The recent brouhaha over Trump’s relationship — or lack thereof — with the Russian dictator Putin raises interesting questions. The Donald now claims he never even met the megalomaniac in a way reminiscent of Peter’s denial of knowing Christ just before His execution. Now to be clear. I’m not accusing the Trumpster of being a megalomaniac. The megalomaniac differs from the narcissist by the fact he wishes to be powerful rather than charming and seeks to be feared rather than loved.
But something smells fishy here and I think the answer lies in Donald’s unreleased tax returns. I’ll bet my pension those returns are going to show Trump’s corrupt business connection with Russia.
If proved, that corruption could be a violation of the Logan Act which defines sedition and treason : ” Private correspondence with foreign governments. Any citizen of the United States, whoever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measure or conduct of any foreign government, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
Verrrrrrry interesting. No ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
It certainly sounds like his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, skirted the line of legality in his role to a consultant for the Yanukovich regime prior to its ouster in the 2014 Maiden Revolution. He still has ties with factions that are literally armed by the Russian regime and at war with the Western backed democratic government. And he certainly is the Rasputin (not the suffix) behind nixing the call to arm the rebels in the GOP platform and Trumls widely derided statements that the Crimea and Baltic states are “internal” matters for Russia to decide.
Trump’s tax returns show at least three things he doesn’t want anyone to see:
(1) He is not worth anywhere near what he claims ($10 billion). He’s likely still worth a lot, probably upwards of a billion, but the difference between being one of America’s richest people or just merely super-rich means a lot to Trump’s ego.
(2) He took advantage of many, many tax loopholes not available to normal people and perhaps outright cheated on his taxes in some instances. Call this the “Mitt Romney” problem. Even if he didn’t skirt the law, it makes him and the law both look bad.
(3) He has received a lot of money from Russian sources. This gets to what Fred is talking about. I bet the problem isn’t so much Trump’s connection with Russia as it is Russia’s connection with Trump. In other words, maybe Trump hasn’t pumped money into Russia, but Russian banks/investors/shadowy groups have pumped money into the Trump Organization. That would help explain why Trump doesn’t want to antagonize Putin or Russia generally.
Any one of these being true would be a big problem for Trump. Of course, would you be surprised if there is also a reason #4, #5, #etc. why he isn’t releasing the returns? Until he does (which he certainly won’t), we’ll never know.
To the extent that his worth is in assets he still holds that have appreciated in value, how would his tax returns demonstrate his wealth?
If he has a significant ownership interest in any partnerships, S-Corporations, trusts, and so on (nearly a certainty, given his claimed wealth and how he claims to have acquired it), then his tax returns will include a Schedule E where those assets are declared. His return will also include a Form K-1 for each such entity, showing the gain or loss pertaining to that entity.
If he is required to file a Schedule D (showing capital gains and losses), then at least some information about his investments will be shown on the combination of Schedule D and Form 8849 (itemizing short- and long-term capital gains).
If he holds significant foreign investments, he pays taxes on the earnings from those. Unless he chooses to also pay US taxes on those same earnings, then his tax returns will include a “Foreign Tax Credit” form 116.
If he holds options, derivatives, and similar instruments, his tax forms may reveal information about those. Unlike capital gains, tax events are sometimes associated with such instruments — for example, when certain kinds of options become exercisable, then the holder has a tax obligation based on the difference between the market price and strike price when the option becomes exercisable.
In addition to the above, he will almost surely have to file forms for Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) computation.
While his forms won’t provide an exact number, I suspect that they’ll provide reasonably strong qualitative guidance about the amount and distribution of his wealth.
You know his assets that pay out at least annually and have a market price (stocks, bonds, other financial instruments).
But it won’t tell you much about the value of physical assets, right? Your tax return tells some information about your mortgage, but it doesn’t tell information about the value of your home in 2016…
There is no disclosure in a personal income tax return about the value of one’s assets, unless they are sold during the year (in which case they are no longer part of one’s wealth). You would certainly get a sense of where his taxable income comes from and how much of it there is. You would have no idea how much his real estate holdings or any other assets are worth. Taxable income from real estate holdings can be particularly misleading with respect to imputing the value of the underlying assets due to depreciation deductions, which on a tax return often result in tax losses when the underlying property is actually increasing in value and generating positive cash flow.
Now with this clown it’s very possible the tax returns could expose more exaggerations, half truths and outright lies, since he has probably bellowed about selling this or that building for hundreds of millions of dollars over the last few years and the returns might shed some light on whether those types of claims are true.
Such a sale could be lump sum, but more likely installment over years in order to minimize taxes. 10 years, 100 years, who knows?
We don’t measure wealth on tax returns. Which is why the heated interest is so silly, or just betrays a lack of understanding of the tax system per se.
while I agree that tax returns don’t demonstrate net worth, there’s much to be learned from tax returns, particularly when viewed over a number of years. That’s why the heated interest isn’t silly, in my view. I hope the media and everyone else continues to harp on this issue until he (like so many others running for president have done) releases his returns.
I wonder if he’s playing fast and loose with what can be declared ordinary and necessary business expenses. If those “expenses” fund his massively lavish lifestyle, that could be a big problem for him (and also could be the reason he’s being audited). I wouldn’t be surprised if his effective tax rate is lower than Mitt’s.
while campaigning with Hillary Clinton in Omaha yesterday. Like Trump he is currently under audit but pledged to release his tax returns now if Trump would do the same. Somehow I doubt Donald will accept the challenge.
Hillary promised to return to Nebraska after the election to dance with her friend on the streets of Omaha.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Please, folks should stop with the Logan Act. It appears that there has never been a prosecution under the Act. The statute is still valid, but I think if there were ever to be a prosecution it would have to be a compelling case. I can’t think how Trump’s tax returns could possibly make the case for a Logan Act prosecution.
…that have the potential of triggering the Logan Act so much as his openly calling for Russia to hack and release Hillary’s emails or otherwise try to mess with the election. After all, there are plenty of USA-based business interests trying to get the best deal for them who correspond with the leadership of other countries to that end all the time.
Or is this just wishful thinking, like the GOP likes to do when it imagines Hillary Clinton in prison? His comments were clearly stupid, and it seems pretty clear to me that he didn’t violate the Logan Act, and that in any case he would never be prosecuted for a Logan Act violation.
…but I really do think that his comments inviting the Russians to mess with our elections is dancing on the edge. Keep in mind I almost NEVER say something like this, but such is the campaign we’ve found ourselves in.
… the Logan Act defines neither sedition nor treason. I’m just sayin’. Please don’t be the Democratic equivalent of talk radio craziness.
Trumps opponent successfully imposed some of the most punitive international sanctions against individuals ever passed, and it’s worth noting some of those individuals had business ties with Paul Manafort.
It’s not red baiting when it’s real, and progressives have to keep bringing guns to a knife fight. You want to win back Reagan Democrats in Western PA who voted for Obama twice but are voting for Trump today this is the way to do it. If you want to win over mildly tolerant, affluent college educated whites who voted McCain-Romney on security and economic grounds this is the way to do it. This is the best way to win back Akron and Scranton while also winning Bucks and Lake County.
