Category: Unpresidential

Trump Tweets 9 Deceptive Graphs “Proving” That Obama Failed.

Leave a comment
Twitter

Washington Post – We have generally learned that there’s not much utility in fact-checking every tweet that springs to life from the imagination of Donald Trump or which receives his blessing via retweet. Tweets containing factual errors are not as plentiful as those containing exclamation points or disparagement, but they aren’t exactly rare.

But on Thursday evening, Trump retweeted this one, and we — well, I — couldn’t let it stand.

There are nine little graphs embedded in there, with hard-to-read axes and unclear provenance for the numbers, all of which are meant to bolster one argument: Barack Obama’s presidency has been bad.

Look, for example, at the graph at upper left, “Student Loans.” It’s almost impossible to make out the labels on the horizontal axis, but it’s clear that there simply aren’t any until the graph starts to rise. Which is … a bit deceptive. So what I figured I’d do is try my best to recreate these charts with verifiable numbers, to see how this argument stacks up.

Student loans

The vertical axis on this one tells us what we’re looking at. It passed “1.000” at some point recently; the third labeled section of the graph appears to demarcate 2010-2014. (The others, I think: 2000-2004 and 2005-2009.) If it passed 1 recently, then we’re talking about student loan debt, in dollars.

The Federal Reserve has data going back to the first quarter of 2006, allowing us to create a slightly more legible version of the graph.

(We’ve highlighted 2009 on our charts to emphasize the point at which Obama took over.)

On an old page from 2012, we find the trend extending back a bit more.

The trend, then, isn’t a big spike. It’s a steady increase since about 2006 — before Obama was president.

Food stamps

Here, the horizontal axis extends a bit further back, still in those odd five-year chunks. What’s being tallied here is not “food stamps,” which makes no sense, but average participation over the course of each year, in millions. In other words, the average of how many people used the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) each month of the year.

That data is available from the USDA.

There was an uptick — one that began in 2008, which we’ll get to. But notice that the person who made this chart cut it off before the number started to (slowly) drop back down.

There’s a theme you’ll see present itself here: That Obama took office right after the recession began. As a result, he appears to perform poorly on some metrics, like this one. But that’s a natural result of the financial crisis that predated him: more people relied on supplemental assistance.

Federal debt

…And the government took on more debt.

Notice that on the debt chart in the original, the horizontal axis has changed. No longer does it start in the 1980s — instead, it goes back to 1950. Yes, debt increased under Obama by a large amount. But, again, that increase began under his predecessor, George W. Bush, as an effort to address the financial crisis.

What’s more, comparing 1950 to 2000 makes little sense, since the value of the dollar wasn’t equivalent at that point. But compared to the other problems here, that’s relatively minor.

Money printing

This one is probably my favorite. I’m not going to get into the politics of the printing of money and why certain quarters object to the practice. Instead, I’m going to try to figure out what the 4 million figures on the vertical axis indicate — and what the numbers along the bottom are.

The Federal Reserve (naturally) has lots of data on money in circulation, including this chart of print orders by year since 1995. It doesn’t match the graph Trump tweeted.

Data.gov (a great resource, by the way) has the number of notes produced each year from 1980 to 2012 in various denominations. Combined, those numbers don’t result in 4-million-plus of anything — they add up to far more. The Department of the Treasury indicates that it produced 24.8 million notes a day in 2014.

So what is this graph? No idea. If you have an idea, let me know.

Update: We have an answer. Dan Ludwinski of the Cornell University Department of Economics explains what the Trump graph shows.

“The ‘money printing’ graph is assets held by the Federal Reserve,” he wrote in an email. “The majority of these assets are excess reserve balances — money deposited by commercial banks and held by the Federal Reserve. Calling this “money printing” is laughably inaccurate. This is money that is taken out of circulation and held by the Fed. Anyone who has taken econ 101 knows that this is a decrease in the money supply.”

Health-care costs

You’ve probably noticed by now that the pink boxes in the Trump tweet generally approximate the period during which Obama was president. It varies a bit, but that’s generally the case.

So you’ll notice on this one that the creator of the charts cheats, making most of the graph a period during which Obama was president. It starts in 2007 and goes through 2015.

“Healthcare costs” is vague. The Kaiser Family Foundation has a tool that allows you to see expenditures under a number of scenarios since 1960 — but none of its charts appear to sync with the one Trump tweeted.

The Federal Reserve, as always, has some data. In this case, it’s health expenditures per capita. They’ve gone up steadily, at least through 2012. The Kaiser data shows about the same thing.

What’s Trump’s chart? I’m not sure. Notice that the vertical axis on it begins at 105, not zero, making the amount of change seem exaggerated. It’s possible that the figures are percentages, indicating how much costs were relative to the prior year. But while 2011 costs were 103.8 percent of 2010 costs in the Fed’s data, 2012’s was only 104.2 percent of 2011’s. So who knows.

Labor force participation

On this one, the creator of the graphs cheats again, showing a section of the vertical axis. But, for once, it’s clear what’s being talked about.

To calculate unemployment, the government looks at how many people in the labor force have jobs. People not in the labor force don’t come into play in that calculation, and so if people drop out of the labor force — stop looking for work or retire, for example — the unemployment rate can fall faster, because the number of unemployed people in the labor force will have fallen. (That’s precisely why the unemployment rate fell in May.) 

This has been used as a counterpoint to Obama’s trumpeting of the plunging jobless rate.

And it’s accurate. Labor force participation has fallen since Obama took office.

Of course, one could also show how many new jobs were added, or the state of the unemployment rate. But given that this is, at last, accurate and comprehensible, we’ll let it slide.

Black inequality

This is an interesting one. The creator of these graphs uses calculations of what’s known as the “Gini coefficient” for black Americans, data that is again available from the Federal Reserve. What we’re talking about here isn’t inequality in the sense of racial justice; it’s income inequality.

The Gini coefficient estimates how far from a perfectly equitable distribution of income a group happens to be. The formulas for this are complex, so it’s nice that the Fed has already taken care of it.

Here are the coefficients for both whites and blacks since 2002, when the Fed data begins.

Notice that the variation is much more subtle in this chart. That’s because the vertical axis shows a wider range. Yes, income inequality increased, but not that dramatically.

