the “Gang of Eight” bill, CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian argued that the GOP shouldn’t bother trying to increase its share of the Latino vote because “generally speaking, Hispanic voters are Democrats, and so the idea of importing more of them as a solution to the Republican Party’s problems is kind of silly.” In another interview, Krikorian argued that immigration reform would “destroy the Republican Party” and ultimately “the republic.” The next year, he charged that Democrats were using immigration as “a way of importing voters” and to “create the conditions, such as increased poverty, increased lack of health insurance, that lead even non-immigrant voters to be more receptive to big government solutions.” At one point, Krikorian told Republicans that they should oppose immigration reform simply to deny President Obama a political victory.

Steven Camarota, the research director at CIS, has said that the current level of legal immigration “dooms” conservatives. Stephen Steinlight, a senior policy analyst at CIS, has said that immigration reform would lead to “the unmaking of America” by “destroying the Republican Party” and turning the U.S. into a “tyrannical and corrupt” one-party state. He explained that Latinos aren’t likely to vote Republican because they “don’t exemplify ‘strong family values,’” as illustrated by high rates of “illegitimacy.” More than a year before Donald Trump made national headlines by calling for a ban on all Muslim immigration, Steinlight said that he would like to ban Muslims from coming to the country because they “believe in things that are subversive to the Constitution.”

Steinlight summed up the argument in 2005, when he said that immigration threatens “the American people as a whole and the future of Western civilization.” More recently, Steinlight told a tea party group in 2014 that the “Gang of Eight” immigration reform bill amounted to “a plot against America ” because it would turn the U.S. into a Democrat-led “one-party state” where citizens would “lose our liberty” and “social cohesion.” Steinlight has happily fed into some of the more vitriolic tea party hatred of President Obama, saying that the president should not only be impeached for his handling of immigration, but that “ being hung, drawn and quartered is probably too good for him .” On another occasion, Steinlight said that he’d like to attack religious leaders who support immigration reform with “a baseball bat.”

(h/t RightWingWatch.org)

Media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UqwQCB48dA

Half-Indian Supporter Racially Profiled and Escorted Out of Trump Rally

A man who identified himself as half-Indian was escorted out of a Donald Trump rally on Thursday out of concern that he was a protester, but the man insisted he was a Trump supporter and said he feels that he was racially profiled.

Jake Anantha, an 18-year-old from Charlotte, was approached by a member of Trump’s security team and then ushered out by police. He was told that he resembled another man who had previously disrupted Trump rallies.

“I told him I’ve never been to another rally in my life,” Anantha said. “I’m a huge Trump supporter. I would never protest against Trump.”

Anantha is a registered Republican, according to state voter records, who registered to vote in March. Anantha, who said he’s a student at Central Piedmont Community College, was wearing a pro-Trump shirt with another pro-Trump shirt underneath.

“I do think it’s because I’m brown,” Anantha said, explaining why he believes he was kicked out. He added that he was “totally shocked.”

Trump’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment about the incident. Requests for comment from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department have not been returned.

It’s not unusual for known demonstrators who have been previously spotted at Trump rallies to be asked to leave. A Muslim woman, Rose Hamid, was also kicked out of the rally Thursday night. She had been escorted from at least one Trump rally in the past for peacefully protesting and had previously been interviewed by major media outlets, including CNN.

Attempting to verify his political beliefs, Anantha said he was a conservative and expressed views in line with those of Trump, including opposition to Black Lives Matter protesters, who were demonstrating Thursday night outside the venue, and his belief that “radical Islam is a large threat to our country.”

“I couldn’t believe what was going on,” he said of the incident. “Obviously now I’m very angry. I’ve wasted a bunch of time coming here. I may have wasted six months of my life supporting Donald Trump, who doesn’t even let me come to his rallies.”

While Anantha said he was now questioning his support for Trump, he maintained he won’t be voting for the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.

“I couldn’t do that,” he said.

(h/t CNN)

Media

Footage of Jake escorted by security:

 

Trump Poll-Watching Plan Stirs Voter Intimidation Fears

Donald Trump’s call for volunteer election monitors is raising fears about voter intimidation at the polls this fall.

