Sep. 14

Pres map

Pres polls: FL MA NV OH SC
Dem pickups: NC
GOP pickups: CO FL IA NM OH

Previous | Next

President Trump Would Have Massive Conflicts of Interest

Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald has undertaken an extensive investigation of Donald Trump's financial interests—not an easy task, given their complexity, as well the secrecy that Trump is afforded since his company is not publicly traded. Eichenwald's conclusion is that he's got his fingers in pies all across the globe, and in a manner that will be very difficult to separate from his responsibilities as president, should he be elected.

Thus far, of course, it is Hillary Clinton that has come under scrutiny for being "for sale" to foreign interests. And a comparison between the Clinton Foundation and the Trump Organization is instructive. Donations to the Foundation are publicly disclosed, in accordance with American law. Further, regardless of what Clinton's enemies might say or imply, there is no "payola" aspect to the donations. The money—90% of it, which is very efficient for a charitable organizations—goes to the Clinton Foundation's projects, while none goes into the pockets of the Clinton family. Given existing transparency laws, along with the number of prying eyes that would love to catch the Clintons up to no good, it could hardly be otherwise. With the Trump Organization, by contrast, there is no transparency whatsoever. Trump is famously secretive (see returns, tax) and has no duty to report the details of his dealings. Meanwhile, the profits—by definition—flow directly into his pocket.

To understand the conflict of interests that Eichenwald documents, it is first necessary to understand Trump's business model. Though he is best known as a real estate developer, he has essentially gotten out of that line of work. The last project that he personally built is the Trump-SoHo hotel and condominiums, which was completed nearly a decade ago. Since his Apprentice days (and the concurrent growth of his fame), Trump's primary business is licensing his name, largely to developers in foreign countries. This means that he has dealings with massive foreign corporations, high-powered families, and government officials around the globe. Eichenwald describes half a dozen examples in detail and notes at least a dozen others; here are a few examples:

There is no easy way to resolve these conflicts of interest. Trump has vaguely spoken of putting his assets in a blind trust, a standard maneuver that allows wealthy presidents (and other politicians) to create a wall between themselves and their asserts. But a blind trust only works with things like stocks and bonds, which can be bought and sold by the trustee, such that the owner is truly unclear as to what he or she owns. That clearly won't fly in this situation; as long as Trump's name is on a building, he is going to know where his interests lie. Further, even if his business interests are "on hold" during his presidency, they could still benefit from his presidential actions once they are no longer "on hold." This could be true even if Trump is scrupulously honest; all it takes is for foreign leaders to think that they need to take care of his business needs. The only viable option is the nuclear one (not literally): Trump and his entire family would have to disavow his business forever. Hence, Eichenwald's sobering conclusion:

Never before has an American candidate for president had so many financial ties with American allies and enemies, and never before has a business posed such a threat to the United States. If Donald Trump wins this election and his company is not immediately shut down or forever severed from the Trump family, the foreign policy of the United States of America could well be for sale.

Of course, the odds that the Trumps would actually do that are zero. Which means that, if he is elected, we'll be heading into a brave new world of foreign policy. (Z)

President Trump Would Cost the U.S. $1 Trillion

If Newsweek's exposé were not enough, Donald Trump also got some unwanted scrutiny from the other side of the pond. In advance of a major speech on economic policy, to be delivered by The Donald at the Economic Club of New York, the British firm Oxford Economics released their analysis of Trump's already-existing economic proposals. Their conclusion: President Trump would be an economic disaster for America and for the world.

The price tag that Oxford Economics puts on Trump's plans is a nice, round $1 trillion. This loss would also be accompanied by the loss of 4 million jobs, a significant decrease in consumer spending, a major increase in the cost of goods, trade wars with other nations, and a worldwide economic recession. Ironically, the worst hit sector would likely be industrial workers, the voters who form the foundation of the Trump coalition. Though Trump's economic advisers reject the possibility of a downturn, Oxford Economics' conclusions jive with those of other studies,including one from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School (Trump's alma mater), and one from Moody's economist Mark Zandi. Political scientists generally think of the presidency as being six distinct jobs: Commander-in-Chief, Chief Executive, Chief Legislator, Head of State, Chief Diplomat, and Manager of the Economy. If Wednesday's reports are to be believed, Donald Trump is going to have a very hard time being successful at the latter two. (Z)