Median family income

This one is refreshingly straightforward. Here’s what the Fed has to say.

This doesn’t match the Trump chart, mind you, and it’s not clear why. Oh well. Here’s the Fed’s data, if you want to look for yourself.

Home ownership

Another straightforward one! This is the percentage of houses that are owner-occupied.

Again, the rate has declined under Obama — a decline that began under Bush.

Why? In part because it was home ownership problems that precipitated the recession. Bad home loans and the rapid expansion of home ownership played key roles in creating the conditions that led to the economic collapse. As a result, home ownership rates dropped.

But this graph, at least, is fairly accurate, if a bit deceptive in where it places the blame. That’s not true for many of the others.

So why did Trump tweet it? Because, as has often been the case, the details are less important than the political point. If a bunch of graphs claim to show how Obama has been bad for the economy, boom. Retweet. If some jerk goes through each one and notes why it’s wrong or skewed, that doesn’t detract from the main point, which is that Obama is bad. If challenged, Trump can simply blame the originator of what he retweeted, which he has often proven willing to do.

And that, in a nutshell, is why fact-checking things like this is so often thankless.

Links

The Washington Post article.

 

 

Trump Launches All-Out Attack on the Press For Uncovering Donation Lies

One comment

Donald Trump on Tuesday went on a sustained frontal assault against the media during a contentious news conference that highlighted his un-presidential temperament.

The billionaire had called the press conference to announce an accounting of his at least $5.6 million in fundraising for veterans groups, but spent most of the 40 minutes criticizing and insulting reporters — collectively and at times individually — as “dishonest,” “not good people,” sleazy, and among the worst human beings he has ever met.

And he vowed the White House briefing room would be just as combative as the Trump Tower lobby, where he addressed reporters Tuesday, should he ascend to the Oval Office.

Trump said when asked if this is how he would behave with the press as president.

Yeah, it is going to be like this. You think I’m gonna change? I’m not gonna change.

At one point, Trump fumed:

I’m the only one in the world who can raise almost $6 million for the veterans, have uniform applause by the veterans groups and end up being criticized by press…I think the political press is among the most dishonest people that I have ever met, I have to tell you. I see the stories and I see the way they’re couched. I find the press to be extremely dishonest. I find the political press to be unbelievably dishonest.

Tuesday’s news conference did not mark a departure from Trump’s relationship with the press, which has been strained throughout the brash mogul’s campaign — but Tuesday was a surprise escalation, especially at a time when many supporters want him to start acting more presidential.

Over the last year, Trump has repeatedly called out individual reporters on Twitter and in interviews for everything from what he viewed as insufficient crowd shots to biased reporting. And attacking the press is a regular part of the Republican’s stump speech, during which he typically rips reporters as “scum,” “slime,” “dishonest” and “disgusting” — often prompting jeers from the crowd.

The news conference came four months after Trump falsely claimed to have raised $6 million for veterans groups, but then dodged reporters’ unrelenting questions about which groups had received the donations.

Trump kicked off his litany of attacks by accusing reporters of turning what should have been a positive story about his charity into a negative one.

Reporters had repeatedly asked Trump to provide an accounting of the donations, requests that were frequently rebuffed or side-stepped by Trump and his campaign staff.

Trump said he didn’t “want the credit” for his fundraising, “but I shouldn’t be lambasted” — that despite Trump repeatedly touting the donations himself on the campaign trail since the January fundraiser, which was televised in what some at the time dubbed a PR stunt.

But the subject of the news conference quickly turned away from the veterans donations as Trump accused reporters of writing stories they “know” are false, and of spinning the truth.

He also lashed out at individual reporters, calling ABC’s Tom Llamas a “sleaze,” referring sarcastically to CNN’s Jim Acosta’s live reports as a “beauty,” telling Katy Tur she’s a “third-rate journalist,” and refusing at one point to call on CBS’s Major Garrett.

Trump repeatedly blasted the media for the way it has covered his fundraising for vets.
“All of the money has been paid out,” Trump said. “The press should be ashamed of themselves, and on behalf of the veterans, the press should be ashamed of themselves.”
“There are so many people who are so thankful for what we did,” Trump said, adding that the final figure could top $6 million once all the donations are in.

Trump listed the vets groups — there were more than 40 — that he said had received money and the amounts that had been given to each. He said there were no administrative costs deducted from the donations.

Trump revised that figure recently to $5.5 million following months of questions from reporters struggling to track the funds and dodging on the exact amount from the Trump campaign.

Trump himself disbursed his $1 million pledge last week to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, a charity that helps support the families of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers to which Trump’s foundation has previously donated. Trump only transferred the money after reporters uncovered that for 4 months of claiming he donated money, he never did.

Amid reporters’ questions, Trump and his campaign have repeatedly offered conflicting accounts of how much money was raised and declined multiple requests to provide a full accounting. The campaign has insisted it was working on disbursing the funds, but said it was waiting on some donors to make good on their pledges and also needed to properly vet the charities in the running to receive the funds.

Three veterans groups earlier Tuesday confirmed donations from the Trump Foundation. The Bob Woodruff Foundation and the Boston Wounded Vets Run each confirmed donations of $75,000 apiece. The Racing For Heroes Foundation also received what the group’s president described as a “large” donation.

(h/t CNN)

Reality

There are a few things at play here. First, Donald Trump’s complaints to the press. Second, the facts he brought up at his conference. Three, the unusually slow distribution of donations to the veterans charities. Fourth, Trump’s own $1 million dollar donation. And finally, and most important, Trump’s completely un-presidential temperament at his press conference.

Trump’s Complaints about the Press

Donald Trump has a history of harassing the press, ejecting journalists from press conferences, and promising to gut the 1st amendment to the United States Constitution to allow the government to sue reporters in an effort to silence the press.

But Donald’s complaint that the press was not nice to him is frankly, too stupid of a statement to have to answer, but we will.

While Trump boasts how much money he raised and how much money he gave to charity he’s essentially demanding that everyone, including the press, should just brown-nose him up-and-down for his awesomeness. However it is not a journalist’s job sit there and accept the information that they are told at face value, but to critically review evidence of a story. (Granted some do this better than others.) And unfortunately for Donald Trump, there has been a lot of justified controversy surrounding his fundraiser.