“We’re going to watch Pennsylvania,” Trump told a crowd in Altoona, Pennsylvania Friday night. “Go down to certain areas and watch and study and make sure other people don’t come in and vote five times. If you do that, we’re not going to lose. The only way we can lose, in my opinion — I really mean this, Pennsylvania — is if cheating goes on.”

“We have to call up law enforcement and we have to have the sheriffs and the police chiefs and everybody watching,” Trump added.

At the time Trump made these statements he was down 9.2% to Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, according to Real Clear Politics.

Trump’s campaign followed up by asking visitors to its website to sign up to be a “Trump Election Observer.” Those who do so receive an email declaring: “We are going to do everything we are legally allowed to do to stop crooked Hillary from rigging this election. Someone from the campaign will be contacting you soon.”

Trump’s claim that people might vote five times—at other campaign stops he’s said it could be ten or even fifteen times—is belied by the facts.

One study by Justin Levitt, a respected expert and Loyola Law School professor, found just 31 incidents of voter impersonation fraud out of over 1 billion votes cast across 14 years. That is a voter fraud rate of 0.0000031%, and not worth the time, effort, and tax dollars. Others have found similar results.

Pennsylvania passed a voter ID law in 2012. It was later struck down, in part because the state was unable to point to a single case of in-person voter fraud to justify it. Other states have issued Republican-led voter ID laws, which have been losing in the courts because they specifically targeted minority groups, which are more likely to vote Democrat.

The Trump campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment. But campaign spokesman Jason Miller said in a statement to NPR: “To be clear, liberals love to throw out the voter intimidation card. What we’re advocating are open, fair and honest elections.”

That’s not calming the fears of voting rights advocates.

“There is no room in the election process for untrained ‘election watchers’ who may bring their own biases to the process, and scrutinize — and thereby intimidate — voters who don’t look like them,” said Kristen Clarke, the executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Clarke’s group conducts its own election monitoring, but with the goal of ensuring that eligible voters are able to cast a ballot.

Some Trump supporters also are noting that Barack Obama had his own “Voter Protection Program” in 2008. But that effort, too, was aimed at lawyers to protect the rights of legitimate voters. It explicitly told volunteers not to challenge voters’ eligibility.

Trump’s new program, by contrast, appears more like the election monitoring conducted by True the Vote, a Tea-Party-linked group that aimed to root out voter fraud and have drawn charges of voter intimidation. In 2010, Harris County, Texas, officials said they’d received several complaints of True the Vote volunteers being disruptive, NBC reported. And two years later, some Ohio voters complained of receiving official letters telling them their right to vote was being challenged, after they were targeted by the group. One True the Vote leader told volunteers in 2012 that the group’s goal was to give voters a feeling “like driving and seeing the police following you.”

Adding to concerns is that Trump’s call for volunteer observers comes not long after the U.S. Justice Department announced it will reduce the number of federal election observers it deploys to the polls this fall, who are charged with preventing voter suppression and intimidation. The Justice Department has said the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling weakening the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder, required the move, though some voting rights advocates disagree.

Donald McGahn, a top election lawyer for the Trump campaign, has met with a Republican lawyers group that’s planning its own poll-monitoring program, The Washington Post reported.

“What they want to do is create a pretty select, Navy SEAL-type operation that takes the data we’re able to provide and deploy resources of the highest caliber,” Randy Evans, the chairman of the lawyers group, told the paper. “If you have 7,000 lawyers on the ground, and 200 sophisticated election attorneys on call, you can move quickly.”

(h/t NBC News)

Reality

The key difference between Trump’s proposal and the Obama’s 2008 “Voter Protection Program” initiative was that only meant for lawyers to be strictly observers of voter intimidation. This was a response to reports that Republicans engage in suppression of voting in the previous general election back in 2004.

There was an incident in 2008 where members of the New Black Panther Party engaged in voter intimidation incident in Philadelphia. While that was an issue, it was just a single case that involved 2 people, working independently, and outside of any officially sanctioned program.

Contrast this with Trump’s plan, which would be an actual sanctioned plan, appears to “make sure other people don’t come in and vote five times.” which is the same language used by groups like True the Vote which actively engage in voter intimidation using “caging” and other techniques. Thus the concern.