The Clinton Foundation had some trouble with this, and had to adopt voluntary guidelines about foreign donations (which nobody checks to see if they are complying with, of course). Remember the illegal Chinese bundlers in 2008? And so on.
I don’t hear much from the Clinton Campaign about this, only from surrogates with deniability. This may be a rock they don’t want to kick over. I remember Rand Paul’s remarks about Hillary accepting money from states that condone stoning of women for adultery, for example.
I won’t sugarcoat it. The kinds of foreign donations they accepted should be made illegal, even if they were not technically illegal under current law.
Trump’s support could be illegal, we don’t know yet, and it is clear his main advisor has given Trump the most pro-Russian appeasement plank since Henry Wallace’s in 1948. I support containment, Trump abrogated 60 years of bipartisan foreign policy by opposing it. Last serious Republican to oppose NATO was Robert Taft who rightly lost to internationalists both times he contested the nomination.
Doesn’t the tax return disclosure argument open up the offer of “I’ll disclose my tax returns when you provide a history of donations to the foundation” (assuming she hasn’t already – I don’t follow this stuff as closely as you do).
In 2014 (the last reported year), The Clinton’s gave $3,022,700 to charity, of that, $3,000,000 went to the Clinton Foundation.
They made $28,336,21 in Income.
As far as I know, the only problematic thing about the Foundation is its astounding size. Some other nonprofits resent it because they say the Clinton Foundation does too many things, and draws money that (they think) should go to smaller, more focused organizations.
But no one disputes that the Foundation does a lot of good.
The Clinton Foundation is a 501(c)3. They take money and do public good with it. Why shouldn’t they take money from anyone who is willing to let that money do good?
For serious. If Kim Jong Un wants to donate to the Clinton Foundation, the American Heart Association, Komen’s pink ribbons, or the J Paul Getty Trust, why the heck should we disavow that money?
Does anyone criticize major donations to the Gates Foundation, the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, or similar entities?
The Clinton Foundation is NOT the same as the Barack Obama Foundation, created to provide and support the Barack Obama Presidential Library. The Clinton Foundation does not advocate a political agenda — unless one views fighting climate change, supporting economic development in the third-world, helping girls and women, promoting global health, or promoting health and wellness.
Ms. Clinton is our nominee. I am weary of material that implies that the name “Clinton” is synonymous with corruption. It is not.
The last sentence of the second paragraph should end with the phrase “… as a political agenda”.
I highly doubt it. They are oil exporters who don’t want alternative fuels, they like keeping their own people backward and dependent on their largesse, they oppress girls and women and refuse to educate them, they have enough money for single payer but would rather fly lucky patients to Mayo on the local emir’s dime to maintain their patronage, and those that don’t kiss the ring don’t get the medicine and die.
Yet they have given millions to this foundation? I wonder if it’s because they want cache with an ex-President and a Secretary of State and future President?
Progressives have been concerned about this since as far back as her confirmation hearings in 2008, so it’s not a right wing attack but a reality based assessment of serious conflict of interest concerns. We can vote for Hillary without pretending either one of them is Saints, and we can separate our support for their presidencies and policies from their continued lapses in judgment when it comes to money.
If you care about money influencing politics, focus on donations to political campaigns. This ain’t that.
Put plainly, why would HRC undermine her ability to win the presidency or to govern effectively in order to raise side money for the 501(c)3? There are orders of magnitude difference in the effect that the full force of the US government can have on a significant problem and the Clinton Foundation can have. I mean, you’re essentially suggesting that HRC would sell out an American priority in order for her foundation to have $25M more do-good dollars, somehow thinking that it would be a net benefit to society. The thing is, $25M is chicken scratch to the US government and it’s ability to change lives.
It just defies logic that Clinton would in any way undermine the ability of the US Government to do what’s best for America and the world in exchange for some copper coins for a non-profit focused on doing what’s best for America and the world. It just doesn’t compute.
When a donor makes a major donation to ANY 501(c)3, that donor has an agenda. Lots of people give lots of money to such organizations, and a desire for “cache with an ex-President and a Secretary of State and future President” is not improper.
It seems to me that our concern should be whether there is any evidence of any quid pro quo in exchange for such donations. I remind you that in spite of years of relentless investigation, nothing improper has ever been demonstrated. No quid pro quo. NONE.
The Saudis are an important player in the ME. I also remind you that their contributions ALSO provide an opportunity for a “ex-President and a Secretary of State and future President” to persuasively lecture THEM on the importance of the Clinton Foundation agenda.
Influence is a two-way street, and Hillary Clinton brings a BIG load.
Since one could argue that is the appearance of what she did.
And if it’s peanuts than she could’ve refused on principle to accept that money. There is also the issue that a lot of the money there goes to overhead and isn’t going to folks on the ground. The Gates Foundation has the same problems.
Tom you have the opposite of Clinton derangement syndrome, nothing they do is problematic with you. if it’s problematic for Bush and their cronies to have the revolving door with the Saudi’s and the Carlyle Group it’s just as problematic here. You can’t say women’s rights are human rights and accept the money from some of the biggest scumbags in the world when it comes to women’s rights. It’s something I wouldn’t have done in their shoes, and something I doubt you would’ve done. Did they make similar donations to the Gates Foundation? No since Bill Gates isn’t a major player in our foreign policy.
I will bet you a $100 right now that in the 4-8 years of a Clinton Administration nothing will change with the Saudi’s. Just as it hasn’t in the last 45 years of this shitty relationship.
Now you attempt to conflate the Clinton Foundation with the Carlyle Group! Please … the Carlyle group is NOT a 501(c)3, it makes no pretense of being anything except private profit-generating entity.
The activities of a non-profit NGO attempting to good works in the world are DIFFERENT from the activities of a private investment corporation seeking to maximize profits.
You made your wager about nothing changing in the 4-8 years of a Clinton administration. Perhaps — we won’t know. My experience is that such changes are never expected. What we do know is that in the eight years since 2008, there is NO EVIDENCE of any changes in the US policy, Clinton Foundation policy, or Hillary Clinton.
I think you’re repeating groundless right-wing lies and distortions about Bill and Hillary Clinton, and I don’t understand why. The fact that the VRWC has spent decades promoting the memes you repeat here does not make those memes any more accurate or valid. Instead, it demonstrates only that investing vast amounts of money successfully twists even good progressives.
Hillary Clinton is not evil. Hillary Clinton is not corrupt. Hillary Clinton did not murder Vince Foster. The Clinton Foundation is neither evil nor corrupt. I am not arguing that it is perfect or saintly. I am arguing instead that the accusations you repeat are both groundless and scurrilous.
It has everything to do with Hillary Clinton saying women’s rights are human rights and then taking $25 million from dictators who profoundly oppose those values. I completely agree with JimC about that below.
She has my vote, I said positive things about her during the primary, but I find their relationship with money problematic and I think it would be a bigger issue if she was going up against a generic Republican like Kasich instead of a monster like Trump. Even if it isn’t a politically relevant issue this cycle, it’s still ethically troubling to me.
