Chris Christie's Bridge Too Far

This will be another interesting comparison of the media standard for Hilary vs. Trump. We know that Trump has the lowest bar in electoral history in the media where she can't neglect to cross a single t or dot a single i or the media starts howling as if it's Watergate.

Remember a few weeks ago when the media tried to hype Anthony Weiners latest sexting fiasco as somehow reflecting badly on Hillary's campaign? After all, Weiner has no connection to the campaign but her husband does and Hillary is responsible for who someone who works for her marries.

Just as Huma herself of course per the misogynistic press, is responsible for her husband's behavior even if she's a victim of it herself. This was the same thought process when some pundits like Ruth Marcus declared Bill's 90s infidelities 'fair game' regarding Hillary's campaign 20 years ago. She has to pay for being the victim of infidelity. It's fair game.

Now we hear that, yeah, just as many of us always suspected, Chris Christie did know about Bridgegate all along. The idea that he was totally ignorant was never very plausible and by Hillary standards would never work: after all, if you don't know this level of corruption is going on among high ranking staffers in your own office that's almost as bad.

"Wow. Chris Christie knew about Bridgegate plan as it was happening, prosecutors say. http://nyti.ms/2dakhzf "

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/777900820994125824

"Gov. Chris Christie was told of the George Washington Bridge lane closures as they were occurring in 2013, a federal prosecutor told jurors on Monday in U.S. District Court."

"David Wildstein, who has already pleaded guilty to playing a role in the incident, and Bill Baroni, who is now on trial for his alleged role in the scheme, “bragged” about the traffic gridlock that lane closures were causing when they spoke with the Republican governor at a Sept. 11 memorial in Lower Manhattan, Assistant U.S. Attorney Vikas Khanna said."

"The two Christie-appointed former Port Authority officials mentioned the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, Mark Sokolich, whom they are accused to trying to punish after he refused to endorse Christie’s reelection campaign, the prosecutor said."

“The evidence will show that Baroni and Wildstein were so committed to their plan that, during the precious moments they had alone with the governor, they bragged about the fact that there were traffic problems in Fort Lee and that Mayor Sokolich was not getting his calls returned,” Khanna told jurors during his opening remarks on Monday morning.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2016/09/federal-prosecutor-says-christie-knew-about-lane-closings-105584#ixzz4Kj3rJgIA

Remember Christie is a very high ranking surrogate in Trump World. While Weiner had nothing to do with Hillary's campaign, Christie was one of just three finalists for Trump's VP.

He is expected to get a plum cabinet post in any Trump Administration.

Yet Trump hires only the best people. Christie is a corrupt, power mad hack, sort of like Trump.

Meanwhile, Christie was so mendacious in lying about Trump's birtherism that it truly disgusted no less than Glenn Kessler.

Christie wanted to be Trump's AG. Uh...

Glenn Kessler:

"The confirmation hearings for Trump's Attorney General might be interesting."

https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/777912948736069633

Meanwhile, another high ranking Trump surrogate Alex Castellanos' attempt to claim Hillary is the real birther is beyond shameful. He himself, again went Birther by again repeating the slur that Obama is a 'globalist' and that there is something 'other' about him.

So the GOP is now institutionalizing birtherism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/19/the-republican-party-is-now-institutionally-defending-donald-trumps-racism/?

But then, you know who is less popular than even Donald Trump? The Republican party itself.

https://twitter.com/evilsax/status/777932541013716992

Gary Johnson Doesn't Know Much and His Young Supporters Don't Know Much About Him

This is something that drives me nuts. The young millennials who supported Bernie were supposedly so earnest, so interested in nothing but policy substance.

Bernie himself always says it's not about personalities. But for the Bernie or Busters, this is all about personality. How else do you explain them not throwing their support behind Hillary after the concessions she gave Bernie on the MW-$15 was in the Dem platform-and on student loans(she has agreed  to the goal of making tuition free for those under a certain level of income)?

Still a large swatch of millennials are supporting Gary Johnson which makes zero sense if policy substance is what they care about.

(Happily, Jill Stein is not doing so hot).

Paul Krugman looks at this strange state of affairs:

"Does it make sense to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president? Sure, as long as you believe two things. First, you have to believe that it makes no difference at all whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump moves into the White House — because one of them will. Second, you have to believe that America will be better off in the long run if we eliminate environmental regulation, abolish the income tax, do away with public schools, and dismantle Social Security and Medicare — which is what theLibertarian platform calls for."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/opinion/vote-as-if-it-matters.html

Evidently, many millennials think there's no difference between Hillary and Trump on environmental regulation!