Both Candidates' Health Still Partially Shrouded in Mystery

In response to increasing pressure to reveal his medical history and condition, Donald Trump had a physical last week conducted by Dr. Harold Bornstein, the same doctor who took 5 minutes to write an earlier note summarizing Trump's medical condition by saying that the 70-year-old would be the healthiest president ever. He will appear on Dr. Mehmet Oz's television program today, and will respond to a carefully-curated subset of the results. The segment was taped Wednesday, in front of an audience, so we already have a fairly complete list of what viewers will learn if they tune in on Thursday:

In short, we learned virtually nothing new. Well, unless you're a fast food worker; now you know to be a little suspicious of any orders for "Tonald Drump." Dr. Oz has thus enabled Trump to claim transparency without actually being transparent at all.

That said, Trump is not doing noticeably worse than his opponent on the health transparency front. Following her near-faint on Sunday, followed by the revelation that she has pneumonia, Hillary Clinton promised to release more information about her health. She made good on that promise Wednesday, but in as limited a manner as is possible. The "new" information is a letter from Dr. Lisa Bardack, Clinton's personal physician. In the letter, Bardack specifies she has examined Clinton four times this month, that the pneumonia is centered in her small right middle-lobe, and that, "The remainder of her complete physical exam was normal and she is in excellent mental condition." Bardack wrote almost exactly the same letter, sans the pneumonia portion, a year ago.

So, neither candidate did what was necessary to put this to bed as a campaign issue. There would seem to be two possible explanations for this. The first is that they both fear that some element of their physical condition would get blown all out of proportion. Given the response to Clinton's pneumonia, a fairly pedestrian condition, such fears would seem to be well founded. The second is that one or both of the candidates really is hiding something serious. This is certainly the less probable explanation; it would be very difficult for them to handle the rigors of a presidential campaign while coping with something serious like cancer, or kidney failure, or Alzheimer's disease. (V & Z)

Melania Trump's Immigration History Still Shrouded in Mystery, Too

About a month ago, the New York Post and other publications presented evidence—nude photos reportedly taken in 1995—that they said proved Melania Trump had violated immigration laws by doing modeling work without a visa. She and her husband promised a response, and today they delivered it, in the form of a letter. As with The Donald's physical condition, it was a non-answer answer.

The letter was written by immigration attorney Michael Wildes, who presumably spent more than five minutes on the task. In it, he says that Melania actually took the nude photos in 1996, when she had an H1-B work visa. He also says that he's looked at all of her modeling jobs and all of her immigration documents, and that charges that she worked illegally, "are not supported by the record and are therefore completely without merit." So, case closed, right?

Not so much, actually. All we have to go on is the word of Wildes, who has worked for the Trump organization in the past and who presumably knows what side his bread is buttered on. His words may be truthful, but he has far too much motivation to produce an "all clear" letter for us to be certain. It does not help that the account provided by Wildes on Wednesday does not match with the previous account given by Trump herself—they disagree on whether or not she ever visited the United States on a visitor visa (Wildes says no, Trump said she did). Further, it is known for a fact that Melania's website claimed that she had a degree in Architecture and Design from the University of Slovenia—until the university reported that she had no such degree. Then the website was taken down. So, she's fudged the details of her early years before.

Needless to say, all of these issues could be dispelled if Melania Trump simply released the actual paperwork, as opposed to a letter from someone who says they saw the paperwork. Since there would seem to be little downside to doing so, it certainly suggests very strongly that either Trump does not have the proof she claims, or that the documents tell a different story than the one Wildes is telling. (Z & V)

So either Wildes is correct or the Post is correct, but not both. While it is not known which one is telling the truth, (V)

New York Times Wants to Unseal Trump's Divorce File

The New York Times and another publisher have asked the New York Supreme Court to unseal the records of Donald Trump's first divorce. Ivana Trump was granted the divorce in 1992 on the grounds of "cruel and inhuman treatment." The Times is curious about some of the details. No doubt Ivana's sworn deposition that The Donald raped her is one of them. Ivana later said that she had used the word "rape" in a more generalized sense, so it is not surprising that the Times wants to see the original deposition. Judges in New York can unseal divorce records if they feel special circumstances apply. (V)

Springfield Ohio, A Town with No Hope

People who live in prosperous cities on the coasts often cannot comprehend why Donald Trump commands such loyal support from a lot of people. Some of his supporters are no doubt in the basket Hillary Clinton recently mentioned, but there is more to the story. The Christian Science Monitor has a good piece on Springfield, Ohio, which is literally at the bottom of the heap. It is tied with Goldboro, NC, as the American city that has fallen the farthest on the economic ladder between 2000 and 2014. The pair have lost more high-income earners and gained more low-income earners (a net of 16%) than any other cities in America. The story of Springfield is the story of the hollowing out of the middle class.

