Wednesday, August 24, 2016

The Media Has no Credibility to Demand a Press Conference From Hillary

This has been a constant media whine.

But here's the trouble: the media has cried wolf on the Clintons for 25 years. So for many of us, they simply have no credibility.

If you know the media will not treat her fairly than why would you care about her holding a presser? There is no reason. We know what it will be. 100 different ways of asking:

1. Why does no one like you?

2. You sure are evil for using private emails. The voters will never trust you for that.

3. You sure are evil for running the Clinton Foundation. Voters may have to vote for Trump with his Trump U, Trump Organization and his entire business model of trading in favors to voice their displeasure.

Remember that since the 90s through till today, the respectable media outlets have breathlessly picked up every Right wing conspiracy theory out there from Vince Foster, Whitewater, to Benghazi, to, yes the Clinton Foundation.

The media is still up to its own good as shown by the AP's very sloppy piece on the Clinton Foundation yesterday.

"The Associated Press has just shown us why it is important to be vigilant in how we consume the news as it is reported. They took some interesting information they gathered and spun it into something it wasn’t…scandalous. Here is their lead-in introduction:

"More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money – either personally or through companies or groups – to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president."

"At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million."

"Chris Cillizza is an example of a pundit who ran with it. In reference to that intro, he writes this:

"It is literally impossible to look at those two paragraphs and not raise your eyebrows. Half of all of the nongovernmental people Clinton either met with or spoke to on the phone during her four years at the State Department were donors to the Clinton Foundation! HALF."

"And those 85 people donated $156 million, which, according to my calculator, breaks down to an average contribution just north of $1.8 million. (Yes, I know that not everyone gave the same amount.)"

"It just plain looks bad. Really bad."

Chris Cillizza tweeted about how much he loves being a journalist today. If he is, it's just barely. About the only time he seems to write his own post is when it's a Hillary hit job.

"Now…let me pull a couple of other quotes from what he said."

"No one is alleging that the Clinton Foundation didn’t (and doesn’t) do enormous amounts of good around the world…"

"To be clear: I have no evidence — none — that Clinton broke any law or did anything intentionally shady…"

"In other words, what it comes down to is “it just plain looks bad.” That is basically what most every drummed up “scandal” against Hillary Clinton comes down to: from the perspective of the people judging her – it looks bad. Welcome to the world of optics as scandal."

One way to look at this is that the AP spun the story they wanted to tell about this information. That happens almost all the time and we often don’t notice. To clarify how that happened here, note first of all the AP headline: “Many Donors to Clinton Foundation Met With Her at State.” As Adam Khan points out – that’s actually not true."

"Yes, the politics of optics, of perception being what matters and not the facts. Cillizza can admit himself he has no proof that she did anything intentionally shady. But what does that matter? It's all about 'optics' and the 'perceptions' of people who hate Hillary Clinton to begin with."

"The Clinton Foundation has 7000 donors and 60 met with her as Secretary of State. This is the big scandal?"

"So while the media might whine about pressers, most voters don't care about it. These pressers don't inform us of anything anyway other than what we already knew: the media is totally biased in its visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton and doing a presser won't change that in the least."

As for informing the public Yglesais has made the point that we know her actual policy stances very well whereas Trump's alleged access is not informative as he's a pathological liar. Where is the value in a presser where you like 91% of the time?
Speaking of Yglesias, he has a very good piece on this trainwreck of a CF story:

The AP’s big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess

This is the media's problem. It's been 25 years of crying wolf. Their attacks for 25 years are a mess. So it's tough to start taking their whining about a presser seriously now. 

The Clinton Foundation Fights AIDS and Poverty: What's the Trump Organization Done?

Trump has said many vile things. But his attacks on the Clinton Foundation are extremely ugly when you consider the source. This is a guy who has ripped off every business partner and donor he's ever had.

He is currently being sued by 40,000 Trump U victims. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. We keep hearing-with zero evidence-that Hillary is always 'cutting corners.'

These words are weasel words. Basically they mean nothing. With Clinton scandals the press always says 'Ok, no laws were broken but it's still the biggest scandal in American history.'

"But the simple fact is nothing close to that has been uncovered."

"Look, if someone in power is selling favors, that's a big problem. It's fully worthy of being investigated by the press."

"And yet, there is a particular way a "Clinton scandal" is covered that skips over "evidence of impropriety" & goes right to "corruption"

This is the way the media has always covered Clinton scandals. A rush to judgment and totally glossing over the fact that nothing has actually been found wrong. The next weasel words are 'Yes, but optics.'