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/777831684699983872

Back to Krugman:

"But do 29 percent of Americans between 18 and 34 believe these things? I doubt it. Yet that, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, is the share of millennial voters who say that they would vote for Mr. Johnson if the election took place now. And the preponderance of young Americans who say they’ll back Mr. Johnson or Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee, appear to be citizens who would support Mrs. Clinton in a two-way race; including the minor party candidates cuts her margin among young voters from 21 points to just 5."

So I’d like to make a plea to young Americans: your vote matters, so please take it seriously.

"Why are minor candidates seemingly drawing so much support this year? Very little of it, I suspect, reflects support for their policy positions. How many people have actually read the Libertarian platform? But if you’re thinking of voting Johnson, you really should. It’s a remarkable document."

"As I said, it calls for abolition of the income tax and the privatization of almost everything the government does, including education. “We would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government.” And if parents don’t want their children educated, or want them indoctrinated in a cult, or put them to work in a sweatshop instead of learning to read? Not our problem."

"What really struck me, however, was what the platform says about the environment. It opposes any kind of regulation; instead, it argues that we can rely on the courts. Is a giant corporation poisoning the air you breathe or the water you drink? Just sue: “Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.” Ordinary citizens against teams of high-priced corporate lawyers — what could go wrong?"

"It’s really hard to believe that young voters who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary think any of this is a good idea. But Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein have received essentially no media scrutiny, so that voters have no idea what they stand for. And their parties’ names sound nice: who among us is against liberty? The truth, that the Libertarian Party essentially stands for a return to all the worst abuses of the Gilded Age, is not out there."

What motivates these voters is personalities not issues like they claimed. Some just hate Hillary.

Bernie himself warns against protest voting. 

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/09/bernie-sanders-warns-supporters-now-not

Note, he didn't vote for Nader either. But to vote protest-ie, not even realize you are voting for a candidate that wants to return us to the Gilded Age is truly shameful. 

This  is my new big word for those who fail to truly grapple with what a threat a President Trump is. 

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/09/if-donald-trump-wins-i-will-never.html

Remember what Jason Hahn, formerly of RedState says:

"Remember.... a non-vote for @HillaryClinton is a half vote for @realDonaldTrump."

https://twitter.com/HahnAmerica/status/777490045074870273

Many of the anti Trump conservatives understand this best like Jennifer Rubin also does. 

If Donald Trump Wins, I Will Never Forgive America, Especially White Folks

Again, as I went through in my last post, I'm not anti white-in truth I'm about 80% white in my own ethinicity and 20% black.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/09/white-folks-should-be-ashamed-of.html

But let's face it: if Trump only has a prayer because a lot of white voters support him. Are they all racist? I wouldn't be so quick to say no.

This is how I put it in my last post:

"Good job white voters. Just think: if the electorate was as white as it was in 1984, Trump would win in a landslide. Does this mean that most white voters are racist? Well, that question takes us back to the whole flack over 'deplorables.' "

"The media got very indignant over the idea that you are assuming that everyone who votes for Trump is a racist. So should we divide Trump supporters into following two groups?"

1. Those who are voting for him because he's a racist.

2. Those who are voting for him despite him being a racist?

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/09/white-folks-should-be-ashamed-of.html

So, you know, number 2 voters aren't voting for Trump because he's a racist but despite it. So in other words, they're cool with him being a racist though that's allegedly not what attracts them to him.

Then there is the media that is so white and privileged they act like this is just a battle over 'Taste's Great' and 'Less Fillin'

Howard Finneman who can never stop talking about the fact that Trump can win as if it's some brilliant personal discovery of his can't even wait until November 9 to gloat about Hilary's loss-assuming she loses. He already has an obituary piece on her in today's Huffington Post.

Let's just say I went on an epic rant at Huffpo. I will paste my comments for you here.

"Last I will say about this. This is such a repugnant post, I could be here all day expressing my utter contempt for these three writers."

"If you are gloating about Hillary losing or predicting she's going to lose you are shameful. You ought to be ashamed. That you feel no shame shows how shameful you really are."