You can feel free to disagree about that, but I am entitled to my opinion without being accused of being deranged or part of a right wing conspiracy. The good works of the Clinton foundation would’ve happened, according to stoma, with ample funding with or without those donations. So why accept them? When is it ever morally permissible to accept money from dictators who oppress women and execute gays?
…then the Devil has had it long enough. Now let’s see what God can do with it!
But we can agree to disagree. I strongly oppose the Catholic church taking money from mobsters and drug dealers and I’m really happy Pope Francis has cracked down on that. And I definitely would put the Saudi royal family in the same moral category as mobsters and drug dealers.
Now I agree as a President she will be forced to do business with them, but you don’t have to do that when you run a charity.
“appearance” – I have no patience for something that looks bad; you need to prove to me that it IS bad.
I mean what more do I have to prove? These guys are kleptocratic dictators who stone women and execute gays. The only ideological distinction between the Saudi’s and ISIS is that Saudi Arabia has diplomatic recognition and more American made weaponry.
If your most famous saying is ‘women’s rights are human rights’ you don’t think it’s a little hypocritical to take money from people who make a mockery of that and actively oppress women to maintain their power?
Again, we can’t fault every President for dealing with them. It’s a relationship we are stuck in, on both sides. But you don’t have to accept their money, nobody forced her to take it and it’s clear they didn’t need it. And in my view it was a way for them to buy influence with a future Clinton administration, which to me is a problematic appearance and one a credible Republican nominee would be right to exploit. Had Bush or Romney taken Saudi money in this fashion we would be all over it, that’s where I think the partisan blinders fail some people around here.
Her only defense is everybody else in Washington does it and its not that much money. But its from an institution most Americans hate, and it was in the narrow window between leaving the State Dept and running for President. And it wasn’t a lot of money. They clearly didn’t need it, their charity clearly didn’t need it, so why take the risk? And we did attack Romney for taking similar payments when he ran. So that’s where I get upset, it defies political common sense to take money from either of these groups.
…to take someone’s money and still tell them where they can go. Sometimes biting the hand the feeds you is a good thing. What you have to prove to me is that Clinton now cares or does less about the plight of women since her family’s foundation took their money. The dots have not been connected and I doubt will be since last I checked she’s still one of the world’s foremost advocates for women.
She is advocating. Words, words, I’m so sick of words…as Eliza Doolittle said. Actions speak louder.
BTW – aren’t progressives in general always going on about how donations should be returned to inappropriate people as a gesture to show disapproval? Where is the ‘taking the Devil’s money’ approach then?
Criticism of the Gates and Walton Foundations abound in the (always overlooked) education sector. They are the driving forces behind privatizing public education through charter schools. Of course, those forces give/invest freely in both parties, so only those focused on children tend to notice.
I agree that the foundations themselves are criticized, and rightfully so.
Donors to those foundations are not, however, criticized. I’m not aware of any suggestions that the Gates or Walton foundations should, for example, refuse to accept a contribution from any willing donor.
The allegation presented here is different and completely spurious — the claim is that it is somehow improper for someone to make a large contribution to the Clinton Foundation, on the alleged grounds that such a contribution is an attempt to buy access (or something similar).
I know of no similar complaints about other 501(c)3 entities that we are discussing here.
I would say nonprofits should be at least somewhat selective. Anyone who can reasonably be called a dictator should be off limits.
Jean Kroc, widow of Ray Kroc who founded McDonalds, gave $200 MILLION to NPR. To NPR’s credit, they reported this as a news story. Do you suppose we should pitch an anti-McDonalds story to NPR? Maybe yes .. but the editor has to think about it differently. He/she is compromised, even a little.
In the case of a good-doing foundation, one can argue that money is money. But (presumably) the nonprofit is trying to benefit the world, and if the source of the money is an unqualified harm to the world, why allow them to claim otherwise by throwing some cash around? The mission of the nonprofit doesn’t mean they abdicate other responsibilities.
Is there any suggestion that the Clinton Foundation changed their stance on anything as a result of the donation? It’s a $2,000M foundation — would $25M push them very far?
I think that as long as the 501(c)3 is being transparent about the source of the money, then yes, they should take that money and go do good with it. Put another way, is the world better off with the money in the Clinton Foundation hands or in Kim Jong Un’s hands?
There is no suggestion that I’m aware of. What the GOP says is that donating to the Clinton Foundation helped people help the Clintons — and by extension, their own interests. I think the evidence for that is circumstantial at best.
To your second point — how he got the money matters. There is a thing called the Clinton Democracy Fellowship (I’m not sure if it has any ties to the foundation). Clinton Democracy Fellows are charged with spreading democracy, notably in South Africa. They can’t take money from dictators.
It’s a subtle point on which people of good will can disagree … but I think public advocacy needs to be held to a high standard. Greenpeace can’t take money from Exxon. They can I suppose … but they shouldn’t.
…to help spread the gospel of democracy, or Exxon wants to give money to spread the gospel of planetary preservation, that is certainly fine by me.
…that the complaints about the Koch brothers funding shows on PBS are foolish!
PBS nixed a major documentary against the Koch brothers because of it.
Again this is why partisan blinders subvert reality based thinking. Corruption in all forms is bad. Its wrong for the Clinton’s to take money from Goldman and the Saudi’s and wrong for PBS to take money from the Koch brothers and alter their coverage because of it. Instead what I routinely see here is it’s not wrong if the Clinton’s did it, only when the Republicans do. And vice a versa from the right.
My opinion is that it’s unethical to take money from an undemocratic regime that routinely violates human rights and women’s rights. It’s sad that’s a minority opinion around here, or apparently prove I’m a closet conservative.
I actually don’t think I’d act differently if say, a Bush family foundation had similar revenue sources. However, I also don’t think it’s that out of line to consider how much you trust the parties involved to begin with. Really, jconway, you are quickly finding yourself in the “with friends like these…” category IMO.
So there. That and a dollar will no longer get you on the subway.
…but I think transparency is the key.
And consider all donations to PBS to be in the public interest — even if the donors are remarkably Jekyll and Hyde with their financial transactions.
It’s not fine. The nonprofit is selling them virtue. They shouldn’t be able to buy it.
Andrew Carnegie was a vicious awful man who spent his career exploiting the poor and weak while building his fortune.
In his sunset years, he decided to become a philanthropist and gave huge sums (at the time) — many have suggested that he was attempting to assuage his own guilt about his business practices throughout his lifetime.
I’m certainly glad that he founded my Alma Mater, and millions of people throughout America have benefited from the multitude of libraries he founded.
Was Andrew Carnegie “buying virtue”? Surely. Should we shut down the libraries and close CMU because of the flagrantly exploitative business practices of Mr. Carnegie?
In our time, Bill Gates has a similar history. There have been few men or women as ruthlessly sociopathic as Mr. Gates. Shall we forget and forgive the enormous damage he wrought on all of us because he chose to create the “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation”? Shall the recipients of Gates Foundation grants reject the money because of the genuinely unsavory nature of its source?