You might as well just say 'Perception is reality' ie, 'We Clinton haters perceive they did something truly awful. Ok the facts do't really show this but facts don't matter, our perceptions do.'

Yesterday, James Carville in his inimitable way warned that if the Clinton Foundation is shutdown, 'People are going to die.'

He also said that there's a special place in hell for those who are trying to shut it down. Amen. They talk about the CF as if it's Trump U or something. The truth is the org does a lot of good in the world.

Now some say why can't someone else other than the Clntons do it. So is the standard then that politicians must never do philanthropy?

And this ignores that leveraging the Clinton name is a big part of how it raises money. Yes, people are more likely to donate to the Clinton Foundation than the Joe Schmo Foundation.

From the stand point of the recipients this is a feature not a bug.

"Based on the frothy headlines, you might think the Clinton Foundation is some kind of illicit front company or sketchy offshore bank. Donald Trump wants to shut it down. The FBI has reportedly considered investigating it. A never-ending stream of once-private Hillary Clinton emails reveals donors to the foundation seeking special government favors when she was secretary of state."

In other words, you'd think the CF is Trump U.

"In reality, the Clinton Foundation is a high-visibility charity that operates in Africa, Haiti and other downtrodden places and gets good marks for many of its programs. “Generally, they’re well respected and thought of as being effective,” says Chuck McLean, senior research fellow for Guidestar, which gathers and publishes data on nonprofits. “I haven’t heard anything like they’re squandering money or they’re ineffectual.”

"Some charities draw criticism for spending too much donor money on salaries or perks for staff. The United Way once had a CEO convicted of fraud for essentially stealing the group’s money. Even the American Red Cross has been hammered for a lack of accountability over the use of $500 million donated to help Haiti after a devastating 2010 earthquake. Those sorts of allegations don’t generally surround the Clinton nonprofit, officially known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation."

"The group’s main problem, rather, is the appearance that some wealthy donors, including corporations and foreign governments, give money to the foundation in the hope of getting favors from the U.S. government in return. And the only reason this is an issue is that, while Bill Clinton has been a private citizen since leaving the White House in 2001, his wife Hillary has been a high-ranking government official most of that time—first as a New York senator, then as America’s top diplomat. If she is elected president, donors to the Clinton Foundation could be construed as seeking influence with one of the most powerful people in the world."

This is why Carville's point is not mere hyperbole.

You know what's missing in the Clinton Foundation conspiracy stories? Actual examples of favors done."

"It’s amazing that we’ve reached this point in the 2016 race — but not unexpected. A foundation that does vital work across the globe is now under vicious assault for purely political purposes."

"Once upon a time, Republicans sang the Clintons’ praises for their charitable work and happily donated to their causes, but now that’s just a hazy memory. The GOP and national media are conducting a frenzied attack against the Clinton Foundation in the hopes of derailing Hillary’s presidential campaign."

This is why Carville is right. The CF is under assault for purely political purposes.

"The 2016 election is not a replay of 2012 (the data election); it is not a replay of 2008 (the dueling histories election); it is a replay of 2004 (the swift boat election). The well-coordinated assault on the Clinton Foundation, the pillar of the Clintons’ many achievements, is analogous to the brazen assault on the pillar of John Kerry’s career, his decorated military service. … swiftboating is an intricate interplay between the conservative oppo/attack infrastructure and the mainstream media."

The Clinton Foundation is the equivalent of Swift Boat. It's classic Karl Rove where you strength-in Kerry's case is military service and heroism; in Hillary's the wonderful and vital CF work-is turned into your weakness.

It's not likely to work in this case. Kerry-Bush was a very close race where Bush had the advantages of incumbency. This race looks like it won't be close. Romney and Obama was not that close-the final electoral college margin was a near landslide and that was with a unified GOP behind Romney.

So this will be worse. But the attempt to use to destroy an organization that does so much good for so many people for political purposes is truly despicable.

If there is not a place in Hell for such people what's the use in Hell?

The Real Scandal is the Way the Clinton Foundation is Covered

I love James Carville. He just went out and said it yesterday: 'There is a special place in hell for those who are trying to shut the Clinton Foundation down. If the CF shuts down, people are going to die.'

It is simply amazing that this latest story is actually being passed off as a ''scandal' at all.

