This is a very interesting article, but when I went back to get an excerpt, I got shut down by a box saying I couldn't get any more free articles. Could someone else please post an excerpt? Thanks!
of big banking.
One of the (less than 1% of) Clinton Foundation donors she has met with or called was the Nobel-prize winning economist who first developed the concept.
The AP featured her meetings with him as a sign of something shady going on, even though she's been talking and working with him since 1983. His being a Clinton foundation donor had nothing to do with his access to her.
But his promotion of a concept that threatened big banks' lock on the market certainly has something to do with Hillary herself being targeted. She's being swift boated. A strength of hers is being turned into the opposite . . . and the AP and most of the media is playing along.
But here is where the AP blew their story. In an attempt to provide an example of how this becomes an optics problem for Hillary Clinton, they focused much of the article on the fact that she met several times with Muhammad Yunus, a Clinton Foundation donor. In case you dont recognize that name, he is an economist from Bangladesh who pioneered the concepts of microcredit and microfinance as a way to fight poverty, and founded Grameen Bank. For those efforts, Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010.
The connection the AP tries to make is that SoS Clinton met with Yunus because he was a Clinton Foundation donor. What they didnt mention is that their relationship goes back over 30 years to the time Hillary (as first lady of Arkansas) heard about his work and brought him to her state to explore the possibility of implementing microfinance programs to assist the poor.
During the time that Clinton was Secretary of State, the government of Bangladesh was trying to discredit Yunus and remove him from leadership at Grameen Bank due to the fact that he was seen as a political threat. In case you think Clintons engagement on that presents and optics problem, consider this press release from then-Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry.
There is, however, a first step that Trump has no excuse for not taking. He can and should immediately release the first two pages of his Form 1040, along with his Schedule A, for the past 20 years. This would tell us how much he makes, how much he pays in taxes, and how much he contributes to charity.
Releasing this information would have no impact on any pending or future IRS audit of Trump. Zero. None. It is a risk-free first step with no downside. While painting a far from complete portrait, it would answer a few of the questions that Trump himself has raised during the campaign: He claims that he makes a lot of money; he claims that he makes significant charitable contributions; and he claims that he reduces his tax liability as far as current law allows.
The first two pages of his enormous tax returns, along with his Schedule A, will shed important light on these claims. The first two pages plus the Schedule A of the Clintons' 2015 tax return tell us they made $10.6 million; that they made charitable contributions of $1.0 million; and that they paid federal taxes of $3.6 million, for an effective tax rate of 34 percent. We have that same information about the Clintons for the past 20 years. The first two pages of Trump's tax returns, together with his Schedule A, would provide us with the same information for him. He can and should share that information with no audit risk whatsoever.
This would be a beneficial first step. His full return, as is the case with any individual having complex business affairs, would provide further important information, helping to paint a more complete portrait of Trump. For example, it could provide insight into Trump's record in business, such as more information about his important sources of income (real estate, domestic and off-shore investments) and the tax impact of debt forgiven in his bankruptcies.
A couple of my own disclosures: I had the honor of being appointed IRS chief counsel by President Reagan, and being appointed IRS commissioner and then Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the United States Treasury by President George H.W. Bush. This year, I will be voting for Hillary Clinton. I am confident she will keep us safe and that she could and would work with Republicans in Congress to lead our country to a better future for all Americans.
More voters trust Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump on nearly every key issue ― a feat not achieved by any candidate in recent elections, according to polling data aggregated by The Huffington Post.
Trump trails Clinton in voter trust on each of the issues that typically rank highest in peoples minds when evaluating a presidential candidate ― the economy, immigration, terrorism, national security, foreign policy, social issues and criminal justice, according to a HuffPost aggregation of polling data. Clinton even leads on the topics that Republicans have historically been perceived as better-equipped to handle.
HuffPost looked at trust questions from all publicly available polls between July and August that met the criteria for HuffPost Pollster. The numbers reported are the averages of these polls.
He says Obama has a very strong policy and that's what he's going to adopt.
Source: Huffington Post
The Show Me State went to Republican candidates in the last four presidential elections.
Hillary Clinton is essentially tied with Donald Trump in red-tinted Missouri, according to a new poll.
Clinton garners 43 percent support to Trumps 44 percent among likely Missouri voters in a Monmouth University poll that has a margin of error of 4.9 percent.
While the survey is strikingly bad news for Trump ― Missouri went for the Republican in each of the past four presidential contests ― its just one survey. Others show Trump ahead, and HuffPost Pollster tracking shows the conspiracy theorist-in-chief maintaining his advantage in the state.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-missouri_us_57bc71d7e4b03d51368addc7
Kudos to the headline writer.
My personal opinion is that the press blows up stories like this to be "fair." Since they have so many negative stories of Trump that deserve front page placement, they take nothingburger stories of Hillary's and make them front page news.
But that isn't fair.
Theres a new round of revelations concerning Hillary Clintons 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.
Heres 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. Ill discuss some reasons why in a moment, but we could have no better evidence than the treatment of this particular story.
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 didnt actually get it.
But that doesnt mean that any story touching on her emails deserves screaming headlines and dark insinuations, and this one certainly doesnt. So why isnt it on page A14 where it belongs? The most important reason is the oldest one: the Clinton Rules, which state that any allegation about Bill and/or Hillary Clinton, no matter how outlandish and no matter how thin the evidence for it, should be treated as serious and worthy of extended attention and unrestrained speculation. In 2016, thats even more true for anything involving anybodys emails.