Media

Trump Says He’d Racially Profile and Deport US Citizens Over ‘Extreme Views’

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Republican nominee Donald Trump said that as President he would start racial profiling United States citizens, and should their views be “extreme” he would have them deported.

As an example, Trump used the father of Omar Mateen, the man who killed 49 people at Pulse nightclub in Orlando — in spite of his status as a U.S. citizen.

“I’d throw him out,” Trump said of Seddique Mateen, according to the Washington Post. The former reality TV star said that racial and religious profiling is something our country should start practicing in the interest of protecting itself.

“But look,” said Trump, “we have — whether it’s racial profiling or politically correct, we’d better get smart. We are letting tens of thousands of people into our country. We don’t know what the hell we’re doing.”

“And frankly, the Muslims have to help us, because they see what’s going on in their community,” he said. “And if they’re not going to help us, they’re to blame also.”

Regarding Seddique Mateen, Hannity asked, “What do we do when we find somebody that has extreme views? Do we throw them the hell out?”

“I’d throw him out,” Trump said as the audience cheered. “If you look at him, I’d throw him out. You know, I looked at him. And you look, he’s smiling.”

(h/t Raw Story)

Reality

Donald Trump is putting forth a proposal that would be a clear violation the 1st, 4th, and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as existing laws.

Mateen is a U.S. citizen, a status that is considered irrevocable except in extremely rare cases in which naturalized citizens become “denaturalized.” Typically, to be denaturalized one must get caught forging documents, falsifying important information or concealing of relevant facts, refusal to testify before Congress, membership in groups attempting to overthrow the government and dishonorable discharge from the military.

Racial profiling is the practice of targeting individuals for police or security detention based on their race or ethnicity in the belief that certain minority groups are more likely to engage in unlawful behavior.

Racial profiling is patently illegal, violating the U.S. Constitution’s core promises of equal protection under the law to all and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Just as importantly, racial profiling is ineffective. It alienates communities from law enforcement, hinders community policing efforts, and causes law enforcement to lose credibility and trust among the people they are sworn to protect and serve.

Media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RHP11SJTrI

Donald Trump Appoints Alt-Right Leader to Run Campaign

Steve Bannon and Donald Trump

Donald J. Trump named as his new campaign chief on Wednesday a conservative media provocateur whose news organization regularly attacks the Republican Party establishment, savages Hillary Clinton and encourages Mr. Trump’s most pugilistic instincts.

Mr. Trump’s decision to make Stephen K. Bannon, chairman of the Breitbart News website, his campaign’s chief executive was a defiant rejection of efforts by longtime Republican hands to wean him from the bombast and racially charged speech that helped propel him to the nomination but now threaten his candidacy by alienating the moderate voters who typically decide the presidency.

It also formally completed a merger between the most strident elements of the conservative news media and Mr. Trump’s campaign, which was incubated and fostered in their boisterous coverage of his rise.

Mr. Bannon was appointed a day after the recently ousted Fox News chairman, Roger Ailes, emerged in an advisory role with Mr. Trump. It was not lost on Republicans in Washington that two news executives whose outlets had fueled the anti-establishment rebellion that bedeviled congressional leaders and set the stage for Mr. Trump’s nomination were now directly guiding the party’s presidential message and strategy.

Mr. Bannon’s most recent crusade was his failed attempt to oust the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan, in this month’s primary, making his new role atop the Trump campaign particularly provocative toward Republican leaders in Washington.

Party veterans responded Wednesday with a mix of anger about the damage they saw Mr. Trump doing to their party’s reputation and gallows humor about his apparent inability, or unwillingness, to run a credible presidential campaign in a year that once appeared promising.

“If Trump were actually trying to antagonize supporters and antagonize new, reachable supporters, what exactly would he be doing differently?” asked Dan Senor, a longtime Republican strategist who advised Mitt Romney and his running mate, Mr. Ryan, in 2012.

Terry Sullivan, who ran Senator Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign, said Mr. Trump and Breitbart “both play to the lowest common denominator of people’s fears. It’s a match made in heaven.”

For Mr. Trump, though, bringing in Mr. Bannon was the political equivalent of ordering comfort food. Only last week, Mr. Trump publicly expressed ambivalence about modifying his style. “I think I may do better the other way,” he told Time magazine. “They would like to see it be a little bit different, a little more modified. I don’t like to modify.”