Paul Waldman:

"There’s a new round of “revelations” concerning Hillary Clinton’s time at the State Department today, and since it involves some people sending emails to other people, it gets wrapped up with that other story about Clinton. Are you ready for the shocking news, the scandalous details, the mind-blowing malfeasance? Well hold on to your hat, because here it is:

"When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, many people wanted to speak with her."

"Astonishing, I know."

"Here’s the truth: every development in any story having to do with anything involving email and Hillary Clinton is going to get trumpeted on the front page as though it were scandalous, no matter what the substance of it actually is. I’ll discuss some reasons why in a moment, but we could have no better evidence than the treatment of this particular story."

"Let’s briefly summarize what’s so earth-shaking that it gets front-page treatment on both the New York Times and the Washington Post today, not to mention untold hours of breathless cable news discussion. There are actually two stories in one."

"The first is that a federal judge has ordered the State Department to speed up its review of approximately 15,000 previously undisclosed emails that the FBI retrieved off of Clinton’s server. We have no idea what’s in them. It could be something horrifying, or it could be utterly banal. My money’s on the latter, but it’ll be a while before we know."

"The second story is that Judicial Watch, an organization that has been pursuing Clinton for many years, has released a trove of emails it obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, emails that supposedly show how donors to the Clinton Foundation got special access, and presumably special favors, from Clinton while she was at State."

"The only problem is that the emails in question reveal nothing of the sort. What they actually reveal is that a few foundation donors wanted access, but didn’t actually get it."

In the AP story yesterday they cherrypicked 85 meetings for a woman who met with 17,000 world leaders.

Hillary Clinton's campaign went on a full-court press against a familiar opponent Wednesday: the press.

"Ripping into an Associated Press report finding that more than half of the people outside the government who met with her as secretary of state donated to the Clinton Foundation, top-ranking officials with the Democratic nominee's team accused the media and critics of "cherry-picking."

"Well, because they took a small sliver of her tenure as secretary of state, less than half the time, less than a fraction of the meetings, fewer than I think 3 percent, the number they've looked at of all the meetings," chief strategist Joel Benenson told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "This is a woman who met with over 17,000 world leaders, countless other government officials, public officials in the United States. And they've looked at 185 meetings and tried to draw a conclusion from that."

Read more:

The media obsession with the Clinton Foundation is always pretty amazing. You have Donald Trump who's business model is mixing business and politics and trading on favors and yet the press thinks maybe the American people will vote against Hillary for being caught speeding a few times compared to a known felon like Donald Trump.

Trump ripped off 40,000 Americans at Trump U-and basically ripped off every vendor and business partner he ever had. Yet the outrage is that the Clintons raised money for AIDs research and poverty.

Media logic says that if Hillary every in her life got a speeding ticket that is no less wrong than Trump being a serial felon.

Judd Legum:

"Look, if someone in power is selling favors, that's a big problem. It's fully worthy of being investigated by the press."

But the simple fact is nothing close to that has been uncovered."

"And yet, there is a particular way a "Clinton scandal" is covered that skips over "evidence of impropriety" & goes right to "corruption"

Right. When a 'Clinton scandal' starts the first thing you always hear is 'Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.'

Again, maybe speeding isn't right but is it the same as grand larceny? But the media always judges her only against God Almighty.

Not that I believe she even has a speeding ticket in this case but I'm making an analogy.

For more on what the AP story didn't find in the emails, see this good Yahoo piece.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Hillary Expands Her Lead to 45-33 in New Reuters/Ipsos Poll

As Nate Silver says, today was a very tough day of polling for Donald Trump

"Pretty bad polling day for Trump after a couple where he'd seemed to be making progress. "

Hasn't it though?

We started off this morning with Survey Monkey Poll:

"National GE: Clinton 43 (+5)  Trump 38"

 "Johnson 11"

"Stein 5"

"2-Way: Clinton 50 (+8) Trump 42"

Then a Virginia poll-Obama won VA in 2012 by 4 points.

#NEW Virginia GE Clinton 48 (+16) Trump 32 Johnson 8 Stein 3

"Head-2-Head Clinton 55 (+19) Trump 36"

"Roanoke College …

Happy to see Jill Stein only at 3%. In an Ohio poll yesterday she was under 1%. #HillnotJill.

As for the main event, it's amazing. She's at 55% in two candidate race. Even in a four candidate race she's almost at 50%. Trump is at 36% in a two person race. That is truly awful in such a partisan era.

Usually if you slap an R by anyone''s name and they get 40%. In a four person race Trump is just barely over 30%.
Remember when Virginia was a swing state?