Springfield's troubles began in 1956, when the mammoth Crowell-Collier publishing plant closed. Other companies closed or left, too, and by the time that International Harvester, once a giant in the agricultural machinery business, cut many jobs in the 1990s, not much was left. Except for a new museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force base, not much has moved in to fill the void. People's lives have deteriorated. Young people have left—the population is smaller than it was in 1920. Many voters are desperate and have no faith in either the Democrats or Republicans to help them. Raymond Upshaw, a black man in his late 60s, supports Donald Trump because he doesn't think anything is going to improve until the country hits rock bottom, and he thinks Trump will drive it down faster than anyone else. The article paints a sad picture, but Springfield is not unique and the people there feel abandoned by the politicians, so they think that maybe Trump, for all his faults, is worth a shot. (V)

Clinton to Return to the Campaign Trail Today

As a result of her pneumonia, Hillary Clinton has been resting at home since Sunday. She will return to the campaign trail today. While she was absent, her husband stepped in and went to her campaign events in her place. (V)

RNC Was Hacked...or Not

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) receives intelligence briefings as chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security. On Wednesday morning, he dropped a bit of a bombshell, announcing that intelligence officials told him the RNC's network had been compromised by Russian hackers. Then, RNC officials weighed in, saying they most certainly had not been hacked. That caused McCaul to change his story, explaining that, "I misspoke by asserting that the RNC was hacked. What I had intended to say was that in addition to the DNC hack, Republican political operatives have also been hacked."

Hard to say what the truth is, here—it is hard to see how a mere slip of the tongue could cause "Republican political operatives" to come out as "the Republican National Committee." What is clear is that either version of events presents a mixed bag for the Republican Party. If the RNC really was hacked by Russians, then it effectively puts to an end supposition that the Russians are working o elect Donald Trump. That would be a good thing for them. At the same time, it would be very embarrassing if the RNC allowed themselves to be compromised, after getting a clear-cut warning in the form of the DNC hack. That would make them look incompetent. Whatever the case may be, we will presumably know within the next 60 days. If the RNC really was hacked, the truth will eventually leak out. Or, more accurately, it will Wikileak out. (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

Donald Trump certainly seems to be gaining ground, it looks like he'll head into the first debate with "momentum." The Ohio number is particularly encouraging for him, especially since it comes from one of the best pollsters in the business. (Z)

State Clinton Trump Johnson Start End Pollster
Florida 44% 47% 6% Sep 07 Sep 12 Opinion Research
Massachusetts 54% 28% 9% Sep 07 Sep 10 MassINC
Nevada 42% 44% 8% Sep 11 Sep 13 Monmouth U.
Ohio 39% 44% 10% Sep 09 Sep 12 Selzer
Ohio 41% 46% 8% Sep 07 Sep 12 Opinion Research
South Carolina 38% 53% 3% Sep 06 Sep 12 Trafalgar Group

Today's Senate Polls

Barring a surprise, it looks like there won't be an upset in Iowa. Ohio is also nearing "lost cause" status for the Democrats. (Z)

State Democrat D % Republican R % Start End Pollster
Florida Patrick Murphy 43% Marco Rubio* 54% Sep 07 Sep 12 Opinion Research
Iowa Patty Judge 37% Chuck Grassley* 50% Sep 06 Sep 08 RABA Research
Nevada Catherine Cortez-Masto 43% Joe Heck 46% Sep 11 Sep 13 Monmouth U.
Ohio Ted Strickland 36% Rob Portman* 53% Sep 09 Sep 12 Selzer
Ohio Ted Strickland 37% Rob Portman* 58% Sep 07 Sep 12 Opinion Research

* Denotes incumbent


Back to the main page