"We are close to electing the American Hitler. But the mostly white journalists like Finneman are cool with this. They talk about it in this detached way like a parlor game."

"We have ignorant Bernie or Busters voting for Gary Johnson who wants to eliminate SS and Medicare, the income tax, and gut all environmental regulation."

"Yet we always hear how much these millennials care about environmental regulation. I guess they don't. They don't care about student loans, or raising the MW-Johsons wants to end the MW- or any of the things they claimed are so important to them."

"No, they are all about personalities-which Benrie always warns about. "

"They just want to frustrate 'That Woman's' untoward ambitions. We know how ugly it is for a woman to be so ambitious. "

"For this, electing the American Caesar is a small price to pay. Assuming you're white."

"If you think Trump has a good chance to win you should be out volunteering, phone banking, donating what you can."

"I don't care if you're an elite Beltway journalist or a college student. If you aren't doing everything in your power, right now, today, to make sure we defeat the fascist scourge of Trumpianism, you are shameful."

"I don't care how you justify your motivations in not doing so. I don't care if you're 'uninspired. This is the very future of our country. If making a strong vote of now against Trumpism-racism, authoritarianism, birtherism-is not enough motivation for you, then there is something very warped in your thought process. "

Again, you are truly shameful. Have you no sense of shame?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-hillary-clinton-lost_us_57dc4bece4b04a1497b491b6?section=&

It's like Obama tells us: don't boo, vote.

Also: don't panic, volunteer, If you're a Berner don't gloat that this vindicates you. Instead, try working as hard as you can to get elected. If you work as hard as you can to get her elected and she still loses, then after the election, we can do a post mortem. That's the time to figure out why.

But if that's your song now, then let's face it: in truth you hope she loses so you can claim that we Dems should have voted for Bernie.

For gloating to be more important to you than repudiating the scourge that is Trumpism is shameful.

You are shameful. But do you feel shame? Just think about what you are not too worried seeing come to power.

Did you see what Trump's surrogate Alex Castellanos said on Meet the Press yesterday?

"Thank goodness the Trump campaign has put that whole “birther” thing behind it with Donald Trump’s 30-second disavowal of the whole thing, which was Hillary Clinton’s fault anyway. But you know, the fact remains that this Barack HUSSEIN Obama sure is a lot different from real Americans, even though Trump has now acknowledged he was born in Hawaii. Trump surrogate Alex Castellanos went on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday to clear matters up, pointing out that while Donald Trump completely ended birtherism, Hillary Clinton started it because even though she never said anything about Obama’s birthplace in 2008, Clinton strategist Mark Penn certainly mentioned it, which makes her far more culpable than Trump, who merely launched his political career with repeated questions (for years, including this year) about where the mystery man Barack Obama really came from. Besides, the real issue isn’t whether Barack Obama is American. It’s whether he seems American, which he definitely doesn’t."

"I think the big question about Obama is not where he was born or his faith. The big question about Obama has been, has he been — has he considered himself more of a globalist than an American? There is an otherness to this president. And people have tried to exploit that politically in different ways. The Clinton campaign tried to exploit it this way. The way their strategist said, by saying his lack of American roots is an issue."

Read more at http://wonkette.com/606695/trump-idiot-something-seem-different-about-this-obama-fella-to-you-guys#TmVvJpWmDsrzO7Wa.99

Castellanos had the gall to say this in the middle of trying to smear Hillary as the true birther. Bear in mind that most of us Hillary supporters voted for President Obama twice. So Trump is essentially trying to have it not just both ways but every conceivable way.

1. Hillary is the real birther, though he's the one who forced the President to release his papers.

2. Trump still takes credit for this.

3. But now those os us who voted for Obama twice are being smeared as the real birthers with Trump the hero that put our smearing of the President we have supported to rest.

4. Chuck Todd looked wholly unperturbed by all this.

As Greg Sargent says, the Republican party is now institutionalizing birtherism.

"So it’s come to this: The institutional position of the Republican Party in the great birther controversy roiling the 2016 campaign — a consequential chapter in our political history — is now essentially that Donald Trump did the nation a service by forcing the first African American president to finally show his papers."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/19/the-republican-party-is-now-institutionally-defending-donald-trumps-racism/?utm_term=.896e6a618ee7

Yet, these Bernie or Busters are ok with this coming to power.

If you have a better word from this than shameful, I'd like to hear it.