Florida is supposed to be a swing state and in some post Convention polls Trump has been a little closer than the close to or in excess of double digits he has been in PA, VA, NC, and CO.

But in a new Florida poll, he's down 14.
#NEW Florida General Election: 

"Clinton 52% (+14) Trump 38%"

 "Saint Leo University"

"Obama won FL in 2012 by 1%."

Now we have the Reuters poll where she's up by 12. In last week's Reuter's poll she was up by 5. It's been one of her weaker post convention polls.

Not this week:

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton leads Republican rival Donald Trump by 12 percentage points among likely voters, her strongest showing this month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Tuesday."

"The Aug. 18-22 poll showed that 45 percent of voters supported Clinton, while 33 percent backed Trump ahead of the Nov. 8 election."

"Clinton, the former U.S. secretary of state, has led Trump, a New York businessman, throughout most of the 2016 campaign. But her latest lead represents a stronger level of support than polls indicated over the past few weeks. Earlier in August, Clinton's lead over Trump ranged from 3 to 9 percentage points in the poll."
But he pivoted last week. He said he has regrets. How could that not move America?  He told Black people they may as well vote for him as it couldn't be worse for them than it is now. You know, where they're all poor and destitute in the ghetto.

(Remember when Bernie put his foot in his mouth on this too)?

If fairness, at least Bernie didn't keep repeating that. Trump seems to like this line as much as he did the line that Obama was the founder of ISIS.

Maybe this is not the country Trump thought he knew. And if so, that is a thing to be very thankful of. 

Ann Coulter Makes the Best Case for Hillary Yet

She says Hillary must be stopped or: the GOP will never win again.

Well, when you put it that way...

"Coulter: If Clinton wins, 'no hope for any Republican ever winning another election."

"Forget about the speculation of Donald Trump potentially starting a media company if he loses to Hillary Clinton in November, Ann Coulter said Tuesday, suggesting that if the Manhattan businessman fails to stop Clinton's election, the likes of talk-show hosts and Fox News will be made obsolete."

"I've been recommending that since the Mexico debate in his speech to get fair coverage. But I'm not sure it's worth it," the conservative commentator remarked on CNBC's "Squawk Box," explaining, "Because look, if he loses, Hillary has edge."

"Asked whether she would want to go into business with Trump, Coulter responded, "I would love to go into business with him."

Read more:

What a coincidence: I'd love for her to go into business with Trump to, though Coulter maybe should watch her back. We know what normally happens to Trump's business partners: they lose while he wins.

"If Hillary wins … she has said, Tim Kaine has said, amnesty for all illegal immigrants," Coulter said. "We know that's 30, 40 million. She's going to throw open the southern border. She's going to more than quadruple the number of Muslim refugees we bring in."

Coulter then declared that "there will be no hope for any Republican ever winning another election."

"There's no point to what I do, what talk radio hosts do, what Fox News does," she said. "Nobody goes to the game when you can't win."

Read more:

Just in case you needed more motivation for going to the polls and voting Hillary Clinton.

In Virginia, Trump continues to expand the map.

"#NEW Virginia GE

"Clinton 48 (+16) Trump 32 Johnson 8 Stein 3."

"Head-2-Head Clinton 55 (+19) Trump 36 Roanoke College."

In a four way race, Hillary us at 48%. Jill Stein gets only 3%, I'm happy to see. In an Ohio poll yesterday she was poling under 1%. #HillnotJill

If the Clinton Foundation Closes, People are Going to Die

This is yet another reason I love James Carville; yep, these are his words.

"Democratic strategist and long-time Clinton supporter James Carville said Monday if there is a complete shutdown of the Clinton Foundation, people will die."
"The press has decided that we're going to go after this and shut it down," Carville said. "You are probably going to be successful. There will be people that are going to die because of this."
"Bill Clinton announced that the Clinton Foundation will stop accepting foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton is elected president. The changes to the Foundation's donation policy comes as critics slam Hillary Clinton for leading an alleged pay-to-play operation while at the State Department."
Preach it James. The idea now seems to be that if you're a high ranking government official, you should't contribute to philanthrophy, you should not try to help anyone, you should be like Donald Trump who does nothing for no one. He's never given anyone anything and he's ripped off too many people to count. 
Or maybe be like Joe Scarborough, the MSNBC Morning Joe host.

"Somebody is going to hell" over the political attacks on the Clinton Foundation, longtime Clinton confidant James Carville declared Tuesday, denouncing the recent scrutiny and criticism of the charitable organization.