This whole argument is a non-starter. It is too much like the “tainted money” arguments of the 1960s and 1970s that chastised anybody who worked for any company that took ANY defense department funding.
The Clinton Foundation has an agenda, a program, and very successful history of pursuing that agenda and program. I reject the suggestion that because Saudi monarchs were attracted to the “cache”, there is therefore something wrong or immoral with the foundation.
Like it or not, our world doesn’t act that way. The reality is that nearly ALL the world’s wealth is held by a handful of people. I suggest that anybody who chooses can find SOMETHING wrong and “immoral” about just about anybody, including those with great wealth.
This whole argument is entirely too cartoonish and stereotyped for my taste.
I think that’s a stretch ethically. Times have changed and we can and should hold our leaders to a higher standard. Saying no would’ve made barely a dent in their operating budget and would’ve avoided the Saudi stink. That money comes from a society that treats women like slaves, relies on actual slave labor, and executes homosexuals. Saying no would’ve been easy, and it’s a lot easier than saying no to them as a diplomat or president.
I’m rejecting the “tainted money” argument. I’m specifically responding to the “selling virtue” canard offered by jimc — perhaps I’m doing it confusingly, though.
I don’t think the Clinton Foundation is “selling virtue”. If the Saudi’s are attempting to buy it, they are no different from Bill Gates and Andrew Carnegie doing the same. That’s the argument I clumsily made.
I reject the premise and I reject the criticism.
ill table this one under “things we can discuss after the campaign”. I suspect perspectives will be different after Trump is defeated.
So they say no to Saudi $25M, and then it’s something else — a former fashion executive who’s runways featured anorexic girls. Then you find a manufacturer who outsourced. Then it’s a real estate developer for which one deal involved some questionable land development in a neighborhood of color.
There’s always going to be something. 90 percent of money has cocaine on it; we as a society simply can’t afford to restrain charities to the other ten percent when, in fact, all 100 percent of money can be spent to do good work.
And your hypothetical is true for him. He did build developments people of color weren’t allowed to go, so apparently the money he gave the Clintons is just as good as the money the misogynisys in Medinah give as well?
You’d guys would be all over this shit if Romney or a similar “evil rich guy” Republican were involved. This is partisan shilling, not a rational discussion. I’m with JimC below and the Escobar comparison.
Andrew Carnegie is not Kim Jong-un.
Here’s a good example: Pablo Escobar. The most successful criminal of all time (possibly), he was a stone cold killer who also liked underage girls and “dated” several 14-year-olds.
In Colombia, he built hospitals and soccer fields, which made him popular with many people. I have no problem with really poor people accepting that.
But if someone in Pablo’s family got cancer, and he gave so much to Dana Farber that they named a wing after him, I’d have a problem with that. I assume you would too.
If your mission is democracy, dictators are a problem, and you can’t accept their help because it compromises you. Period! If your mission is poverty relief, you can probably take money from anyone. These distinctions are easy to make, and important, and not cartoonish.
… I’m not certain the premise is valid. You seem to be operating under the (perhaps related) assumptions: that A) dictators always strong arm and therefore any giving has an ulteriority not necessarily present in others; and 2) and democracy is always insufficient in the face of it and therefore must quail before the strong-arm.
I think if a dictator gives you money for democracy related projects, he may not, per se, have bad motives nor is required to expect anything in return, but even if he does have bad motives and does expect a Quo towards the Pro in your Quid, a democracy, or even just a democrat, can take his money and and be strong enough to tell him to go spit. That’s the opposite of compromise. A temptation can not compromise you. Your response to the temptation is what may, or may not, compromise you.
Relatedly, our very country is an examplar of this. We threw off the British monarchy (not, strictly speaking, a dictatorship but the analogy holds…) but we had to accept the help of the French and Spanish monarchies to do so. The result was not, in fact, a weaker (or ‘compromised’) America. In fact, at least in the case of France, a weaker monarchy was affected.
Joseph Stalin was certainly a dictator when we entered WW2. We certainly knew that. America needed the help of Mr. Stalin and the Soviet Union in order to defeat the greater evil of Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito. On a far more microscopic scale, Haile Selassie was a long-time ally and friend of the US, and was unabashedly a self-proclaimed emperor and dictator.
In my view, the long arc of history shows that the black-and-white dichotomy offered by jimc and others is not a viable formula in pursuing a global vision that requires global cooperation.
She isn’t beating Hitler with Saudi money but buying some AIDS vaccines and helping poor kids overseas, and she apparently didn’t need their money as stomv pointed out they got 2 billion of it from other sources. Again, I don’t see how you say “women’s rights are human rights” and accept donations from some of the worst defiliers of that notion to the non profit with your name on it. We strongly disagree on this, and I suspect more of you would be on my side on this of it wasn’t campaign season or if someone else’s name was on the door.
I join you in wanting to keep this at scale. I disagree with your suggestion that this is about “campaign season”.
This has been going on since Bill and Hillary Clinton entered the public arena in 1992. Indeed, we strongly disagree on this. You seem to see a villain who cannot be trusted with no moral compass (or something along those lines). Too many of us hear their mother yelling at them (don’t talk to me about misogyny with that kind of commentary being bandied about).
I see a strong, powerful, and articulate woman who has been pursuing the same vision for twenty years, and who attracts powerful hostility because strong, powerful and articulate people ALWAYS attract hostility.
Indeed, we strongly disagree. I can’t imagine joining you in these attacks on Hillary Clinton, regardless of the season. Sorry, friend, but this is one where we really do seem to be miles apart.
When have I ever said any of this:
I froze my ass off in Iowa working to get Barack Obama elected president and I have never hesitated to criticize him here when I disagree with him on policy or strategy. I am going to really miss him because he’s been the best President in my lifetime, and I think history will count him as one of the best. He will be tremendously tough act to follow.
I’ve also said here more times than I can count that she has the potential to be a better President than him, she has my vote, and she’s the most qualified nominee in several decades. I apologized publicly for the immature personal attacks I engaged in during the 2008 primary and said in that post, circa 2013, that I would join her 2008 voters in electing her President. I haven’t wavered from that conviction despite backing Bernie in the primary.
I’ve never called her a villain. This is all constructive criticism that holds our leaders accountable. I haven’t hesitated to criticize local Democrats I disagree with or who are doing a poor job. I will never hesitate to criticize Hillary in areas where she has made mistakes. We are electing human beings, not Gods. No one understood this better than our flawed founding fathers.
On the funding of the foundation she made a decision I wouldn’t have made in her shoes. It is because I’m proud of her for saying women’s rights are human rights that I am so sorely disappointed in these donations from human rights abusers.
I am terrified her team, like you, thinks she shits ice cream and is telling her what she wants to hear rather than what she needs to head. She’s fallible, a majority of the voters in America don’t trust her, and she’s unpopular. Those are facts, not opinions and they are proof her strategy of being the lesser evil to Trump isn’t sufficient to win this race.