White Folks Should be Ashamed of Themselves

Saying this is a little strong but I mean it.

Let me first say that I am not anti-white, in fact I'm half white myself; what used to be called a 'Mulatto' and today is called biracial. In truth, I'm actually more than half white as my mother herself is biracial.

And though some have argued I should I have never self identified as 'black'-I don't identify as white either. I'm happy the surveys now seem to be accommodating those of us of mixed race finally.

But let's be honest: politically speaking white people are the problem. They voted for Brexit in Britain; if only there were more voters of color it wouldn't have happened.

Brexit was first and foremost about white grievance-though many try to apologize for them by claiming it's about economic anxiety. So no people of color are economically anxious?

In the US, POC make up a bigger portion of the electorate so we have a very good chance of defeating Trumpism here.

Today's Upshot poll has it neck and neck in Florida.

"Donald J. Trump has almost no plausible path to the White House unless he wins Florida, a rapidly changing state where Hispanic voters could deal a decisive blow to his chances."

"But a new poll, by The New York Times Upshot/Siena College, suggests that Mr. Trump is keeping his hopes alive in Florida, the largest and most diverse of the crucial battleground states. The reason: White voters favor him by a large margin."

"Mrs. Clinton leads by a single point, 41 to 40 percent, among likely voters in a four-way race that includes Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. The race is tied in the head-to-head race, 43-43."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/19/upshot/florida-poll-clinton-trump.html?

Good job white voters. Just think: if the electorate was as white as it was in 1984, Trump would win in a landslide. Does this mean that most white voters are racist? Well, that question takes us back to the whole flack over 'deplorables.'

The media got very indignant over the idea that you are assuming that everyone who votes for Trump is a racist. So should we divide Trump supporters into following two groups?

1. Those who are voting for him because he's a racist.

2. Those who are voting for him despite him being a racist?

If you are voting for Trump despite him being a racist there is still something very wrong with you. Sorry, but you don't get a pass.

Anyone who is at all ok with President Trump-including the Beltway media and some spiteful Bernie or Busters ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Assuming they have any sense of shame.

I honestly don't understand how anyone is complacent about the possibility of a Trump Presidency as Beltway insider Howard Finneman is. He's already writing HIllary's obituary 50 days before the election.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-hillary-clinton-lost_us_57dc4bece4b04a1497b491b6?section=&

Finneman is always talking about how 'Trump can win, He can he really can win. Trump really can win.'

So why aren't you out volunteering phone banking, donating to stop that from happening? Now doubt his answer would be: 'I'm a journalist not a partisan.'

But being neutral here whether you call yourself pretty names like 'journalist' or 'reporter' is shameful. It shows you're ok with a crypto fascist racist in the Oval Office. Full stop.

If you aren't motivated to vote I don't get it. Your very life depends on it. If that's not motivation enough for you, then there's something deeply wrong.

It's just too bad that I and many other POC am at your perverse mercy and you just 'aren't inspired enough.'

What about aspiring to reject Trumpism and everything it represents? Think about what Trumpianism represents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/19/the-republican-party-is-now-institutionally-defending-donald-trumps-racism/?utm_term=.896e6a618ee7

As Krugman says, vote as if your vote matters, because it does.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/opinion/vote-as-if-it-matters.html

More Polls Suggest Tightening May be Over

Josh Marshall has an interesting analysis of the new Pennsylvania poll. 

"A new Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll is out last night shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by 9 points in a head to head match up and 8 points when third party candidates are added."

"A few points of context about this poll are worth noting."

"First, this is a highly respected in-state pollster. And the margin is significantly above what was the PollTracker Average (a 4.3 percentage point margin for Clinton) prior to this poll. Needless to say, if polls didn't show Clinton with a lead in Pennsylvania that would signal fairly dire election scenario. But this poll shows a margin higher than the current trendline. Indeed, the last time the average was in this territory was in early August. (With the addition of this poll, the PollTracker Average moved to Clinton +6.3."

"Now, what does this tell us?"

"It may just tell us that Clinton likely still has a lead in Pennsylvania, which is nice to know but something we assume. I believe it suggests something more though. The last polls recorded for Pennsylvania were from the first week of this month. The final date on which the most recent poll was in the field was September 9th - in other words, entirely before but just before "deplorables" and Clinton's health scare. This poll was taken from Monday to Friday of last week, 9-16th. If the rapid contraction of Clinton's lead that began that weekend were persisting, or if Trump's upward momentum were continuing and propelling him into a clear lead nationwide, we would expect to see some further tightening of the margin in Pennsylvania too. But we don't. We actually have a Clinton lead about twice as large as average before the poll was released. That's significant."