Mr. Bannon’s transition from mischief-maker at Breitbart to the inner circle of the de facto leader of the Republican Party capped the second shake-up of Mr. Trump’s campaign in two months.

Kellyanne Conway, a veteran pollster and strategist who was already advising Mr. Trump, will become his campaign manager and is expected to travel with the candidate, filling a void that opened up when Corey Lewandowski was fired on June 20.

Mr. Trump’s loyalists put the best possible face on the changes announced Wednesday, but their timing, after a New York Times article detailing his advisers’ frustration at trying to impose discipline on him, underscored why so many in the party have soured on his prospects: His decisions are often made in reaction to news coverage.

Paul Manafort, the campaign chairman, will retain his title and focus on the political shop but was widely seen as being sidelined: Mr. Bannon and Ms. Conway have both developed close relationships with Mr. Trump, and Mr. Bannon is likely to be more amenable to letting him run the sort of media-focused campaign he prefers.

“This is an exciting day for Team Trump,” Mr. Manafort wrote in an internal staff memo. “I remain the campaign chairman and chief strategist, providing the big-picture, long-range campaign vision,” he added.

On a conference call Wednesday morning, Jason Miller, a Trump spokesman, said the moves had been well received, along with a speech on crime reduction that he gave in Wisconsin, pointing to favorable coverage on the MSNBC show “Morning Joe.”

Under Mr. Bannon, Breitbart News has been an amen corner for Mr. Trump, and perhaps more relentless than any other conservative outlet in its criticism of the Republican establishment.

But what most distresses mainstream party strategists about the union of Mr. Trump’s campaign with Breitbart’s guiding vision is the brand of populism that the website has advocated, and that Mr. Trump has championed.

Mr. Bannon has overseen a site that is focused primarily on pushing Republicans away from what it calls a globalist agenda and toward a hard-line and often overtly racial one, railing against what it sees as the threats of free trade, Hispanic migration and Islamist terrorism.

“This is Trump going back to the nativism and nationalism that fueled his rise in the primary,” said Lanhee J. Chen, who was Mr. Romney’s policy director in 2012. “But it’s very dangerous to the future of the party because it only further narrows the appeal of a party whose appeal was already narrow going into this cycle.”

Mr. Chen called Mr. Trump’s shift “a base reinforcement strategy” and noted that it was very different from the tack of most party nominees, who use the final months of the presidential race to broaden their appeal in hopes of winning over the maximum number of voters.

But to those on the right who are hoping to permanently shift Republicans away from free-market conservatism and toward a harder-edged populism, the addition of Mr. Bannon was a victory for the “America First” approach they want to ingrain in the party.

“He doesn’t need any help formulating his message — his message is perfect,” the conservative author Ann Coulter said of Mr. Trump. Referring to Mr. Trump’s policy adviser, speechwriter and warm-up speaker, she added, “Maybe he could use 10 more Stephen Millers.”

As comfortable as Mr. Trump may feel with Mr. Bannon’s style of politics, their unconventional alliance, and the possibility that the coming weeks could resemble a conservative publicity tour more than a conventional White House run, fueled speculation that Mr. Trump was already looking past November.

In recent months, Mr. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, have quietly explored becoming involved with a media holding, either by investing in one or by taking one over, according to a person close to Mr. Trump who was briefed on those discussions.

At a minimum, the campaign’s homestretch offers Mr. Trump, who has begun to limit his national media appearances to conservative outlets, an opportunity to build his audience and steer his followers toward the combative Breitbart site. Even before announcing the staff shake-up, Mr. Trump intensified his criticism of the mainstream news media in a speech on Tuesday night in which he declared that he was running against the “media-donor-political complex.”

Mr. Trump’s elevation of Mr. Bannon and Ms. Conway also highlights the growing influence of Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, conservative donors from Long Island. The Mercers are investors in Breitbart, and their foundation funds a host of other conservative activist groups. They spent millions on Senator Ted Cruz’s behalf during the Republican primary, an effort Ms. Conway helped lead. And they began bankrolling a pro-Trump “super PAC” in recent weeks after becoming friendly with Mr. Trump, his daughter Ivanka and her husband, Mr. Kushner.

