While the Democratic nominee for president Hillary Clinton has drawn scrutiny for the international dealings of the Clinton Foundation, her opponent for the White House is mired in his own host of controversies relating to his philanthropic enterprise.
On Tuesday, the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that his office was opening an inquiry into the The Donald J. Trump Foundation. Schneiderman told CNN:
We’ve inquired into it. We’ve had correspondence with them. I didn’t make a big deal out of it or hold a press conference. But we have been looking into the Trump Foundation to make sure it’s complying with the laws governing charities in New York.
The investigation emerges following a string of reports from the Washington Post that Donald Trump may have used contributions to his namesake foundation for personal expenses. The Republican presidential candidate also received heat on the campaign trail for asserting that his campaign raised $6 million for veterans charities, including $1 million donated by the real estate tycoon himself.
The Trump Foundation is no stranger to controversy. Earlier this month, the philanthropic entity was fined for a political donation to a group supporting the reelection bid of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi in 2013. Bondi was tasked with deciding whether or not to pursue fraud charges against the now defunct Trump University. The fake institution of higher education scammed thousands of people through deceitful sales practices designed to prey on people’s financial insecurities.
The Trump campaign has lashed out, calling the New York Attorney General a “partisan hack.” But if the foundation’s own foot print is anything to go by, uncovering further malfeasance would hardly be a big surprise.
In his latest indiscretion, Donald Trump has committed a cardinal sin of public life – denigrating soldiers and their families. Following the DNC, the erstwhile reality star and Republican presidential candidate has gotten himself into hot water over his aggressive response to the parents of a fallen US solider.
In unscripted remarks in Philadelphia, Khizr Khan – father of Humayun S.M. Khan, a captain killed in Iraq protecting the lives of his fellow soldiers – lambasted Trump, who he said was ignorant of the US constitution. He further explained that Trump’s divisive rhetoric is an insult to those who have sacrificed so much for the country. In his speech, Khan rhetorically asked Trump:
Have you ever been to Arlington cemetery? Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America – you will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.
(Watch Khan’s powerful speech at the DNC in Philadelphia.)
Trump, known for is incautious language and offensive remarks, disparaged Khan and his wife, Ghazala Khan, in an interview with ABC. “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say,’ Trump said, describing Ms. Khan, a grieving mother. “She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”
When the candidate had an opportunity to pay homage to a deceased solider and his family, he instead felt compelled to analyze Ghazala Khan’s behavior in a baffling display of narcissism and condescension. Ms. Khan, in turn, wrote an op-ed, explaining that she could not speak because merely looking at photos of her son is such an intolerable act that it brings her to tears.
Trump’s lack of empathy has brought widespread condemnation, including from his fellow Republicans. John McCain – a US prisoner of war, Senator, and one-time GOP presidential candidate – released a statement condemning Trump:
In recent days, Donald Trump disparaged a fallen soldier’s parents. He has suggested that the likes of their son should not be allowed in the United States – to say nothing of entering its service. I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump’s statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.
Sally Bradshaw – a Republican strategist and co-author of the Republican Party’s “autopsy report” following the 2012 elections – has officially left the GOP over Trump’s response to Khan’s speech, stating that:
Donald Trump belittled a woman who gave birth to a son who died fighting for the United States. If anything, that reinforced my decision to become an independent voter. I’ve been considering the switch for months. Ultimately, I could not abide the hateful rhetoric of Donald Trump and his complete lack of principles and conservative philosophy,
As the gaffes pile up, Trump’s ability to safely navigate alliances within the GOP establishment seems increasingly limited. His sheer disdain for political norms – while endearing to his fringe base – has officially steered into hitherto unknown territory. As John Oliver expressed well on his show Last Week Tonight, when he discussed the dumbfounding quality of Trump’s injudicious remarks:
Honestly, the main takeaway from these two weeks is that, incredibly, we may be on the brink of electing such a damaged, sociopathic narcissist, that the simple presidential duty of comforting the families of fallen soldiers may actually be beyond his capabilities – and I genuinely did not think that was a part of the job that someone could be bad at.
(John Oliver discussed Trump’s dumbfounding comments to the Khan family.)
Sobering and serious words from a comedian more prone to using sarcasm and ridicule to make his points. The haunting prospect of a Trump presidency appears to weigh heavily on Oliver, as it has begun to do so for so many others in the public arena.
It what Donald Trump is now describing as a sarcastic remark, the Republican presidential nominee prodded the Russian government to hack and release Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails from her private server at a press conference in Doral, Florida.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said in front of reporters.