That’s why I want her to do better-because I want her to be President! Returning those donations and apologizing for them neutralizes an advantage Trump has. Reaching out to working class whites with canvassers, as Working America already is, isn’t pandering to racists it’s how you freakin carry Ohio and Pennsylvania. It was the same strategy Obama employed to get 45% of that vote in 2012. The lowest a Democrat has gotten while winning the election. She’s polling at 30% with that demo today. You think those all of that 15% who voted for a black Presidsnt twice are racist or suddenly overcome with sexism? Or maybe they trust Trump more on jobs like they trusted Obama more than Romney? It’s time to wake up and win, not pretend she’s perfect and lose.
That’s one of the least progressive characterizations I’ve seen you use, jconway. Boo.
That said, yes, at least a portion of that 15% gap can be explained by sexism. Not “sudden” sexism but deep rooted sexism of the kind Trump champions. See e.g.: http://www.alternet.org/files/trump_t-shirt_0.png
Three other quick explanations (besides sexism, racism or “trusting Trump more on jobs”) for the Obama/Clinton gap?:
– Irrational hatred of Clinton that’s been nurtured for decades by what really is a vast right wing conspiracy and which reached the public consciousness in 1992 when she was “outed” as a smart woman with her own career and ambitions (not “standing by her man” or “baking cookies”). But no sexism there, I guess?
– Distaste for richy-rich Mitt “I like being able to fire people” Romney with his Harvard law degree, NH lake house, and support for Free trade. Plus, shhhh, he’s a Morman.
– The Great Recession and years of uneven recovery, which certainly hurt white males with no higher degree more significantly than most.
It’s easy for progressives to dismiss the block of swing voters, who this is incredibly important-voted for Obama twice, as racist or sexist rubes and not working people beset by valid economic anxieties and concerns that globalization is leaving them behind. Nowhere have I ever proposed that the solutions Trump espouses are the right solutions, I am saying they are attractive when the other side isn’t offering solutions and is instead vilifying them for embracing Trump. Does this make any sense at all to anyone here?
Paul Simmons is making that argument, so is JimC, so is Thomas Frank nationally, and so did a good piece in NY Magazine. I have a feeling we are both friends with Sarabinh Levy Brightman and she made that argument today on Facebook.
Certainly some of these voters are racist , certainly many more of them are sexist. I literally encountered racists who voted for Obama anyway when I campaigned in IN and OH in 2008. ‘Economy’s in the shitter I’m voting for the *n word*’. I’ll never forget that guy, but I appreciate that he voted for his economic interests over his disgusting cultural viewpoints. That’s the choice you need to convince people you aren’t familiar with to win elections. I don’t see Hilary’s team doing enough of that or doing it in the right way. And no it doesn’t help that the media has made this election a referendum on Trump and overly focused on Hillary’s character.
Her gender is definitely a liability, I never argued otherwise. Race is a liability for Obama, but he won two elections without calling his opponents supporters racists, even though many of them were. I am incredibly proud of what she has accomplished despite the liability, but I worry that we are losing sight of the basic Democratic message. It’s the economy stupid, the middle class matters, and it’s time the rich pay their fair share. I rarely hear those phrases this campaign as much as we did in 2012, and our convention as good as it was, was far too short on it.
We are on a thread whose thread-starter is about Donald Trump and his refusal to release his tax returns.
I’m not suggesting that Ms. Clinton “shits ice cream”. I’m instead saying that when our “constructive criticism” turns into — effectively — arguing that the Clinton Foundation’s accepting of Saudi contributions makes it equivalent to Donald Trump having close ties to Mr. Putin and the Russian Mafia then we have created a false equivalence, whether intentional or not.
Ms. Clinton is not a villain. Ms. Clinton is not Donald Trump. The Clinton Foundation is DIFFERENT FROM Trump University.
In my view, one good way to reach out to those working-class whites in Ohio and Pennsylvania is to STOP essentially confirming their distorted sense that the two candidates are comparably “dishonest”. They are NOT.
Further, some portion (not all, but SOME) of the shift you mention may be attributable to men who have a visceral reaction against ANY woman being President. There are, sadly, PLENTY of men and women who feel that way (many of them minorities), and many of them do not admit it to themselves — never mind others.
There is a great deal of research showing that in social movements at least since the 19th century, organizations that fight racism, anti-semitism, worker abuses, and so on are themselves still sexist. It is has been, historically, MUCH harder for women to achieve power in those organizations. Our culture’s bias against women is, in fact, even more deeply rooted than our bias against minorities and “outsiders”. We gave blacks the vote (at least in law) a LONG time before we extended that privilege to women. It has been illegal to pay lower salaries to minorities for decades — it is still newsworthy when we, a “liberal” state, adopt an “equal pay for equal work” state standard. There is STILL no such provision at the federal level.
It is striking to me that in 2016, our media report — without qualification — that Ms. Clinton is seen as “too ambitious” (when is THAT complaint leveled against men?) or wearing attire that is too expensive (again, when are men criticized because they choose expensive suits?).
How ELSE are we Clint Eastwood’s current complaint that Hillary Clinton has “tough voice to listen to for four years (emphasis mine):
It seems to me that if we want to win over disaffected white working class voters, a good starting point is to talk POSITIVELY about our candidate. Help them understand why Ms. Clinton is a better choice for them than Mr. Trump. Help them by providing pastoral and empathetic recognition of their racism and sexism when it shows itself, and show them (especially by modeling in our own behavior and speech) the importance of getting by those obstacles.
I do not find the criticisms of the Clinton Foundation “constructive”.
Porcupine did upthread and I rejected the comparison. All I said was the Saudi donations were problematic and everyone but JimC breathed down my neck which happens every time I bring up anything resembling critiquing Clinton. None of you were shy about critiquing Bernie, that didn’t make you Trump supporters. It meant you had legitimate concerns about his electability and capability to govern. I have legitimate concerns about Hillary’s electability and her ability to deliver on her promises to govern, and it’s stuff like the Saudi donations and the emails that have hurt her electability, and it’s stuff like Wall Street bankrolling her campaign that get me concerned she won’t deliver on some of her promises. Those are not invalid concerns, and one can express them while conceding she is more qualified than Sanders and certainly preferable to Trump.
And I’ll remake my offer to table this particular discussion until the December Stammitsch when our minds aren’t clouded by the campaign and we can agree on ways to keep President-elect Clinton honest and to pressure her to deliver on her promises. Presuming it’s not President-elect Trump, and while we disagree on the likelihood of that prospect we do not disagree that every able bodied person who cares about America should work as hard as possible to prevent that outcome.
I was responding to a comment from jimc who cites Pablo Escobar as a “good example” and offers a black-and-white standard (emphasis mine):
I think the Clinton Foundation is pursuing a large vision with large goals, and I was responding to the cited paragraph.
This is not a black and white standard. You misrepresent my example. I am making several distinctions.
DIRT POOR Colombia can accept any gift from anyone.
The Clinton Foundation cannot, even though they’re helping dirt poor people in some cases. Because their MISSION (presumably) is to improve the wold, not give aid and comfort to harmful forces by allowing them to donate and reinforce the status quo. Because make no mistake, even the most brutal regimes engage in public relations, and money is one of their chief weapons in that effort.