"If the Clinton Foundation had decided not to accept foreign donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, as it has recently announced it would do if she is elected president, Carville said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that the "good" thing would be that the organization would not be part of the political discussion."

Read more:

Preach it, James! Right in the belly of the beast of Morning Joe. People say MSNBC is a liberal network and they have Morning Joe on for three hours every morning. 
There's a special place in hell for these self righteous scrooges who want to destroy such a fine organization.

"The bad would be you'd be out hundreds of millions of dollars that are doing good. What the Clinton Foundation does, it takes money from rich people and gives it to poor people. Most people think that's a pretty good idea," Carville said.

"Bill Clinton also announced to supporters on Monday that he would step down from his position on the foundation board if his wife wins in November and would cease fundraising activities for the organization."

"Pressed on whether the Clinton Foundation should have clamped down on foreign donations before Clinton became secretary of state, Carville responded, "If you ask me as a political adviser, of course."

"If you ask me as a human being, eh, I’m not too sure. As a human being I think the foundation does an enormous amount of good. From a strictly political standpoint, yeah," Carville said, invoking his Catholic sixth-grade teacher to say, "somebody is going to hell over this. Because somebody, now I’m not saying here—or somewhere is. This is saving people’s lives."

"Co-host Joe Scarborough did not take kindly to the sentiment."

“I wish I could say the word I want to say. I’ll just say that’s BS," Scarborough remarked. "You know the fact is if it's a great charity and it’s a five-star rated charity, guess what, other people can raise the money. It doesn't have to be Bill Clinton calling somebody up making people think, if I give him money it could help me out. If it's a great charity, it can stand on its own and other people can raise money for it. It's not a zero-sum game. It's not having Bill Clinton raise money while his wife is running for president or else we're all going to hell and little kids are going to die across the planet.”

“They’re gonna," Carville shot back. "The other thing is, Bill Clinton has more charm and people around the world have an enormous amount of faith in him. I've traveled with him. I've seen it myself. There are not many people that have the relationships and are held in the affection around the world as Bill Clinto

Read more:

What Morning Joe said there is so stupid. Sure someone else could do it. Maybe get some guy off the street who nobody knows. Call it the Joe Schmo Foundation. How many donations will that get?

This misses the point of what philanthropy is. Obviously people who give money want something: often some sort of social recognition, etc. Or it can be a tax break. Whatever. What difference does it make if it's helping world poverty, AIDs research, fighting malaria, etc?

If you're a rich guy with billions and you want to do something for those in need, wouldn't you rather donate to a former President's charity than Joe Schmo's?

Matt Yglesias praises Hillary for bowing to politics. I find it very depressing that politics is going to hurt this many people just so some self righteous prigs on the Right wing and in the media get to feel morally superior.

Yglesias also argues that the Clinton Foundation can be understood as old fashion machine politics.

"The best way to think about the Clinton Foundation is probably as a 21st-century version of a classic political machine. It provides a mechanism for people who want to help the Clintons to contribute financially to the cause of helping the Clintons. And it provides a mechanism for the Clintons to help themselves by offering jobs to people in the Clinton circle."

"That the foundation does genuine good in the world in no way detracts from that machine-like quality."

"Any half-decent political machine would, in fact, spend a great deal of time and energy being genuinely useful to people. The choice between an influence-peddling operation and a helping-people operation is ultimately a false one. As Terry Galway’s excellent book Machine Made: Tammany Hall and the Creation of Modern American Politics argues persuasively, a good machine was not just a mechanism for extraction. To deliver favors, the machine had to deliver votes, and to deliver votes, the machine had to deliver real services to real people."

"But if you want to defend the operation on machine terms, then you would need to actually mount the defense. The Clintons’ grudging, day-late, dollar-short concessions to the viewpoint that the foundation is an unacceptable conflict of interest prevent them from mounting a coherent argument in its favor while also failing to conform to modern ideas about proper political conduct."

To tell you the truth, I'd be happy to make the argument for old political machines. The progressive reformers cared more about men's souls than their needs.

The old machines realized a man can't live on moral superiority alone.
P.S. Here's a thought from Matthew Chapman, a fellow Hillary supporter on Twitter. 
"The Clinton Foundation was the first ever org to set up a children's hospital in the Congo. Shut your ignorant mouth."

That goes for all these phony moral prigs attacking the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary to Hit Trump's Alt Right Ties

She'll be giving her speech on these ties Thursday, which was also supposed to be the day Trump gave his own speech on immigration in Colorado.