The response from across the political spectrum was one of astonishment. How could a presidential candidate incite a foreign power to commit espionage against the United States government? Critics decried the remarks as ignorant at best, treason at worse.
Watching their moral backflips to defend his evident Putinism, or his astonishing ignorance, is simply appalling. 9/
(Weekly Standard writer and conservative analyst Jay Cost contemplates Trump’s Russia remarks)
To contextualize the reality star’ comments, Wikileaks disclosed thousands of private emails from DNC officials last week that indicate a strong bias toward Hillary Clinton over rival Bernie Sanders in the nominating contest for the Democratic party. One email even appears to show insiders discussing how to use Sanders’ Jewish background against him in conservative regions.
The fallout from the disclosure led to the ouster of DNC chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz and a formal apology to Sanders supporters from the Democratic establishment. These emails were beyond inappropriate, and indicate a party structure in dire need of reform in order to more fairly represent its electorate
Interestingly, the emails were strategically disclosed in the run-up the DNC in Philadelphia. A cybersecurity firm hired by the Democratic party has traced the origin of the breach to two shadowy organizations named Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, hacking groups likely sponsored by the Russian state.
Putin’s government spends lavishly on its internet espionage operations, as detailed in a lengthy report by the New York Times that explores the labyrinthine underworld of state-employed trolls and hackers tasked with disseminating pro-Russian propaganda throughout the web.
Writing for Vice, King’s College Profressor Thomas Rid explains that the
forensic evidence linking the DNC breach to known Russian operations is very strong. The forensic evidence that links network breaches to known groups is solid: used and reused tools, methods, infrastructure, even unique encryption keys.
In other words, the Russian government appears to be actively meddling with the US presidential election. The revelations about the DNC’s anti-Sanders collusion is repugnant, but the manipulations of the United States’ democratic processes by a foreign power is unsettling to say the least.
And this is where we return to Trump. The candidate’s unprecedented campaign has strung together a number of unorthodox policies that are objectively pro-Russian. Even if Trump isn’t actively courting Russian assistance, and even if his remarks were truly a joke, the fact remains that Russia’s autocratic leadership would love to see a Trump presidency.
Take Trump’s stance on NATO. In recent weeks, Trump has suggested that the US refrain from assisting NATO allies should they come under attack. Like many of his other scattershot opinions, these comments drew considerable condemnation from members of his own party. The NATO alliance has long been considered a central component to the United States geo-political strategy, enjoying broad support on both sides of the aisle. The Republican presidential nominee, however, views the organization like he does all other institutions, asking: hey, what can I get out of this?
As Zack Beauchamp explains at Vox, a US pivot away from NATO would be a massive boon for Putin:
[Trump’s NATO remark is] music to Putin’s ears. He sees the NATO alliance (correctly!) as a major bulwark against Russian expansionism in eastern Europe, and would be thrilled if it fractured. That would make it far easier to install friendly dictators in small nearby countries, like Estonia, or even annex them entirely.
While open collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is unlikely, the fact remains that many in Trump’s coterie possess interests in Russia. Trump himself has been positively gushing in his support for Putin personally: “I will tell you that, in terms of leadership, he’s getting an ‘A,’” Trump explained of the Russian dictator, “and our president is not doing so well.”
That Trump would praise a murderous dictator and call on another nation to breach the cybersecurity of one of the United States’ major parties is beyond the pale. One is tempted yet again to see Trump’s antics as the result of the devil-may-care attitude of a performer who doesn’t really want to be president.
But then the reality that a Trump presidency is a distinct possibility sets in, and things get scary – fast.
The shift in energy stems partly from the over-looked fact that Democrats officially made history last night with the formal nomination of Hillary Clinton, the first-ever woman to top a party’s ticket for the presidency. This milestone is often lost amidst the vitriol and acrimony of this year’s election, but for women still fighting for gender equality it amounts to a massive victory.
No one felt the weight of this moment more, perhaps, than Jerry Emmett, the 102 year-old Arizona state delegate. The Prescott, Arizona native was born before women had the right to vote, and she remembers the first time her mother voted after the 19th Amendment was ratified on August 18, 1920.
Emmett – who founded a fan club for Hillary Clinton in Arizona – was selected by Democratic officials to read off their state’s delegate allotment during the floor roll call at the convention. When it came to the Arizona delegation to cast its votes last night, a smiling Emmett announced: “51 votes for the next president of the United States of America, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
Watch the moment below:
The viciousness and inflated rhetoric of today’s partisan politics obscure the great emotional weight behind such social progress. For Emmett – and for women across the country – last night was more than a milestone, it was a product of women’s unflagging commitment to the pursuit of equality.