There IS such a thing as blood money. And the Clinton Foundation is wealthy enough to say no to it. I assert that ability to say no creates an obligation to say no.
The marginal cost of AIDS vaccines is not $0. You tell the people who received the AIDS vaccines that the Saudi $25M paid for that they “didn’t need them.”
The Clinton Foundation doesn’t need the $25M, in the sense that it’s power and influence will be the same one way or the other. But the recipients of the charity — yeah, they needed that dough.
Either it’s vital or a drop in the bucket. If it is vital, then it does have influence on the Clintons. If it’s immaterial to the totality of their work, then it wasn’t vital and they could’ve found the funds somewhere else and kept their hands clean from the perception of influence and taking money from known human rights and women rights abusers. So which one is it? Was the money material or immaterial, it can’t be both. And if it was material, than its harder for you to argue it wasn’t influential.
I disagree. I thought stomv’s reasoning was clear enough — the impact on a particular program is very different from the impact on the foundation as a whole. Any entity of this scale is able to differentiate “enterprise scale” issues from specific program issues.
There is ZERO evidence that these contributions influenced anything measurable — and a large number of people have worked very hard to find such evidence.
It seems to me that even though we can agree to disagree about the optics of accepting these contributions, it is still reasonable for me to expect any allegation of undue influence to be supported by evidence of same.
So far, I’ve not seen such evidence.
The amount in hard dollars might be a drop in the bucket for the giver, but vital for the recipient. If the Clinton Foundation is clear and strong in its purpose (which I have every reason to believe it is) I can very easily imagine them asking for and getting millions of dollars that they already know exactly what they are going to do with regardless of its source. So if, say, a brutal dictator donates millions which ends up being spent on the promotion of human rights and democracy, I call that poetic justice rather than a conflict of interest.
…we must change college emblems because they reference slavery in an oblique way, and behead and rename statues because those they honor have become offensive.
So is this progressive stance? If something is cosmetic or symbolic, it must be changed immediately. If is is worth some money, or we ourselves derive tangible benefit from it, then we must make allowances for different times.
(My personal favorite is the Adnan Kashoggi Rec center at American University. When he turned out to be a gun runner, American tried to take his name off and it went to court. The college lost, and the court said that since the name was part of the donation, they had a choice between leaving the name, or repaying the money. They opted for a reeely tiny placque.)
No, all the more reason to tell dictators for the most anti-woman regime in the world to fuck off.
Same reason she should’ve turned down the Goldman money. It’s not illegal and it’s not a lot of money in the scheme of things, but its more money than the average American will ever see in their life paid for by the most despised financial institution in the country. Saying no is a no brainer. Unfortunately, they surround themselves with sycophants who don’t help them make just and politically smart decisions with their money and foundation. I know Obama is smart enough and honest enough never to do this, part of the reason I am still glad I voted for him instead of her.
Who cares? What can the tax returns possibly say? If they said he was up to something, wouldn’t the IRS notice?
I’ve never understood the demands to see tax returns. The campaign contribution list has just as much if not more to say. Show me that!
I’d also usually push back on hyperbolic accusations of treason, but I have to say Trump has come perilously close. I do continue to believe that if returns are that important there ought to be a law requiring candidates to release them for a certain number of years and thus remove this issue as a political football.
I don’t share the OP’s view of the Logan Act, treason, and so on.
I worry more about Mr. Trump’s vulnerability to pressure from foreign entities, because of his so-far undisclosed ties.
We know that Mr. Trump has declared bankruptcy multiple times. We know that, at least in some circles, he has had difficulty obtaining credit and/or financing. Many people in that situation find themselves turning to less-than-savory sources for the funding they need.
Mr. Trump already has a sketchy record with respect to organized crime in New York city during prior decades. It would not be out of character for him to seek similar relationships to other similar overseas organizations.
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” U.S. Const., art. III, s. 3.
Please, everyone, just stop. It’s enough to say he’s wrong to cozy up to Russia, wrong not to release his tax returns, etc.
…but “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort” were the first words that crossed my mind when I heard him invite Russia to hack and distribute Clinton emails.
Russia is not our enemy. Donald Trump did not give Russia aid or comfort, if anything, he asked Russia to give him aid and comfort! It’s not good when the Right throws around the term “treason” to mean “bad!”, and it’s not good when the Left does it, either.
…but I think it’s fair to say they belong in the foe rather than friend category if those are the only choices. Besides, there’s legal to hell to pay when someone is shown to give away our secrets to countries we do consider allies such as Israel. When you ask another country, especially publicly, to commit an act against the US whether physical or virtual that is giving them encouragement, aid and comfort. Treason is rightfully tough to convict and this case is by no means a slam dunk, but again if even I’m willing to speculate on this it has to be pretty bad.
.. “treason” isn’t the precise term.
But I know of no other term that encompasses the approval of one sovereignty committing a crime upon another (hacking the DNC) by suggestion that a further crime (hacking servers of the Secretary of State or otherwise obtaining purportedly lost emails) would see the first sovereignty rewarded, with the ultimate affect upon an election to be an outcome likely beneficial to that criminal sovereignty… all this to the absolute disregard for the laws and the people of the other sovereignty…
If it isn’t “treason” –and I’m perfectly willing for it not to be– it’s still something very very bad. perhaps we can call it simply “feckless delusions of diplomatic impunity”?
Just don’t accuse people of crimes unless you really mean it.
Obama and Clinton were naive in 2012 and Romney was correct, I said that at the time and have been warning about them since the 2008 Georgia war which Condi told me to my face wasn’t going to happen and it did two days later.
They backed Assad, another stated enemy of the US. Theh have close ties do Iran and have backed Chinese hegemonic intentions in Central Asia. Not to mention they are the first European power to annex another states land since Munich. This is very serious and we have to respond with a revised containment strategy that builds up NATO, arms Ukraine, and defends the new perimeter. It’s also an ideological bully exporting the very authoritarian populism Trump is running on as this Times/Der Spiegel piece outlines at length.
When Russian intelligence agents hack into the governing party’s account to embarrass its nominee, when the opposition party’s leader is praised on Russian state television and calls for more Russian intelligence hacks, when his manager was on the payroll for that regimes former puppet state, and when he changes platform language to abandon NATO for the first time in 60
years and reneg on our commitments to Ukraine and the Baltics then it’s safe to say he is aiding and comforting an enemy of the US with his rhetoric and policy. It’s safe to say he is Moscows preferred candidate which is the #1 reason to vote for Hillary.
Russia is our adversary, not our enemy. We are not at war with Russia. When spies spy for Russia, they’re charged with espionage, not treason. Really, I can’t understand the mental gymnastics I see here–people trying to justify the use of the word “treason” in a technical sense. Why not just say he’s being “un-American” or “disloyal” or something? Why try to show that he is a criminal in a technical sense? It’s not just incorrect; it’s part of the trend towards criminalizing political opposition that mostly infects the Right.
If they are Russian citizens sent by the Russian government to spy on us then espionage is the appropriate charge. Treason is betrayal of one’s own country so by definition Russians can only commit treason against Russia. If, however, an AMERICAN citizen were passing OUR secrets to the Russians, that person could justifiably be charged with treason against the United States.