The televised fundraiser only came about so he could dodge debate questions from Megyn Kelly about his past sexist comments towards women. Then Trump attempted to extort Fox News for an illegal “quid pro quo” donation of $5 million dollars to appear at their Iowa debate.

As we point out below, it was the Trump campaign who originally refused to disclose his fundraiser accounting information and instead brushed off the press and told them to look for the it themselves, which of course they would. Then for the next 4 months Trump lied again and again when he spoke about his charitable $1 million donation in the past tense.

So while Donald Trump tries complain about the nastiness of the reporters, if he and his campaign were open and transparent instead of recalcitrant and stonewalling then there would have been no needed to follow up on this story and uncover some pretty major lies.

Fact Checking Trump’s Statements

During the press conference Donald Trump made many claims that just did not add up.

  • Trump opened the press conference by saying he’s received the most votes ever for a Republican in a primary. As we pointed out before this is not true.
  • Trump mentioned that wanted to keep the donation dealings private yet he boasted for 4 months about his fundraiser every chance he could. He can’t claim to have it both ways.
  • At the 15 minute mark of the speech Donald Trump clearly drops the f-bomb. “Fuck look, when this started, I think you were there, I said if we could raise $1 million dollars that would be good.”
  • Trump claimed multiple times that he didn’t want any public credit for his fundraiser, yet he nationally televised the event, claimed it was for the ratings, continuously brought it up during campaign rallies, and kept sending tweets about it
  • Trump commented that most of the money was sent out early on. But as we detail below, after 4 months only half of the funds were distributed and the other half was sent out on 5/24, the day of the Washington Post story.
  • Trump challenged reporters to go find out how much money Hillary Clinton has raised. The Clinton family donated $105,000 to veteran charities between 2006-2012, helped to raise $50 million dollars for a state-of-the-art veterans rehab center, and has the Clinton Foundation that raises over $200 million for global charities every year. However this is completely irrelevant. The amount of money someone else donates has no effect on the ability for journalists to critically review this evidence.

While his fundraiser that raised $5.5 million dollars for veterans groups is an amazing gesture, it is hardly altruistic. In fact, while $5.5 million dollars is great and will do good, people donate more than $2.5 billion annually to the over 40,000 American charities with military related missions. While it indeed will help veterans and does deserve some thanks, the amount is really a drop in the bucket.

Unusually Slow Distribution of Donations

Trump spent a significant time explaining that the reason why it took so long to distribute the donations is because vetting the different charity groups took time. Filling out forms, sending people out to the charity office, background checks, etc.

However the charities listed as recipients were already rated by trusted charity watchdog groups such as Charity Navigator, and the Trump Foundation already gave to a majority these groups before including the charity that received his own personal $1 million dollar donation four months after the fundraiser. So there was no logical reason to vet them again.

Trump’s Own $1 Million Dollar Donation

On 1/28, the Trump campaign released a press release indicating that Mr. Trump made a $1 million dollar contribution at a special event in Des Moines to benefit vets.

The conservative newspaper The Weekly Standard broke the story on 2/18 that the Trump campaign was refusing to acknowledge how much money was disbursed saying, “You can do your homework and ask the veterans’ organizations.” They did and found out that only about $500,000 was distributed to veterans charities at that time.

On 2/26, the conservative pundit Stuart Varney on Fox Business News corroborated The Weekly Standard’s story with their own independent investigation by checking with the charities a full month after the fundraiser and found that only $650,000 of the supposed $6 million raised had been distributed to charities.

Two months after the fundraiser on 4/7, the not-very-liberal Wall Street Journal again talked to the veteran charities and found only $2.4 million was distributed.

Then on 5/20, The Washington Post followed up with the 22 veteran charities and only $3.1 million could be accounted for. Furthering the scandal, the Trump campaign confirmed that only $4.5 million and not $6 million was raised while claiming $1 million dollars donated by Trump was already given to the charities but refused to share evidence saying, “Mr. Trump’s money is fully spent.”

As recent as 5/23, a day before this story broke, Donald Trump tweeted and was still claiming the money was donated.

And finally 5/24 The Washington Post concluded its investigation which uncovered the story that Trump never gave any money to a veterans charity. Once that fact came to light then, and only then, did Trump cut a check to a single charity from his own personal account and sent out the remaining millions of donations.

Trump’s Completely Un-presidential Temperament

At about the 14 minute mark in the media video is when the sparks really start to fly. It really comes across as child throwing a tantrum.

He is highly combative, curses, singles out individuals for riddicule, and is visibly flustered.

After the press conference, Jesse Ferguson, a Clinton spokesman, tweeted: “EVERYONE STOP. Close your eyes for a moment. Think about the press conference you just watched. Now try to imagine him as President. Thanks.”

We’re not sure we have anything else to add after that.

Media

Trump Tells California ‘There Is No Drought’

Leave a comment

Donald Trump told California voters Friday that he can solve their water crisis, declaring, “There is no drought.”

California is, in fact, in midst of a drought. Last year capped the state’s driest four-year period in its history, with record low rainfall and snow.

Speaking at a rally in Fresno, Calif., Trump accused state officials of denying water to Central Valley farmers so they can send it out to sea “to protect a certain kind of three-inch fish.”

(h/t SF Gate)

Source

Donald Trump’s California drought conspiracy theory comes straight from lunatic Alex Jones’ InfoWars in an article 3 days prior titled, “Environmentalists Caused California Drought to Protect This Fish.”

The theory that California’s water shortage is all the fault of the Environmental Protection Agency is, like most conspiracy theories, grounded in an actual fact. The EPA has, in fact, caused 800,000 acre-feet of water annually to be flushed into San Francisco Bay to maintain its marine ecosystem. The program, however, dates to the early 1990s, and California’s water system, all told, manages over 40 million acre-feet a year. The practice that Trump describes so darkly involves 2 percent of that—and an economically vital 2 percent at that. California fisheries produce jobs in the hundreds of thousands. But not in Fresno.

Reality

California is now in its fifth year of drought, which has taken a heavy toll on agriculture in particular. Despite an El Niño event that saw an increase last year in snowpacks that supply about one-third of California’s water, 86 percent of the state is still considered to be in drought.

Trump appeared to be referring to disputes over water that runs from the Sacramento River to the San Francisco Bay and then to the ocean. Some farmers want more of that flow captured and diverted to them.