At Breitbart and its sister foundation, the Government Accountability Institute, Mr. Bannon ran a hybrid between a news organization and an opposition-research operation aimed at discrediting Mrs. Clinton. The institute sponsored a book about Mrs. Clinton’s financial entanglements, “Clinton Cash,” which spawned various articles in mainstream newspapers last year, including in The New York Times.

Rival conservative news organizations viewed Breitbart as something of an outlier, which was evident in the title of an article the Weekly Standard writer Stephen F. Hayes wrote on Wednesday: “Trump Has Decided to Live in Breitbart’s Alternative Reality.”

“It’s the merger of the Trump campaign with the kooky right,” William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, said of Mr. Bannon’s new role.

Mr. Bannon has now joined with Mr. Ailes in a common cause on Mr. Trump’s behalf, a mission that Breitbart never pretended to deny. But Mr. Ailes’s direct involvement casts a new light on how his network handled Mr. Trump’s candidacy.

In the weeks before the Fox News host Gretchen Carlson filed the sexual harassment lawsuit that led to Mr. Ailes’s forced resignation, Mr. Ailes had been in regular contact with Mr. Trump and met with him at least twice, people briefed on the sessions said.

While meetings between a presidential candidate and the chairman of an influential television network are hardly unheard-of, especially with Mr. Trump, Mr. Ailes’s direct involvement in the campaign raises new questions about whether the sessions involved more than the usual complaints about coverage.

Before Mr. Ailes’s ouster, some of the network’s journalists and contributors privately complained that Mr. Ailes was pushing them to be more supportive of Mr. Trump. This drew particular umbrage from longtime Republican staff members and contributors who either opposed Mr. Trump’s candidacy on ideological grounds or believed it demanded tough reporting on journalistic grounds.

There was, though, one prominent conservative voice unambiguously in Mr. Ailes’s corner since the beginning of the sexual harassment scandal: Breitbart.

The website emerged as a singular defender of Mr. Ailes, with a piece about a planned walkout by network stars loyal to him should he be forced out — it never came to pass — and one by Mr. Bannon ridiculing the “minor Murdochs” (the 21st Century Fox chief Rupert Murdoch’s sons and co-executives, James and Lachlan), who were seen as leading the push for Mr. Ailes to resign.

(h/t New York Times)

Trump Adviser Repeats Call For Hillary Clinton To Be Executed

A Donald Trump adviser repeated calls for Hillary Clinton to be executed while blaming reporters for misunderstanding exactly what type of harm he wishes her.

A reporter for The Republican/MassLive.com asked Baldasaro on Tuesday, after an unrelated event in Cambridge, whether he still stands by his remarks.

Baldasaro said his comments were in accordance with U.S. law establishing the death penalty for treason. He suggested that Clinton’s use of a private email server could be considered treasonous.

“That’s aiding and abetting the enemy by those emails on letting (out) names of Secret Service special agents, our veterans, on those emails,” Baldasaro said.

Asked if he was concerned about the impact of his rhetoric on someone who might take it upon themselves to act violently, Baldasaro said, “No. … Americans are better than that.”

“What you in the liberal media consider rhetoric, I consider freedom of speech,” Baldasaro said.

Baldasaro said if people are worried about the impact of him talking about the law on treason, “Maybe they need to take it off the books if they’re that worried.” He compared it to someone saying a person who killed a police officer should get the death penalty, which is the law in New Hampshire.

Asked whether he had spoken to Trump about his views, Baldasaro said he had. “Donald Trump, he might not agree on the way I said it, but I said it as a veteran,” Baldasaro said.

Baldasaro said the law is “in black and white.”

“If people are that stupid and don’t understand, that’s not my fault,” he said.

(h/t New York Daily News, MassLive.com)

Reality

Al Baldasaro is making the assumption that Hillary Clinton’s email server was compromised, which FBI Director James Comey speculated it was likely but as of yet there is no evidence. Without proof of a hack, or the ability to prove intent, then Mr. Baldasaro’s claims of treason fall apart.