What are you talking about? I really think you and others making these points are making uninformed arguments.
Aldrich Ames
Robert Hanssen
The Rosenbergs
Ronald Pelton
Alger Hiss
that the above named individuals weren’t charged with treason? It’s a rightly high bar and I can understand if a prosecutor didn’t go that route, but given the facts of the case they could have been.
I share your concerns about the appearance of too-close ties between Mr. Trump and the Russians. I find Mr. Trump’s manner too dictatorial — I’ve said elsewhere that he reminds me too much of Mr. Erdogan.
I am, nevertheless, profoundly uncomfortable with sliding into red-baiting. The language you suggest is too much like Joe McCarthy, the content too much like the old duck-and-cover drills from my childhood.
We suspect, but we don’t know, that Mr. Trump has close ties to Russia. I think those ties are more likely to be to the Russian Mafia than to Mr. Putin.
I hear your concern. I’m more comfortable with language like “stooge”, “patsy”, and “corrupt” than “treason”.
His apparent tendency towards unpredictable volatility aimed at innocent victims is the behavior of a wife- and child-beater.
I’d like to attack Mr. Trump based on his on-going and reprehensible behavior, rather than invoking bogeymen and banshees from Russia.
How many times do I have to repeat this?! The new Cold War is real and problematic. And how Trump’s campaign fits into it is unprecedented. Never before in modern history has a major party candidate altered six decades worth of foreign policy consensus due to personal financial ties to our geopolitical rivals. Never before has the FBI uncovered a foreign act of espionage against another party with the apparent approval of the other party nominee begging for more.
You better believe if Sanders or Clinton had Russian connections of any kind the other side would be all over it. You have the AEI, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, Admiral Huston and a litany of Hawks condemning Trump and backing Clinton over these real and accurate charges. It’s unconscionable that we sit back and tie our hands and do the Dukakis routine that it’s “beneath us”. Not when it’s accurate. It’s entirely reality based to say Trump sympathizes with our enemies and would help their military and political goals at our expense if he was elected. He has openly pledged to do this. It’s not red baiting if it’s real!
And President Trump with his Chief of Staff Manafort on the Kremlin payroll would be more than happy to let Putin park some T-14’s in Vilnius, let alone in Kiev. These are his officially stated foreign policy goals and he isn’t even hiding it!
He isn’t Ford saying there is no Soviet domination, he is openly welcoming Russian domination of Eastern Europe. If that isn’t treason, it’s certainly running the Kremlins foreign policy out of the White House and I have no problem calling a spade a spade. Neither would the Republicans if one of our candidates was even remotely as obsequious to Putin’s agenda.
I agree with you about the substance. I also agree that the GOP would be all over this if Ms. Clinton said and did similar things.
I’m not suggesting that we “sit back and tie our hands” or say it’s “beneath us”. I’m suggesting that we instead use measured language and propose actions commensurate with the situation.
I remind you that we will not resolve the situation in Syria or our conflict with ISIS without the cooperation of Mr. Putin and Russia. In my view, our outrage about breaches of political organizations or even the events in the Ukraine must be balanced against our need to work with distasteful parties in the pursuit of America’s global agenda. We have ways to address Russian meddling in our political process. We do not have ways to defeat ISIS and replace Mr. Assad without the cooperation of Russia.
We are not the other side. It is the historic eagerness of the GOP to behave exactly as you describe that has created the disarray and chaos of today’s GOP — that is why, in my view, today is a terrible time for us emulate the GOP’s clearly failed behavior.
We face a GOP nominee who epitomizes everything that has been wrong with the GOP for decades. This is the time to demonstrate our DIFFERENCES with that nominee, not emulate his and their behavior.
When a domestic dispute threatens to become a brawl, with voices and fists raised, the most effective intervention is a police presence that is calm, soft-spoken, and rock-solid. If participants need to be taken into custody, they are best done so with disciplined dispatch. If the authorities — or the grownups — rush in yelling, screaming, and throwing tantrums, then an already bad situation just gets worse.
I think this is a time for Ms. Clinton to demonstrate quiet resolve.
Chill with the “treason” talk, lest ye look like an imbecile like Glenn Beck.
Once the hyper-maximal treason talk is set aside, have at it.
_________________________________
My new theory is that the returns will be so scrutinized that the auditors at the IRS would get all kinds of free help.
While I agree it’s richly deserved, you know that if they start auditing Trump now he’ll scream political motivation and even shades of Nixon.
I didn’t realize the legal ramifications of the term and it seemed like TedF and SomervilleTom were downplaying the real threat that Russia poses to our geopolitical interests and the clear connections the regime has to the Trump campaign. I think we are all on the same page now.
Trump is pushing the Kremlin’s foreign policy agenda, he is ok that their intelligence agency spied on Clinton and wants them to do more, his aide was on the Putin payroll via Yanakovich. Even if none of that were true, and it most certainly is, he is also pursuing a dangerous policy of retreat and appeasement in Eastern Europe while also destroying over half a century of bipartisan consensus on NATO. If the Democratic nominee did any of this they would be dead in the water and lambasted in every paper from coast to coast, not to mention destroyed in GOP campaign ads. I think we can all agree on that?
I got to imagine Howard Dean is pretty pissed he got some troop numbers wrong, said we were safer with Saddam (true!) and screamed at a higher than average decibel and got destroyed by the media. Trump has done 10000x worse than that and still has a half way decent shot at winning this damn thing.
Most of the Russian assets have been removed from that theater of action, and they were only there to prop Assad, they barely hit ISIS at all.
And we wouldn’t be in that mess if the President had been more assertive in Syria in the first place, and it’s likely we would’ve had more leverage if we hadn’t blown our capital on destabilizing Libya with Hillary’s ill advised campaign there.
Also I think Fred didn’t mean treason in the legal sense, so you and tedf are getting caught up with definitions that aren’t relevant here. I am saying Trump’s foreign policy is profoundly pro-Russian and anti-American, and while it may have been untrue when conservatives levied that charge against progressive candidates in the recent past, it is totally true and germane to make those statements today. His foreign policy is anti-American, and it is pro-Russian. And I have no qualms about stating that publicly. Neither to her credit, does Hillary Clinton. This is one area where I trust her political judgment and disregard the hand wringing of the liberal punditry.
ISIS is gaining strength in part because of the deteriorating situation in Syria. During the cold war, Syria was a Soviet client state, and remains firmly within the Russian sphere of influence in the ME. The morass of ME affairs has no easy fixes and never did. Whatever we did right or wrong in Libya (and I don’t share you disapproval of our actions there) had very little influence on Syria.
Meanwhile, the intransigence of Israeli policy in the region has been a FAR stronger influence. We made matters incalculably worse by taking out Saddam Hussein in 2003 in the way we did.
We now see even Turkey spinning into authoritarian chaos.
Like it or not, the ME will not be stabilized without the active cooperation of Russia and the US.