However, perhaps due to blowback from this very same Alt Right, he has now postponed the Colorado speech and a number of other speeches. This also makes you wonder is if all his Birther style conspiracy theories about Hillary's health is just projection on his part.

Trump's ties to the Alt Right are giving them hope that the may finally be 'mainstreaming.' It was enough to inspire David Duke to try running for office again; he's not even just running for the House but is going for the Senate. That's how hopeful Trump has made him.

Hillary's speech:

"Campaigning in Reno, Nevada, on Thursday, Hillary Clinton will address Donald Trump's recent campaign hires and what her campaign termed in an announcement as "his advisors' embrace of the disturbing 'alt-right' political philosophy."

"This 'alt-right' brand is embracing extremism and presenting a divisive and dystopian view of America which should concern all Americans, regardless of party," the campaign said in a statement. "In her remarks, Clinton will contrast Donald Trump's divisive views and dangerous temperament with her vision of an America that is stronger together and where everyone has a role to play in the future."

"Clinton's speech comes following last week's Trump campaign shakeup, which included the hiring of Breitbart executive Steve Bannon as its CEO. In its campaign announcement last Wednesday, the Trump campaign touted Bloomberg Politics' description of Bannon as the "most dangerous political operative in America."

Read more:

It truly is something to behold that while Trump is continuing to conduct his very clumsy 'outreach' to the African-American community, you have Breitbart running his campaign, and you have these sort of Trump staff posts found:

"Donald Trump's paid campaign staffers have declared on their personal social media accounts that Muslims are unfit to be U.S. citizens, ridiculed Mexican accents, called for Secretary of State John Kerry to be hanged and stated their readiness for a possible civil war, according to a review by The Associated Press of their postings."

"The AP examined the social media feeds of more than 50 current and former campaign employees who helped propel Trump through the primary elections. The campaign has employed a mix of veteran political operatives and outsiders. Most come across as dedicated, enthusiastic partisans, but at least seven expressed views that were overtly racially charged, supportive of violent actions or broadly hostile to Muslims."

"A graphic designer for Trump's advance team approvingly posted video of a black man eating fried chicken and criticizing fellow blacks for ignorance, irresponsibility and having too many children. A Trump field organizer in Virginia declared that Muslims were seeking to impose Sharia law in America and that "those who understand Islam for what it is are gearing up for the fight."

"The AP's findings come at a time when Trump is showing new interest in appealing to minority voters, insisting he will be fair in dealing with the 11 million people in the U.S. illegally and explicitly pitching himself to African-Americans, saying "what do you have to lose?"

"Since Trump declared his candidacy last summer, he has paid about 120 people on his campaign, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Over the weekend, the campaign reported about 70 people drawing salaries, a number that did not include a few dozen more working as consultants. A slew of hires in early August were not yet reflected in Trump's filings."

The AP was able to review the accounts of only a minority of Trump staffers: Others set their accounts to private, some could not be found or identified with confidence as Trump campaign employees.

The AP also reviewed the public social media accounts of more than three dozen employees of Hillary Clinton's far larger campaign staff and found nothing as inflammatory. One staffer said Trump's style of speaking reminded him of a roommate who had taken too many hallucinogenic mushrooms. AP also reviewed images attached to more than 19,000 stolen internal emails from the Democratic National Committee for racially or religiously inflammatory memes, finding nothing of note.

"The Clinton campaign declined to comment on its procedures for vetting staff. It employs more than 650 people, according to its FEC filings."

"One month ago, the AP sent written questions to the Trump campaign with examples of the posts. The campaign has not commented, despite several requests since."

"Veteran Republican campaign operatives said keeping an eye on staffers' social media postings has long been a standard practice."

"In vetting a prospective staffer, I'm not sure where the line would be for not hiring someone or simply asking them to take something down from social media, but there is a line," said Beth Myers, a former top Mitt Romney campaign aide.

"During Myers' work for Mitt Romney in the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, she said, social media was newer, so indiscrete or embarrassing photos were more often concerns than inflammatory views. Even outside social media, she stressed to the campaigns' staffers that what they said and did would reflect on the candidate who employed them. "Don't put anything in an email that you wouldn't want on the front page of The New York Times," she recalled telling staff. "The same thing I told my kids, I told my staffers."

Certainly good advice. Though what you can't help but conclude here is that this says something about the entire Trump campaign.

It''s like that joke that Scott Sumner eluded to: if Hitler is not an anti Semite then why are you supporting him?