Perphas Al Baldasaro should stop reading right-wing conspiracy articles on Breitbart.com that make the same unsubstantiated claims he is parroting.

But make no mistake people understand what he is saying, and they understand the history of what has happened before when leaders incite violence.

Yitzhak Rabin, was Prime Minister of Israel in early 1990s who attempted to pursue peaceful relations with the Palestinians, culmination in the Oslo Accords. In response, in some of the Israeli press Rabi was called a traitor, and posters of him dressed as a Nazi war criminal were waved at right-wing rallies. Many critics saw him as a traitor for giving away land they viewed as rightfully belonging to Israel.

In November 1995, Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, a right-wing extremist who opposed the signing of the Oslo Accords. Amir was motivated by the hate speech in the media.

In 2011, Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot outside a Tucson Safeway, by Jared Lee Loughner. Congresswoman Giffords was featured on Sarah Palin’s infamous ‘crosshairs’ map, which targeted legislators who voted for Obama’s health care bill.

And finally, a black man, Rakeem Jones, protested a Donald Trump rally in North Carolina. As he was being escorted out of the rally by men in “Sheriff’s Office” uniforms, Jones was punched in the face by Trump supporter John McGraw. For months Donald Trump egged his supporters on, telling them if they saw a protester to “knock the crap out of them” and to not fear repercussions because he will “defend them in court” and “pay their legal fees.”

Trump Campaign Manager Named in Ukrainian Probe Into Millions in Secret Cash

Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, has been named in an investigation by Ukrainian authorities looking at whether he and others received millions in illegal payments from Ukraine’s former pro-Russian ruling party, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Manafort, claims it is a smear and he never done work for the governments of Ukraine or Russia, despite the fact that it has been very public knowledge Manafort worked for the Pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych as an image consultant from 2004 to 2010.

The probe is part of a wider investigation by the bureau into allegations of corruption and influence peddling against ex-president Viktor Yanukovich’s administration, for whom Manafort worked as a political consultant, before the leader’s violent ouster in 2014.

The investigation is looking into “shadow accounting” and potentially illegal payments made by Yanukovich to Manafort and other Ukrainian election officials, according to Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption.

The announcement of the investigation follows a report published late Sunday by The New York Times, which first revealed that Ukrainian investigators had found Manafort’s name included in an off-the-books, handwritten ledger detailing 22 secret payments — among them, a $12.7 million total payout to Manafort.

Daria Manzhura, head of external communications at the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, confirmed to CNN that Manafort’s name is among those listed on a handwritten ledger.

Responding to the initial report from the Times early Monday, Manafort called the report “unfounded, silly and nonsensical.”

“Once again The New York Times has chosen to purposefully ignore facts and professional journalism to fit their political agenda, choosing to attack my character and reputation rather than present an honest report,” he said in a statement.

“The simplest answer is the truth: I am a campaign professional. It is well known that I do work in the United States and have done work on overseas campaigns as well. I have never received a single “off-the-books cash payment” as falsely “reported” by The New York Times, nor have I ever done work for the governments of Ukraine or Russia. Further, all of the political payments directed to me were for my entire political team: campaign staff (local and international), polling and research, election integrity and television advertising. The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly, and nonsensical.

“My work in Ukraine ceased following the country’s parliamentary elections in October 2014. In addition, as the article points out hesitantly, every government official interviewed states I have done nothing wrong, and there is no evidence of ‘cash payments’ made to me by any official in Ukraine. However, the Times does fail to disclose the fact that the Clinton Foundation has taken (and may still take) payments in exchange for favors from Hillary Clinton while serving as the Secretary of State. This is not discussed despite the overwhelming evidence in emails that Hillary Clinton attempted to cover up,” the statement continued.

(h/t CNN)

Reality

As the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine noted, that the presence of Manafort’s name on the list does not mean he received the money, and that the ledger does not contain his signature while others who were identified did sign it.

However Manafort’s claim that, “nor have I ever done work for the governments of Ukraine.” is a complete lie.

It is no secret that Paul Manafort made a career silently working for some of the worst tyrants in the world, to reinvent their image and appear more likable to Western countries. Manafort’s firm was listed amongst the top five lobbying firms receiving money from human-rights abusing regimes in the 1992 Center for Public Integrity report “The Torturer’s Lobby.”