I am on record here supporting the Libyan intervention when it happened and defending it from it’s detractors. So I was just as incorrect as Clinton and Obama. It’s also not our fault that NATO pushed further than the UN mandate and refused to pick up the pieces and take the lead on reconstruction.
The decision to invade and occupy Iraq was profoundly destabilizing and the affects of that action will be felt for decades. It’s why it’s the worst foreign policy decision in American history, worse than Vietnam in my opinion.
I agree that Israel/Palestine should be resolved for it’s own sake and the sake of both people, I am no longer convinced it’s the silver bullet for ME stability. But it definitely can’t hurt, and failing to resolve it doesn’t help.
at least for me. It’s the unfounded allegations of crimes. The Republicans are the ones who chant “lock her up!” The Democrats shouldn’t go down that path.
I won’t use the term treason since you mean it in the legal sense. I am saying that we shouldn’t hesitate to say that Trump’s foreign policy is profoundly anti-American and pro-Russian. We shouldn’t hesitate to make that argument. He is shredding over 60 years of bipartisan foreign policy consensus in Europe, his nativism and protectionism shreds 60 years of global consensus on advancing trade and promoting immigration, and his allies are incredibly nervous about the prospect of his election.
In 1988 the heads of state could be confident that either HW Bush or Michael Dukakis were reasonable people they could work with, even if they preferred one or the other on policy. This was true in every election in my lifetime other than 2004 where arguably Bush was unacceptable. And even then, he was within the range of acceptability. Trump is nowhere near prepared or capable of being President in general, and his stated policies would severely undermine American national security. I think we have to hammer that home and shouldn’t hesitate to use strong language to do so. It is anti American to close our borders and do Putin’s bidding.
I really don’t understand the progressive pushback on being assertive against proven problematic associations that Trump has with a stated geopolitical threat to the security of many of our key European allies. I am not sure if that’s just a reaction against the assertive foreign policy of the Bush years or a Dukakis like aversion to fighting firing with fire. This is a reality based criticism of a serious problem within the Trump campaign, one that arguably is the most infiltrated by Russia since Wallace in 48′.
because panicky over-reactions are bad politics.
Republicans went to town, twice, against Obama with the “treason” type bullshit. And I would note, for the record, that Obama beat their asses in, twice.
HRC’s entire campaign is about NOT being the one who reacts, all-in, to everything. I am sure they will push the issue, but crying “treason” based on his extemporaneous bullshitting at a press conference is a very bad idea indeed.
That’s what she has us for!:)
They are real and I think its a line of attack that resonates with swing voters. Not to mention the stated foreign policy positions which are problematic whether or not the Kremlin actually is pushing them.
So sure treason is a bridge too far, but saying his foreign policy is anti-American and pro-Russian seems to be reality based to me, and I don’t see us losing any credibility saying that at every turn.
But I am saying that calling for his prosecution (and, presumably, his death) is a wee bit beyond the pale.
I think it is unlikely that Mr. Trump will silently pay taxes to both a foreign government and the US government on the same foreign earnings. I think his “Foreign Tax Credit” forms are therefore likely to reveal information about the extent of his financial ties to foreign governments.
Similarly, if he is paying interest on debt held by foreign entities, he is likely to seek ways to make as much of those debt service costs deductible as possible.
I agree with you that it’s unlikely that he’s doing anything the IRS will complain about — he, like every wealthy individual, surely pays an army of tax people to ensure that this is the case.
I, nevertheless, think that his returns may well show ties — perhaps deep ties — to Russian, Chinese, or other foreign interests. Not just governments, but key foreign banks or even entities tied to organized crime. We know that the line between Mr. Putin and organized crime in Russia is, at best, gray (this has been reported for years).
If Mr. Trump has significant financial involvement with the same entities as Mr. Putin, then I think that’s a significant outcome that merits further investigation.
Mr. Trump is being considered for a significant executive position.
In my view, “Logan Act” violations and “treason” are unduly strident for credibility. Instead, I view a thorough investigation of his financial background as simple due diligence — the same due diligence done for EVERY significant corporate hire. A legitimate company will not hire a CEO that refuses to submit to normal background checks, security checks, credit checks, and so on.
I view the disclosure of tax returns as comparable information for the same purpose demanded of each would-be President.
The tax returns are unlikely to reveal anything untoward regarding his Russian financial dealings. I suspect most of that money is ‘under the table’. But I agree it’s a basic pre-requisite most major party nominees followed until this year. He isn’t special, he should follow it too.
The second issue, which in my view is more important than the tax returns or potential dealings is his abrogate surrender of American interests and allies in Europe to Vladimir Putin, his open disdain for NATO, one of the most successful and enduring alliances in history, and his open admiration of Putin, a thug who rules as an authoritarian at home exporting his ideology of orderism abroad. This is serious stuff, and it’s not beneath the pale or below the belt for every single opponent of Trump regardless of party to call a spade a spade. He is a Fifth Column for Putin advocating the Kremlin’s foreign policy, and he is doing this in the open and with relish.
Insofar as they are germane at all, Donald Trumps’ income tax statement will show two possible things of interest:
— What (if anything) he pays in taxes. The last time his taxes became public, in the late ’80’s I think, it was revealed he payed zero in taxes.
— What he deducts as business expenses, including who lends money to Donald Trump (the business and the man) and how much. This may have some bearing on the possibly foreign connections. I don’t think it’s particularly illegal or even out of the ordinary for someone of his purported wealth to have lots of loan entanglements so it’s not, per se, corrupt. It also isn’t something that persons of more prosaic means will particularly connect with, I’ll wager…
Among others:
“We ask that you conduct an oversight hearing to determine whether existing federal criminal statutes and federal court jurisdiction sufficiently address conduct related to foreign entities that could undermine our elections,” [Coons and Whitehouse] wrote.
The beauty of it is that their complaint is addressed to … Ted Cruz. I doubt it will get very far, but there must be some slight temptation on the part of Cruz, still sitting at home sharpening his knives and contemplating the fact that some ninety days remain in which Trump can completely implode and a True Conservative(tm) can assume the position for which fate has prepared him.
How do we know that the leader of a certain foreign country does not have Trump’s tax returns, and furthermore, how do we know that he could not hold them over Trump’s head to blackmail him?
I suggest Mr. Putin may possess another lever — evidence of close ties between Mr. Trump and the Russian mafia, and/or evidence of tens or hundreds of millions in debt obligations owned by Russian lenders and owed by Mr. Trump.
Multiple reliable sources, including the WSJ and the Washington Post, report that Mr. Trump has significant financial ties to Russia (from the latter link, emphasis mine):
In my view, it is a near certainty that Mr. Putin knows EXACTLY “whose brother is paying off who” in Russia. Mr. Putin is from the KGB, and his current role demands that he know these things. I strongly suspect that Mr. Putin knows not only whose brother is paying off who, but also knows when, exactly how much, and has photos and videos to prove it.
I suspect that Mr. Trump’s tax returns point towards these relationships. I suspect that Mr. Putin would rather the world not know about them. I suspect that Mr. Putin has great leverage over Mr. Trump.
All of this is more reason to wonder how on EARTH any American think this man is fit to be President.