Politically influential rural water districts and well-off corporate farmers in and around California’s Central Valley have been pushing back against longstanding federal laws protecting endangered fish and other species, saying federal efforts to make sure endangered native fish have enough water is short-changing farmers of the water they want and need for crops.

Water authorities say they can’t do it because of the water rights of those upstream of the farmers, and because of the minimum-water allowances needed by endangered species in the bay and by wildlife in general.

The three-inch Delta smelt is a native California fish on the brink of extinction. The smelt has become an emblem in the state’s battles over environmental laws and water distribution.

The farm lobby, a heavyweight player in California’s water wars, also is seeking federal and state approval for billions of dollars in new water tunnels, dams and other projects.

Trump promised that, if he’s elected, he would put their interests first. “If I win, believe me, we’re going to start opening up the water so that you can have your farmers survive,” he said.

California is the country’s No. 1 agriculture producer. The state’s drought is raising the stakes in water disputes among farmers, cities and towns, and environmental interests.

Media

Trump Acknowledges Climate Change — At His Golf Course

Leave a comment

Donald Trump says he is “not a big believer in global warming.” He has called it “a total hoax,” “bullshit” and “pseudoscience.”

But he is also trying to build a sea wall designed to protect one of his golf courses from “global warming and its effects.”

The New York billionaire is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare.

A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by POLITICO, explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief justification for building the structure.

The zoning application raises further questions about how the billionaire developer would confront a risk he has publicly minimized but that has been identified as a defining challenge of this era by world leaders, global industry and the American military. His public disavowal of climate science at the same time he moves to secure his own holdings against the effects of climate change also illustrates the conflict between his political rhetoric and the realities of running a business with seaside assets in the 21st century.

“It’s diabolical,” said former South Carolina Republican Rep. Bob Inglis, an advocate of conservative solutions to climate change. “Donald Trump is working to ensure his at-risk properties and his company is trying to figure out how to deal with sea level rise. Meanwhile, he’s saying things to audiences that he must know are not true. … You have a soft place in your heart for people who are honestly ignorant, but people who are deceitful, that’s a different thing.”

Neither Trump’s spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, nor Alan Garten, the general counsel of the Trump Organization, the umbrella company for Trump’s business ventures, responded to requests for comment.

For years, owners of seaside assets, investors, and industries like reinsurance have been busily adapting to and hedging against climate change – a reality widely acknowledged by the world’s top business leaders.

“If you’re being responsible you are protecting your property and investing in these things,” said Cynthia McHale, director of the insurance program at Ceres, a nonprofit that works with businesses and institutional investors to promote sustainability. “It’s certainly best practice.” But McHale added that many commercial developers of seaside properties fail to account for climate change in their decisions because they are focused on short time horizons.

Trump snatched up the golf resort from a distressed buyer in February 2014, after a winter in which an unusual number of severe storms hit the west coast of Ireland. The businessman immediately took an active hand in advancing and promoting his Irish investment.

In April of 2014, Tony Lowes, director of Friends of the Irish Environment, said Trump called him to offer the group help in opposing a proposed offshore wind project in a nearby, environmentally sensitive area. The group, which has since come out against Trump’s proposed wall, declined the businessman’s offer.

The next month, Trump gave an interview about the golf resort, also known as Trump Doonbeg, on Irish radio, vowing to invest up to €45m in the property. “If I didn’t have confidence in Ireland I would never have made this big investment,” he said. He also promised to “reshape it and make it one of the greatest golf courses in the world.”

But Trump has encountered obstacles to that vision. Days before he concluded his purchase, a single storm eroded as much as eight meters of frontage in some parts of the golf course. Since acquiring the property, Trump has been trying to build coastal protection works to prevent further erosion.

Earlier this month, after failing to win special approval from the national government for the structure, Trump re-submitted a planning application with the Clare County Council seeking permission to build the wall, which would consist of 200,000 tons of rock distributed along two miles of beach. As part of the application, Trump International Golf Links submitted an environmental impact statement — prepared by an Irish environmental consultancy — which argues that erosion is likely to accelerate as sea levels rise more quickly.

The statement acknowledges one Irish government study that assumes a steady rate of erosion through 2050, but argues that the study fails to account for the effects of climate change: “If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland. In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. … As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase.”

The bigger problem, though, according to the impact statement, will be the erosion caused by larger, more frequent storms. “As with other predictions of global warming and its effects, there is no universal consensus regarding changes in these events,” it states. “Our advice is to assume that the recent average rate of dune recession will not alter greatly in the next few decades, perhaps as far into the future as 2050 as assumed in the [government study] but that subsequently an increase in this rate is more likely than not.”

Later, the statement argues that rising sea levels make taking action unavoidable. “A Do nothing/Do minimum option will have the least impact on [natural] processes but the existing erosion rate will continue and worsen, due to sea level rise, in the next coming years, posing a real and immediate risk to most of the golf course frontage and assets,” states the conclusion of an analysis of various options for responding to the erosion.

Trump’s company has warned not only the county council of the perils of climate change, but also local residents. An appendix to TIGL’s planning application includes a scan of a brochure that the company has distributed to residents to make the case for building the proposed coastal protection works. The heading of one page — emblazoned with a “Trump Doonbeg” logo — is “Need for Coastal Protection.” The page lists four bullet points, the last of which is, “Predicted sea level rise and more frequent storm events will increase the rate of erosion throughout the 21st century.”

The statements in the filings contradict positions publicly held by Trump, who has weighed in repeatedly on climate change in recent years – mostly to dismiss it outright. In 2012, he tweeted, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” though he has since insisted the tweet was a joke. In 2013, he tweeted, “We should be focused on clean and beautiful air-not expensive and business closing GLOBAL WARMING-a total hoax!” In January 2014, he tweeted, “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps, and our GW scientists are stuck in ice.”

In some recent comments, Trump has continued to defy the widely held scientific consensus about man-made climate change, but his statements have become more complicated, if not entirely clear.

“I’m not a believer in global warming. And I’m not a believer in man-made global warming,” Trump told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in September. “It could be warming, and it’s going to start to cool at some point. And you know, in the early, in the 1920s, people talked about global cooling.”