"Now, a few obvious caveats. This is one poll in one state. Muhlenberg is a highly-rated in-state poll - they know Pennsylvania. But I believe this is their first poll of the race this year. So we have no earlier Muhlenberg poll to compare it to. Like any poll, this one has a margin of error which, from a statistical point of view, could place the race near a tie. With all that said, though, this poll is significant because it's one possible piece of evidence for what we discussed as a possibility Friday: that the shift in the numbers we saw last week wasn't a decisive turn in the race but an ephemeral response to two fairly high intensity news events that demoralized Clinton's supporters and energized Trump's."

"We'll need more state and national polls to know whether what I call the 'Clinton Wall' remains intact. But this poll is more consistent with that hypothesis than a true shift in the dynamics of the race."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-notable-new-poll

There is more data to back up Marshall's theory.

1. As I've discussed her approval rating has been on the rise lately. While it's still not high, it's better than it has been. In an Economist/YouGov poll that came out last week she's now upside down onlyl 46-53; again, not great but better than it has been and the best she's had in YouGov since last December. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html

In addition, Gallup showed her rally 4 points on the week to 40-55. She was at 37-58 in early September which might suggest the tightening we've been seeing is i the rearview window.

A Fox News poll has her at 45-54. So her favorability is o the upswing-though clearly there's plenty of room for improvement.

2. A Morning Consult poll that shows her up 3 points in a head to head the last week.

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/777566359010025472

"Clinton Maintains Lead Over Trump Despite Health Scare."

https://morningconsult.com/2016/09/18/clinton-maintains-lead-trump-despite-health-scare/

Don't get me wrong. It was never clear to me even if God forbid she wasn't ok-which she is-this would make anyone want to vote for Donald Trump. A choice between Trump and Tim Kaine is a no-brainer. 

In the four way with Morning Consult, Gary Johnson is down a couple of points. With him not making the debate and people realizing the best kept secret about him post Aleppe that he doesn't know anything, hopefully his numbers continues to slip 

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/777553152677703680

Politico Fails to Call out Kellyann Conway's Lie that Clinton is the Real Birther

Kellyann Conway's True Lies. After watching her appearance on Chuck Todd that's the best description of her performance.

That she repeated Trump's new birther lie-that Hilary Clinton invented birtherism-is no surprise as Ms Conway is presumably well compensated for telling Trump's many mendacious lies.

What is truly sad to see is that Politico is back to their old tricks:

"Conway: Birther theory started with Clinton campaign."

"The theory that President Barack Obama was actually not born in the Untied States started in Hillary Clinton's campaign for president in 2008, Donald Trump's campaign manager argued in an interview that aired Sunday, two days after Trump himself conceded that Obama was born in the United States."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-campaign-manager-birther-clinton-228331#ixzz4Kd5NABqZ

We had seen some better reporting in the immediate aftermath of Trump's birther infomercial on Friday, where the media took it personally that he again rolled them. We saw some of the print media actually calling out Trump's' lies in real time.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/09/print-media-starting

Even Politico had been doing better when it at least called Trump out in a Politico post title for 'distorting' Hillary's immigration record.

However, this Politico writer, Daniel Strauss, is back to 'Opinions differ on the shape of the earth.'

It's depressing to always having to criticize journalists and public servants. But if the shoe fits...

However, while I chided Kasich for not ruling out voting for Trump in his Chuck Todd interview and for ruling out voting for Hillary

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/09/chances-are-miniscule-ill-vote-for-trump.html

give him credit for the following. In the same interview he did say Trump owes Obama an apology.

"Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) said in an interview broadcast Sunday that he thinks Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump should apologize to President Obama for questioning his citizenship.

"You know, yeah," the Ohio governor told NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked if Trump owes the president an apology.

"Kasich, who ended his own presidential bid in May and has not endorsed the Republican nominee, said he doesn't agree with questioning Obama's birthplace."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/296498-kasich-trump-owes-obama-apology-for-birtherism-claim

This is pretty big. This is the GOP Governor of Ohio that Trump needs and for him to rebuke him this way is a positive.