(Donald Trump appearing with his wife Melania Trump at a campaign event)
The first day of the RNC in Cleveland was certainly eventful. From the last ditch effort of the #NeverTrump movement to derail Trump’s nomination to the rampant fear-mongering of the convention’s bizarre speaker lineup, the day threw into sharp relief the divisions within the GOP as well as the rather desperate tactics that the party is leaning on to propel its reality star nominee to the White House this November.
As part of this most unconventional convention, Trump himself made an appearance to introduce his wife, Melania Trump, who held the primary speaking slot for the evening.
This was an unprecedented move. The presumptive nominee for both parties has hitherto appeared only on the final night to formally accept the nomination. And while Trump’s campaign may say otherwise, last night’s shakeup of convention tradition doesn’t stem from Trump’s self-styled spontaneous approach to politics. The breach of tradition instead reflects the party’s inability to fill the speaking slots with high-ranking republicans, who have exhibited historically high levels of reluctance to appear at the convention (or to vocally support the presumptive Republican nominee at all).
But what made the evening’s closing speech most remarkable was the fact that Melania’s speech was plagiarized.
In what may amount to one of the most embarrassing moments of Trump’s entire presidential campaign, Trump’s wife repeated nearly verbatim two paragraph’s from the First Lady’s 2008 DNC speech.
Melania’s speech last night including the following words:
From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise.
That you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily life. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son, and we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow, because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.
Following the speech, journalist Jarrett Hill was quick to point out the stolen lines:
While Melania herself likely had nothing to do with the speech’s composition, this blatant plagiarism is yet another example of Trump’s flippant and juvenile organization, which has struggled to exercise the basic functions of a presidential campaign. How his handlers and aids could have overlooked something so egregious is beyond comprehension.
Following the revelations, Trump and his surrogates have offered many excuses, from somehow blaming Hillary Clinton to pointing out that English is Melania’s second language. Mistakes this lazy and unprofessional, however, result from an inward-looking campaign that has prided itself on its lack of political orthodoxy. In the end, there is no one to blame but Donald Trump himself.
Donald Trump is certainly no stranger to controversy. The highly unpopular presumptive Republican nominee for president has alienated a number of demographics through his improvisational, reactive brand of demagogic populism. From mocking a disabled reporter to accusing Mexican immigrants of being rapists, Trump’s most offensive moments have somehow left the reality star-turned-candidate relatively unscathed.
That may be changing.
Following his rivals’ departure from the GOP’s presidential primary, Trump’s mercurial temperament may finally be catching up to him as the general electorate scrutinizes his unsavory and offensive style, which often veers into blunt racism and fear-mongering.
His favorability ratings are abysmal, particularly among important demographics including women and latinos, groups whose support is essential for a winning Republican coalition in November.
Trump now appears to be digging himself into an even larger hole. One of the candidate’s recent tweets featured a meme calling Hillary Clinton the “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever.” The image also featured a Star of David overlaid on a pool of cash. It remained on Twitter for several hours before being taken down and replaced with a doctored version.
The website Mic was able to trace the meme to a forum popular with the “alt-right,” a movement steeped in neo-nazi ideology and antisemitism.
At a rally this week in Cincinnati, Trump expended a considerable amount of energy defending the image, accusing the media of dishonesty in bringing up its racist undertones. Much to the confusion of political commentators who figured that Trump would make political use of recent developments pertaining to Clinton’s private email server, Trump instead focused on the meme, stating that if he had the opportunity again, he would have left it up.
The mogul has since tweeted another image depicting a sticker book themed with Disney’s film Frozen which also includes a Star of David, rhetorically asking if the book should attract the same degree of outrage sparked by the Clinton meme. Ironically, it turns out that image itself was taken from yet another antisemitic user from the same racist web forum that gave us the Clinton meme.
Trump completely missed the original point that juxtaposing the Star of David and a pool of money peddles very dangerous anti-Jewish stereotypes that we have seen before.
Whether or not Trump’s continued inability to rebuke his antisemitic followers or cease his own dissemination of racist memes changes the landscape of the general election remains to be seen. But if his horrendous track record offending women or latinos had any correlation to Trump’s poor polling numbers with those groups, then the candidate will fare even worse at the polls than he is currently slated to.
The scale of these events is quite massive. In Philadelphia, more than 50,000 visitors from around the country will gather July 25-28 to watch political and cultural luminaries speak, as well as the Democratic candidate accept the nomination at the Wells Fargo Center – home to the Flyers and the 76ers. Approximately 20,000 individuals from national and international media outlets will be in attendance.