That same month, Trump appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and said, “I consider climate change to be not one of our big problems. I consider it to be not a big problem at all. I think it’s weather. I think it’s weather changes. It could be some man-made something, but you know, if you look at China, they’re doing nothing about it. Other countries, they’re doing nothing about it. It’s a big planet.”

Asked by a Washington Post editorial writer in March, “Don’t good businessmen hedge against risks, not ignore them?” Trump responded, “I just think we have much bigger risks. I mean I think we have militarily tremendous risks. I think we’re in tremendous peril. I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons.”

The Pentagon, however, describes climate change as “an urgent and growing threat to our national security.”.

Earlier this year, Trump tapped North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer, who also does not accept the scientific consensus on climate change but has expressed support for a modest carbon tax, as an energy adviser. Next Thursday, Trump is scheduled to travel to North Dakota to address a gathering sponsored by an oil industry group, an audience that will likely be receptive to climate skepticism.

But Trump — who recently vowed to “at a minimum” renegotiate December’s Paris climate deal — finds his position at odds with the two-thirds of the American public who described themselves as a “great deal” or “fair amount” worried about global warming in a March Gallup poll.

The New York billionaire has not been shy about abandoning past positions on issues like gun control and abortion as his views and his political considerations have evolved. And as he pivots to the general election, his stated position could come into line with the position taken by his business.

“It’s conceivable that he might swing around on this,” Inglis said. “Of course it would be a smart political move for him or for anyone because that’s where the public’s already going. That’s where millennials are going. That’s where the future is.”

[Politico]

Four Months After Fundraiser, Trump Finally Gives $1 Million to Veterans Group

2 comments

Almost four months after promising $1 million of his own money to veterans’ causes, Donald Trump moved to fulfill that pledge Monday evening — promising the entire sum to a single charity as he came under intense media scrutiny.

Trump, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, organized a nationally televised fundraiser for veterans’ causes in Des Moines on Jan. 28. That night, Trump said he had raised $6 million,  including the gift from his own pocket.

“Donald Trump gave $1 million,” he said then.

As recently as last week, Trump’s campaign manager had insisted that the mogul had already given that money away. But that was false: Trump had not.

In recent days, The Washington Post and other media outlets had pressed Trump and his campaign for details about how much the fundraiser had actually raised and whether Trump had given his portion.

The candidate refused to provide details. On Monday, a Post reporter used Twitter — Trump’s preferred social-media platform — to search publicly for any veterans groups that had received Trump’s money.

By Monday afternoon, The Post had found none. But it seems to have caught the candidate’s attention.

Later Monday evening, Trump called the home of James K. Kallstrom, a former FBI official who is chairman of the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. The charity aids families of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement officers.

Trump told Kallstrom that he would give the entire $1 million to the group, according to Kallstrom’s wife.  Sue Kallstrom said she was not sure whether the money had been transferred yet. However on May 25th it was confirmed the transaction was completed.

Other big donors to Trump’s fundraiser had already made their gifts weeks before. Why had Trump waited so long?

“You have a lot of vetting to do,” Trump said Tuesday in a telephone interview conducted while he was flying to a campaign rally in Albuquerque.

For this particular donation, it would seem that little new vetting was required because Trump already knew the recipient well. The Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation had already received more than $230,000 in donations from the Donald J. Trump Foundation — a charity controlled by Trump but largely funded by others. Last year, the group gave Trump its “Commandant’s Leadership Award” at a gala in New York.

When asked Tuesday whether he had given the money this week only because reporters had been asking about it, Trump responded: “You know, you’re a nasty guy. You’re really a nasty guy. I gave out millions of dollars that I had no obligation to do.”

Trump’s call on Monday night stood in contradiction to an account given Friday by campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. “The money is fully spent,” Lewandowski said then. “Mr. Trump’s money is fully spent.”

On Tuesday, Trump said Lewandowski would not have been in a position to know that. “I don’t know that Corey would even know when I gave it out,” he said.

In the same interview, Trump said the fundraiser had raised about $5.5 million for veterans overall. He said he was not sure how much of it remained to be given away.

That also contrasted with the account last week from Lewandowski, who said that about $4.5 million had been raised and that Trump’s effort had fallen short of the promised $6 million because some unnamed big donors had backed out.

On Tuesday, Trump said no major contributors had reneged. “For the most part, I think they all came through,” he said. “Some of them came through very late.”

Trump also said he had never actually promised that the fundraiser had raised $6 million. “I didn’t say six,” he said.

But, in video of the event, Trump tells the crowd, “We just cracked $6 million! Right? $6 million.”

Trump was told that he did, indeed, say “$6 million.”

“Well, I don’t, I don’t have the notes. I don’t have the tape of it,” he said. “Play [the tape] for me. Because I’d like to hear it.” Before the video could be cued up, Trump had moved on.

The story of his nighttime gift seemed to highlight a unique quality of Trump: his acute sensitivity to losing face on social media. He had routinely rejected questions about the fundraiser for veterans if they were posed in person.

“Why should I give you records?” Trump said in an interview with The Post earlier this month, when he was asked about the money. “I don’t have to give you records.”

Then, on Monday, a Post reporter publicly queried multiple veterans groups on Twitter, asking whether they had received personal donations from Trump. None had.

Hours later, after 10:38 p.m. Eastern time, Trump responded on Twitter: “While under no obligation to do so, I have raised between 5 & 6 million dollars, including 1million dollars from me, for our VETERANS. Nice!”

And sometime that same evening, Trump called to make the donation to James Kallstrom’s group. Sue Kallstrom wasn’t sure what time the call was, only that it happened after she went to bed at 8 p.m.

“I guess he wants to take care of the vets,” she said. Among its other good works, the foundation provides $30,000 educational grants to the children of the fallen. “The foundation is thrilled, because the [money] is going to help a lot of people. Especially the children.”

Trump’s campaign has said the remainder of the donations would be given out by Memorial Day. Trump said he would ask his staff to send The Post a list of the groups that would receive that money, but his staff did not immediately provide it.

But it did appear that Trump’s staff was preparing to disburse more gifts. In Boston on Tuesday, the founder of  the city’s annual Wounded Vet Bike Run got a call.