Not saying it's everything but it's something. 

I Had Zero Borrowings From My Dad's Estate... I Give You My Word

Which kind of shows you what his word is worth.

"Who among us hasn’t needed a $9 million loan from dad every once in a while?"

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/777305064994181121

By way of comparison, my Dad loves to tell me his belief that leaving your money to your kids shouldn't be automatic.

In other news, the NY Times is back in the journalism. Here's the proof:

"My lawyers want to sue the failing @nytimes so badly for irresponsible intent. I said no (for now), but they are watching. Really disgusting."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/777280259875975169

That is when you know you're doing your job properly. What set Trump off is the Times actually vetting him. They are doing investigative journalism rather than simply saying 'We asked, Trump won't release his tax returns, by the way Hillary's email server sure was an outrage.'

"A Trump Empire Built on Inside Connections and $885 Million in Tax Breaks."

"The way Donald J. Trump tells it, his first solo project as a real estate developer, the conversion of a faded railroad hotel on 42nd Street into the sleek, 30-story Grand Hyatt, was a triumph from the very beginning."

The hotel, Mr. Trump bragged in “Trump: The Art of the Deal,” his 1987 best seller, “was a hit from the first day. Gross operating profits now exceed $30 million a year.”

"But that book, and numerous interviews over the years, make little mention of a crucial factor in getting the hotel built: an extraordinary 40-year tax break that has cost New York City $360 million to date in forgiven, or uncollected, taxes, with four years still to run, on a property that cost only $120 million to build in 1980."

"The project set the pattern for Mr. Trump’s New York career: He used his father’s, and, later, his own, extensive political connections, and relied on a huge amount of assistance from the government and taxpayers in the form of tax breaks, grants and incentives to benefit the 15 buildings at the core of his Manhattan real estate empire."

"Since then, Mr. Trump has reaped at least $885 million in tax breaks, grants and other subsidies for luxury apartments, hotels and office buildings in New York, according to city tax, housing and finance records. The subsidies helped him lower his own costs and sell apartments at higher prices because of their reduced taxes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/nyregion/donald-trump-tax-breaks-real-estate.html

He also wrongly took all sorts of 9/11 tax breaks

"NBC is also taking a deeper dive into Trump's myriad conflicts of interest post Kurt Eichenwald's big Newsweek piece. "

"If Donald Trump wins the election in November, he'll be the most conflict-of-interest-prone president in modern history thanks to the sprawling business empire he's built over the last several decades. He controls more than 500 companies across many industries."

"The Republican has said if he's elected to the nation's highest office, he'll hand the reins of his businesses to his children and not "discuss it with them." And in the wake of a new Newsweek report raising questions of potential conflicts of interests with international dealings, Trump declared he would "absolutely get out in some form" if there were sanctions placed on countries where the Trump Organization operates."

"Hillary Clinton's campaign has called on Trump to go further and divest from the entire Trump Organization should he become commander in chief. Mitt Romney had vowed to place his massive fortune in a blind trust were he elected. But it's different for Trump — there's nothing "blind" about the vast business empire Trump has built. He's seen it all."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-would-president-trump-manage-his-business-empire-n649611?cid=par-twitter-feed_20160918

Off topic. Regarding the explosion in NYC, Trump predictably got ahead of himself immediately.

"Explosions are not the same thing as bombs. At the time Trump made his claim, no confirmation of a bomb."

https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/777336363708395520

By the way, the issue is not whether or not this proves to be true. The issue is that a President can't get ahead of the facts and offer his own speculations whether or not these later prove accurate.

We expect nothing more from Trump, of course.

But the media needs to do better.

"You know this election needs to end when a bomb explodes in NYC, little is known & all @cnn talking about is how the candidates responded."
https://twitter.com/jonathanweisman/status/777480686282350596

This is one of the true bane of postmodern reporting; I use the word postmodern quite deliberately and aware of how pejorative it is in connection with journalism.

What i'm referring to is  second order reporting where the media goes right from what just happened, the truth or falseness-to 'So how will it help/hurt Hillary/Trump?'

When a tragedy like last night in NYC-close to home for me; I live on Long Island-the media should hold off on, before even all the facts are in and verified, putting on the campaign hat and offering their own-totally uniformed-speculations on how it will help/hurt Hillary/Trump.

Then the only story becomes what the media's preferred narrative on how the tragedy effects the horse race.