Manafort has represented Angolan political and military leader Jonas Savimbi, Filipino authoritarian president Ferdinand Marcos, and Congolese military dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.

In Ukraine, Manafort worked as an adviser on the presidential campaign of Viktor Yanukovych (and his Party of Regions during the same time span) from December 2004 until the February 2010 Ukrainian presidential election even as the U.S. government opposed Yanukovych because of his ties to Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin. Manafort was hired to advise Yanukovych months after massive street demonstrations known as the Orange Revolution overturned Yanukovych’s victory in the 2004 presidential race.

Also, Manafort claimed that the New York Times did not report on possible controversies at the Clinton Foundation, except they have:

Trump Blames ‘Crooked Media’ for Reporting on the Statements He Makes

After a week of bad poll numbers, Donald Trump is blaming the media.

“If the disgusting and corrupt media covered me honestly and didn’t put false meaning into the words I say, I would be beating Hillary by 20%.”

“It is not “freedom of the press” when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want even if it is completely false!” he tweeted Sunday afternoon.

His blasts against the media on Twitter on Sunday followed what he told a crowd at a Connecticut rally Saturday night: “I’m not running against crooked Hillary Clinton. I’m running against the crooked media.”

In another tweet, Trump referred to the large size of his rallies and the passion of his supporters, claiming that these details have been ignored by reporters.

“My rallies are not covered properly by the media,” he said in Connecticut. “They never discuss the real message and never show crowd size or enthusiasm.”

To emphasize the statement he made Saturday at the rally in Fairfield, Connecticut, about the “crooked media”, the 70-year-old real estate tycoon waved his finger in a horizontal line toward where the press was stationed.

(h/t ABC News)

Reality

Basically Donald Trump is complaining that the media should be covering his economic plan, but takes no responsibility on a week full of gaffes that redirected attention away from what should have been an honest discussion on his policy.

Trump wasted yet another opportunity to show the he can stay on message by making ridiculous comments such as:

The single best response from the media came from CNN’s Jake Tapper who sarcastically quipped, “How dare we cover the comments he makes.”

The irony that Donald J. Trump, leader of the conspiracy theory “birther” movement, attempting to lecture the press on ethics is not lost on us.

The birther movement, which Trump was the public face, was an attempt to discredit the legitimacy of the Presidency of Barack Obama by claiming he was not a natural born citizen, as required by the United States Constitution. Right-wing news media, like Fox News, went full-birther and propped up Donald Trump as a champion for the “truth.”

President Obama released his short form birth certificate in June 12, 2008 and the long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011.

Some of the examples of crooked statements made by Trump that were completely false include:

  • On Good Morning America, Trump claimed he was “skeptical” of President Obama’s citizenship, years after Obama released his short form birth certificate.
  • During a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference falsely claimed growing up nobody knew Obama. CNN host Suzanne Malveaux released a documentary earlier that year where she spoke with people who grew up with President Obama.
  • Trump got into a shouting match with Whoopi Goldberg while defending the obvious racial bias in the birther claims.
  • In an NBC News interview said that “there is a big possibility” Obama may have violated the Constitution by not being born in the United States, again, this was years after Obama released his short form birth certificate, proving he was indeed born in Hawaii.

 

Trump Spokeswoman Again Rewrites History to Blame Obama

Donald Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson has once again blamed President Obama for something that happened years before he took office.

Remember how Pierson blamed Obama for Captain Humayun Khan‘s death in 2004? Well, on CNN this morning, as she was arguing with anchor Victor Blackwell about Trump’s “founder of ISIS” remark, Pierson actually said, “Remember, we weren’t even in Afghanistan by this time. Barack Obama went into Afghanistan, creating another problem.”

Blackwell asked, “You’re saying Barack Obama took the country into Afghanistan post-2009?” Pierson said, “That was Obama’s war, yes.”

After the commercial break, Blackwell confronted her about this glaring factual inaccuracy. Pierson protested that “we’re talking about ISIS specifically.”

Blackwell pointed out that ISIS did not suddenly spring up when Obama became president.