“For some reason, a Trump campaign worker reached out to me today  and asked for our nonprofit number, and I gave it to ’em,” said Andrew Biggio, the group’s founder.

The annual motorcycle ride raises money to help veterans and their families, including giving away cars and retrofitting motorcycles for the disabled. He said the staffer did not tell him how much money to expect. “I have no idea what’s coming down the pike,” Biggio said.

In recent weeks, other veterans  groups had been struggling to figure out how to ask for some of Trump’s remaining money. Trump had provided no formal way to apply.

Biggio said he had not formally applied but was pretty sure how he had come to be on Trump’s radar.

“I served in Iraq with Donald Trump’s bodyguard’s son,” he said.

(h/t Washington Post)

Reality

Donald Trump made good on his promise to give $1 million dollars to veteran charities, four full months after he claimed he already donated the money.

While a $1 million dollar donation to veterans groups is an amazing gesture, it is hardly altruistic. The televised fundraiser only came about so he could dodge debate questions from Megyn Kelly about his past sexist comments towards women. Then Trump attempted to extort Fox News for an illegal “quid pro quo” donation of $5 million dollars to appear at their Iowa debate. Then for the next 4 months Trump lied again and again when he boasted about his charitable donation to his rallies.

On 1/28, Trump released a press release indicating that Mr. Trump made a $1 million dollar contribution at a special event in Des Moines to benefit vets.

The conservative newspaper The Weekly Standard broke the story on 2/18 that the Trump campaign was refusing to acknowledge how much money was disbursed saying, “You can do your homework and ask the veterans’ organizations.” They did and found out that only about $500,000 was distributed to veterans charities at that time.

On 2/26, the conservative pundit Stuart Varney on Fox Business News corroborated The Weekly Standard’s story with their own investigation by checking with the charities a full month after the fundraiser and found that only $650,000 of the supposed $6 million raised had been distributed to charities.

Two months after the fundraiser on 4/7, the not-very-liberal Wall Street Journal again talked to the veteran charities and found only $2.4 million was distributed.

Then on 5/20, The Washington Post followed up with the 22 veteran charities and only $3.1 million could be accounted for. Furthering the scandal, the Trump campaign confirmed that only $4.5 million and not $6 million was raised while claiming $1 million dollars donated by Trump was already given to the charities but refused to share evidence:

Did Trump make good on his promise to give from his personal funds?

 

“The money is fully spent. Mr. Trump’s money is fully spent,” Lewandowski said.

 

To whom did Trump give, and in what amounts?

 

“He’s not going to share that information,” Lewandowski said.

As recent as 5/23, a day before this story broke, Donald Trump tweeted and was still claiming the money was donated.

And finally 5/24 The Washington Post concluded its investigation which uncovered the story that Trump never gave any money to a veterans charity. Once that fact came to light then, and only then, did Trump cut a check to a single charity.

Then, to the surprise of no one, Trump insulted the reporter who caught him trying to cheat our veterans, then later at a press conference tried to turn this around on the “dishonest” media.

As a side note, this is the first time Donald Trump has given any of his personal money to a charity of any kind in over 5 years.

But Donald Had to Vet the Charity!

Donald Trump donated $100,000 dollars to the same charity in April of 2015. As far as the Trump Organization is concerned, the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation was already a trusted charity.

Media

Links

The Washington Post explains their methodology for uncovering the story.

Trump Protesters Smash Door, Break Through Barriers

One comment
Protests at Trump Albuquerque, New Mexico rally.

Protesters lit fires, smashed a door and threw rocks outside a Donald Trump rally Tuesday night in New Mexico — the latest scuffle to follow the presumptive Republican nominee’s campaign.

The scene outside Albuquerque’s convention center was chaotic as police ushered protesters away from Trump’s event and into the nearby streets.

There, anti-Trump protesters — many critical of his positions on immigration — loudly chanted, “Fuck Donald Trump.”

The protesters had broken a glass door to the convention center. Some taunted police and jumped on police vehicles as officers in riot gear and on police horses moved them away from the convention center’s exits.

Trump had already left the event.

The scene was reminiscent of the violence between Trump supporters and protesters in Chicago in March.

This time, though, police kept protesters and Trump supporters apart, and didn’t arrest or clash with the protesters.

Despite initial word of gunshots, Albuquerque’s police department said on Twitter that there was “no confirmation” of gunshots.

“There is no confirmation that any gunshots were fired, contrary to reports. Possible damage to Convention Center Windows by pellet gun,” the department tweeted.

Police reported rocks and bottles being thrown at their police horses, but downplayed their clashes with protesters on Twitter, noting that they hadn’t used tear gas and had not arrested any of the protesters.

“The smoke that has been seen is not tear gas, it’s just smoke. We have not deployed tear gas at this time,” the police tweeted.

Police added: “Only arrests at this point have been from inside the rally.”

Inside Trump’s event, protesters disrupted him sporadically. At least three were forcefully removed by police after they refused to leave.
A group of a dozen protesters in the grandstands around the stage where Trump spoke unfurled banners that read “Undocumented Unafraid” and “We’ve heard enough.” Another banner accused Trump of being a fascist.

At one point, a woman in what appeared to be a bra was throwing fake money in the air in the stands behind Trump. She was eventually escorted out by police and security.
It’s not the first instance of violence at a Trump event. In March, there were violent clashes between Trump’s supporters and protesters in Chicago, at an event that Trump decided to cancel.

Protesters inside Trump events have faced violence, too. One was punched at an event in North Carolina, with the Trump supporter involved in the incident later facing criminal charges.

Eventually, the Albuquerque police tweeted, “Appears that most of the @realDonaldTrump protestors have left & remaining contingent is only looking to cause trouble & be destructive.”

(h/t CNN)

Reality

Violence has no place in our political process and should be condemned from all sides.

Donald Trump says a lot of divisive and hateful statements, escalation of tensions may only seem natural. However as a protester, engaging in violence only plays into the hands of Donald Trump and his supporters. It gives them justification for their false sense of being victimized and allows them to paint the opposition as “thugs” and side-step our real and valid arguments.

Media

Trump Taunts Protesters, “He Can’t Get a Date, So He’s Doing This Instead”

Leave a comment

Donald Trump may now be the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, but that doesn’t stop him from reacting to hecklers in the same way he has throughout his campaign.