As part of the city’s welcoming preparation, Philadelphia has commissioned and displayed 57 painted donkey statues throughout town.
While some commentators argue for the economic benefits of hosting the convention in terms of national visibility and long-term tourism promotion, there are other cost burdens on the hosting city. National conventions have a long history of attracting large protests. Half of nearly a dozen requests for protest permits have been granted for this year’s DNC, with more unplanned protests expected to pop up around the city.
The 2000 Republican National Convention, which occurred in Philadelphia, culminated in nearly 400 arrests.
Concerns over security and violence this year, however, are even larger for Cleveland, which will host the RNC at the Quicken Loans Arena. Donald Trump – the presumptive Republican nominee – has run perhaps the most contentious and polarizing campaign in modern US history, attracting condemnation for racist and controversial statements while shoring up support among predominately white populations across the country dismayed with the political elite.
While organizers point out the safety and successful security perimeters of previous conventions that attracted large protests, this year’s RNC is unique. Left-wing protesters usually predominate at Republican conventions. Authorities anticipate anti- and pro-Trump protestors clashing in the streets, largely because they expect large volumes of right-wing protesters for the first time in recent history.
Donald Trump – the presumptive Republican nominee for the 2016 presidential bid – lauds himself for his business acumen, a characteristic that has supposedly generated untold riches.
How large that wealth is, however, is still clouded in secrecy, as the Trump campaign insists that it has no intention of releasing Trump’s tax returns – something every candidate in modern history has done.
Critic’s view his bluster as a smokescreen for what may actually be a smaller pot, earned less by Trump’s business smarts and more by the bizarre lifestyle brand he has cultivated.
As reports concerning Trump’s casino empire in Atlantic City emerge, there seems to be a growing body of evidence to prove this assertion.
Trump has bragged that his casinos and assets in the east coast gambling capital – which has been on a long, steep economic decline – triumphed over those of his competitors. Documents indicate otherwise, as Vox has helpfully broken down.
Trump considered financial success the enormous earnings he made, which stemmed largely from personal bonuses and salaries, paid for in part by selling junk bonds and bilking investors and shareholders of earnings. Indeed, his public company, according to Vox, “never turned a profit, leaving behind a trail of losses for shareholders and bondholders, and unpaid bills to contractors and subcontractors.” He may have earned money, but his businesses failed disastrously.
There seems to be a parallel between his suspect dealings in Atlantic City and his supposedly self-financed campaign. As it turns out, much of the funding he put toward his primary campaign was structured as loans to be paid back at a later date – presumably through further fundraising and financial support from the RNC.
The U.S. presidential election cycle is truly unique in the world. Involving an 18-month media frenzy, the contest is unparalleled for its drawn-out drama and immense cost.
So far, candidates have raised $720 million, and Super PACs have amassed $446 million in funding. Campaigns and third-party organizations spend a large portion of this funding on communications. From non-stop emails to seemingly omnipresent campaign spots, the candidates and the groups supporting them are competing aggressively for the public’s attention.
To complicate things for nonprofits, many campaign-related communications solicit money. This can create donor fatigue among a public eager to shut out the nonstop buzz flooding their emails.
There are, however, some steps nonprofits can take this election cycle to improve their chances of edging out their political competitors during election 2016.
1. Step Up Direct Mail – Campaigns are spending more and more on technology-based communications in order to reach a plugged-in public. This has resulted in torrents of email communications that frustrate some and spur others to blacklist institutional messages. Amp up your nonprofit’s direct mail. It’s still the best way to close on small gifts, and it is currently less inundated with political appeals than the email alternative.
2. Offer Reprieve from the Madness – For your nonprofit’s digital communications, consider adding content that may serve as a pleasant distraction from the election hubbub. Humorous videos and other visual media that tie into your mission can be just what an election-fatigued public needs.
3. Interact with Your Constituency – Remind your supporters that your nonprofit is more than a faceless institution. Connect with them on social media platforms, interact with the content they post, and thank them for their continued support. A personal touch can be refreshing stand-out quality during the nonstop slugfest between rival campaigns looking to get ahead.
4. Mind the Passions of Your Constituents – Try to avoids stepping on toes or engaging in needless political advocacy. Accidentally creating the impression of support for this or that candidate can attract negative responses from passionate individuals deeply involved in the ongoing election debates.
5. Start Planning for November Now – While the election cycle may seem interminable, it does actually end. In fact, it ends in November, during peak year-end fundraising time for nonprofits. With an eye toward the conclusion of the 2016 election, be prepared with the best possible year-end fundraising plan in order take optimal advantage of the dissipating communications rivalry from disbanding election campaigns.