As we described in a earlier post, ISIS was formed in 1999 and grew it’s membership from former members of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party who were out of a job after the Bush-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, then calling them

We should point out here that after Pierson got in trouble for muddling the facts on Captain Khan’s death recently, a high-level Trump adviser said on CNN, “I think we’re fixing it, I guarantee you that won’t happen again with her, that’s for sure.”

(h/t Mediaite)

Media

 

Trump Whines That “Lowest Form of Life” Journalists Report on What He Says

Donald Trump has increasingly organized his general-election effort around antagonizing the press. He dedicates long sections of his speeches and innumerable tweets to savaging individual outlets, and claiming that media bias could effectively “rig” the election for Hillary Clinton.

At times, his enthusiasm for venting anger about the news media has seemed to rival his interest in criticizing Mrs. Clinton. In Erie, Pa., on Friday, Mr. Trump swerved back and forth between attacks on Mrs. Clinton and an extended airing of grievances about the press.

The news media, he said, was determined to cover up Mrs. Clinton’s missteps and highlight his own. (Mr. Trump allowed that Fox News, home to several anchors who openly favor his candidacy, was an exception.)

“These people are the lowest form of life, I’m telling you,” he said, pointing at the journalists covering his rally. “They are the lowest form of humanity.”

In Altoona, Pa., on Friday evening, Mr. Trump continued his diatribe: “It is so ridiculous, the pile on,” he complained of the coverage of his campaign. “Every single day, story after story after story.”

Mr. Trump’s crowd-pleasing allegations of news media malevolence also serve a tactical purpose: Providing him license to revise or play down his remarks. After stating several times this week that he considered Mr. Obama to be the founder of the Islamic State, Mr. Trump reversed course on Friday with a declaration that he had only been speaking sarcastically and that the press simply did not understand.

In Pennsylvania, he reiterated that he had been sarcastic, but added: “Not that sarcastic, to be honest with you.”

Republicans often complain about the national news media, arguing that most reporters and publications are tilted against them. In the 1992 presidential race, Republicans even produced a bumper sticker urging voters to “annoy the media” by re-electing President George Bush. And in his 2016 primary campaign, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida accused the press of being the equivalent of a “super PAC” for Democrats.

On the Democratic side, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont fulminated this year about the “corporate media,” which he described as hostile to liberal ideals. And aides and supporters of Mrs. Clinton routinely complain that reporters treat her unfairly.

But the Trump campaign has made accusations of news media bias a pervasive theme, and has attacked publications and reporters with virulence. Since last year, Mr. Trump has made a practice of riling up his crowds with mockery of the media, often pointing to the press risers and describing reporters as dishonest.

In Erie on Friday, his audience jeered each time Mr. Trump mentioned a news outlet, and at one point many in the crowd turned their backs on him to face the press and express their contempt with a variety of shouts and gestures. “Dinosaur media is failing!” one man yelled.

Mr. Trump’s slashing attacks have generated embarrassing scenes for his campaign, as agitated Trump fans have acted on his goading. On Thursday night, video circulated widely online of an angry Trump supporter berating reporters and making an obscene gesture in their direction in Kissimmee, Fla. In one instance during the primaries, Katy Tur, a reporter for NBC News, reported she was escorted to her car by the Secret Service after a rally in which Mr. Trump assailed her by name.

If bashing the media proved an effective way of rallying the Republican base to his side during the primaries, Mr. Trump must now prove himself to a broader community of voters in the general election, who are far less preoccupied with the notion of press bias. Republican strategists see Mr. Trump’s offensive mainly as an exercise in thin-skinned defensiveness, rather than a shrewd political strategy.

Kevin Madden, a former spokesman for Mitt Romney’s and George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns, said Mr. Trump was veering away from issues actually weighing on swing voters, which he said were “economy and security-focused.”

“Whining about media coverage is just that: It’s whining,” Mr. Madden said. Of complaints, Mr. Madden said: “Any campaign that tells you it makes a difference with swing voters is just lying to themselves and lazy, because it’s easier than developing an actual strategy or message.”

(h/t New York Times)

Media

Kissimmee , FL – 8/11/2016

Erie, PA – 8/12/2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFsbDuGt7A4

Altoona, PA – 8/12/2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFz51NcVBhQ

 

1 … 337 338 339 340 341 … 383