At a particularly turbulent rally in New Mexico, where demonstrators clashed with police outside the venue, multiple protesters interrupted Trump during his speech.

Trump used his trademark “Get ’em out!” dismissal for at least one and brushed off another by declaring it “So exciting.”

Another man’s forced exit prompted Trump to go on the offensive. “He can’t get a date, so he’s doing this instead,” he said.

The heckler who caught the most of Trump’s attention was a young boy seen shouting at the candidate.

“How old is this kid? Still wearing diapers,” Trump said. “I’m telling you, the kid looks like he’s 10 years old. I’ve never seen it.”

“I said, ‘Get out of here,’ and he ran out. It was great. I wish everybody —” Trump said without finishing the sentence.

The real estate mogul and former reality show star is known for mocking and unceremoniously ejecting hecklers at his events.

(h/t ABC)

Reality

Rather than addressing the content of their grievances, Trump instead chooses to insult the protesters like a schoolyard bully. This is not the temperament of a President of the United States of America.

Trump, on multiple occasions, has defended violence against protesters, encouraged violence against protesters, and promised violence. It stands to reason that it is Trump’s actions and behavior that creates an environment where violence against protesters is acceptable.

Media

Trump Brings Up Debunked Vince Foster Conspiracy Theory As “Very Fishy”

Leave a comment
Deputy White House counsel Vince Foster suicide.

There’s no such thing as a conspiracy theory that Donald Trump will not believe.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Trump called the circumstances surrounding former Clinton Deputy White House counsel Vince Foster’s death in 1993 “very fishy,” saying the aide had “intimate knowledge” of events surrounding the Clintons.

I don’t bring [Foster] up because I don’t know enough to really discuss it. I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I don’t do that because I don’t think it’s fair.

Deputy White House counsel Vince Foster was found dead in Fort Marcy Park off the George Washington Parkway in Virginia, outside Washington, D.C., on July 20, 1993.

(h/t The Hill)

Reality

Donald Trump didn’t want to discuss the Foster conspiracy theory… by discussing it? How is that statement not dishonest?

Vince Foster’s death in 1993 was concluded to have been a suicide by inquiries/investigations conducted by the United States Park Police, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the United States Congress, Independent Counsel Robert B. Fiske, CNN, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr who was not a fan of the Clintons. The idea that Vincent Foster’s death was anything other than a suicide flies in the face of all available evidence, including Foster’s own suicide note. But yet this never stops wingnut conspiracy sites like WND, Breibart, and The Daily Mail from keeping fiction alive.

This is not the only false or unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that Donald Trump subscribes to. Some examples are:

Trump Promises NRA He Will Remove Gun Free Zones

Leave a comment
Donald Trump accepting the NRA endorsement.

Donald Trump on Friday called Hillary Clinton “the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment” presidential candidate to ever run for office and likened her posture on the issue to that of a dictator.

“Hillary’s pledged to issue new anti-gun executive orders, you know that. This is the behavior, you could say of a dictator. This is the behavior of somebody, frankly, I think that doesn’t know what she’s doing,” Trump said in a speech at the National Rifle Association Leadership Forum. She’s not equipped to be president in so many different ways. This is the thinking of a person that is not equipped to be the president of the United States. Believe me, she doesn’t understand it.”

He also echoed Bernie Sanders’ attacks on Clinton — the Vermont senator challenged whether the former secretary of state was qualified and had the temperament to be president.

“Bad judgment. We talk about it. She’s got bad judgment. You know where it came from,” Trump said. “It came from me and also came from her current opponent, who’s doing pretty well, I’ll tell you.”

Trump also vowed to get rid of gun-free zones, invoking the July 2015 shootings in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in which a gunman opened fire in gun-free zones on military installations there, eventually killing five people. (The FBI later said the attacks were “motivated by foreign terrorist organization propaganda.”)

“That wasn’t part of my speech, I must be honest with you,” Trump admitted. “I don’t know. I don’t know. Maybe I shouldn’t read you what I have here. But in fact, if I would have known teleprompters, I would have used them.”

Before Trump began addressing the crowd in Louisville, Kentucky, the NRA formally announced its endorsement of the billionaire, warning of the dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency. But throughout his remarks, the real estate mogul echoed much of what NRA’s leadership said in their comments preceding his appearance.

“Hillary wants to disarm vulnerable citizens in high crime neighborhoods, whether it is a young single mom in Florida or a grandmother in Ohio, Hillary wants them to be defenseless, wants to take away any chance they have of survival,” Trump said. “By the way, you have men and you have women sitting in an apartment. And outside is tremendous crime. Tremendous crimes of all kinds. And they need to be protected. And you know, the only way they are going to be able to protect themselves. And if you take that gun away from them, it’s gonna be a very unfair situation.”

“That’s why we’re going to call her Heartless Hillary. We can do without that,” Trump said, though he added, “I like Crooked Hillary better.”

(h/t Politico)

Reality

Donald Trump claimed that gun-free zones are like “bait” to a “sicko” to much applause to the NRA members in attendance. Actually Trump is echoing the NRA’s own argument that if guns are not allowed near schools and government buildings then shootings cannot be stopped by a “good guy with a gun.” However the empirical evidence is not on Trump’s side.

In 2014 the FBI released a reported titled “A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013” which looked over 13 years of data and a of total of 160 incidents, and concluded the concept of a good guy with a gun was unequivocally proven to be a myth. The number of times a shooting ended after armed citizens exchanged gunfire with the shooters only amounted to 5 times (3.1%). In contrast the number of times unarmed citizens safely and successfully disrupted the shootings was 21 times (13.1%).

Donald Trump also parroted the NRA claim that more guns make Americans safer. Let’s forget for a moment of the NRA’s round-up program, where the NRA’s lobby wing receives money every time a gun is purchased in the United States, this argument again has zero basis in the documented evidence. A review of the academic literature by Harvard University looked at a broad array of evidence and concluded where guns are more available, there are more homicides by firearm.

Instead the FBI and academia recognizes that seeking to prevent these tragedies is clearly the best result.

Media

Trump Campaign Admits It Did Not Raise $6 Million for Veterans

2 comments
Trump at rally for vets in Des Moines

One night in January, Donald Trump skipped a GOP debate and instead held his own televised fundraiser for veterans. At the end of the night, Trump proclaimed it a huge success: “We just cracked $6 million, right? Six million.”

Now, Trump’s campaign says that number is incorrect.

Campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said the fundraiser actually netted about $4.5 million, or 75 percent of the total that Trump announced.

Lewandowski blamed the shortfall on Trump’s own wealthy acquaintances. He said some of them had promised big donations that Trump was counting on when he said he had raised $6 million. But Lewandowski said those donors backed out and gave nothing.

“There were some individuals who he’d spoken to, who were going to write large checks, [who] for whatever reason . . . didn’t do it,” Lewandowski said in a telephone interview. “I can’t tell you who.”

Lewandowski also said he did not know whether a $1 million pledge from Trump himself was counted as part of the $4.5 million total. He said Trump has given that amount, but he declined to identify any recipients.

The comments appear to be the first acknowledgment — almost four months later — that Trump’s fundraiser had brought in less than the candidate said. Lewandowski said he did not know the exact total raised or how much of it remained unspent.

Even with the lower total, Trump’s fundraiser brought in millions of dollars for veterans’ charities. The Washington Post’s accounting, based on interviews with charities, has found at least $3.1 million in donations to veterans groups.

Trump’s fundraiser Jan. 28 was an indelible moment, a one-night showcase of the GOP front-runner’s boldness and charm.

In a single evening in Des Moines, Trump showed Fox News — the host of that night’s Trump-less debate — that he was powerful enough to spurn the Fox network.

At the same time, he showed a national audience that he could conjure a multimillion-dollar benefit out of nothing, using connections, showmanship and his own wealth.

“Donald Trump — another great builder in New York, now a politician — I can’t stand this, a politician,” Trump said, in his trademark run-on style, after he’d listed a series of gifts from other wealthy friends. “I don’t want to be called a politician. All talk, no action — I refuse to be called a politician. Donald Trump gave $1 million. Okay?”

In the days after the fundraiser, Trump repeated the $6 million figure in TV appearances and at Iowa rallies. “At that rally we raised, in one hour, $6 million. Is that good?” Trump said four days afterward at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

At first, he was very public about giving the money away. In rallies across Iowa, Trump would call representatives of local veterans groups up to the stage and present them with oversize checks.

In some cases, the money came from friends of Trump’s who sent checks directly to veterans groups. In other cases, the money was routed through Trump’s personal foundation.

For the groups that received this money — often dealing with aging veterans from the Vietnam War, along with returning troops from Iraq and Afghanistan — the money was an enormous help.

“It’s all long gone,” said James Kallstrom, a retired FBI official who is the chairman of the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. In March, his group received $100,000, which Kallstrom said would go toward $30,000 educational grants for the children of Marines killed on active duty. “I believe there was a helicopter crash that had, oh God, I forget how many there were. . . . They’re all young, and they all have young children.”

But, as the race continued, the checks from the fundraiser began to come less frequently. The most recent check identified by The Post was dated March 25.

In recent weeks, Trump and his campaign repeatedly declined to give new details about how much they have given away.

“Why should I give you records?” Trump said in an interview with The Post this month. “I don’t have to give you records.”

Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said Trump’s refusal to divulge how much of the money he had distributed raised questions about whether the candidate intended the fundraiser primarily as a public-relations effort for himself.

“That’s just shady. Right? No matter how you cut it, that’s just shady,” Rieckhoff said. “If he was going to make it right, a couple of weeks before Memorial Day would be a good time to do it. It behooves him, not just politically but ethically, to come forward and account for this money.”

Trump provided no official way for charities to apply for the money. Groups around the country still tried, sending letters and hitting up local veterans-for-Trump leaders.

“We haven’t heard anything,” said Judy Schaffer of Heroes to Heroes, a New Jersey-based group that sends veterans on nondenominational trips to Israel to prevent suicide and promote “spiritual healing.” Her group had received a donation from Trump’s personal foundation years before.

“We have a waiting list of over 200 veterans. Many of them have already attempted suicide,” Schaffer said this week. “And it keeps me up at night, not being able to send more people.”

Lewandowski said Trump has decided on about two dozen groups that will get the remainder of the money in the next couple of weeks. He said the groups have been vetted and had been chosen by word of mouth within the Trump campaign or from causes Trump had previously supported.

Lewandowski said Trump should not be faulted for promising $6 million in donations.

“What he said was, ‘We hope to get $6 million.’ He said this at an event where we were trying to get money. It was a best guess,” Lewandowski said. “That was his goal. His goal was to get somewhere around $6 million.”

On the night of the fundraiser, Trump named nine big donors, including himself.

Since then, The Post has found evidence from Trump’s staff, from the donors or from veterans charities that received money that seven of those nine gave money as promised. Those gifts added up to $3.78 million.

On top of that, Trump said small-dollar donors gave $670,000 over the Internet. That adds up to $4.45 million.

So, were those other two big donors among the ones who backed out?

One of them was a shopping-mall magnate from Ohio who did not respond to multiple calls, emails and messages from The Post seeking to confirm his donations. But even if that man did back out, his pledge was so small — $50,000 — that it would make little difference in a tally of millions.

The other donor had made a much bigger promise: Trump, with his vow to give $1 million.

In the past few days, The Post has interviewed 22 veterans charities that received donations as a result of Trump’s fundraiser. None of them have reported receiving personal donations from Trump.

Did Trump make good on his promise to give from his personal funds?

“The money is fully spent. Mr. Trump’s money is fully spent,” Lewandowski said.

To whom did Trump give, and in what amounts?

“He’s not going to share that information,” Lewandowski said.

Reality

Controversy still surrounds Trump’s January fundraiser for vets called “Scared of Debate Questions From Megyn Kelly.” Sorry that was a typo. The fundraiser was called “Rally For Vets” and Trump claimed it raised $6 million dollars, including $1 million of his own money.

Four months later and the Washington Post uncovered the fundraiser only netted $4.5 million and only $3.1 million has been distributed to charities. Furthermore the Trump campaign refuses to provide evidence that Trump donated his promised $1 million dollars.

This is serious stuff. There are real veterans with real physical and psychological problems in need. If Trump continues to claim he’s for vets then this is a lousy way to prove it.

1 … 312 313 314 315 316 … 340