Skip to content

Month: June 2016

“The musky whiff of Trump pheromones”

“The musky whiff of Trump pheromones”

by digby

“The media have already pivoted toward the general,” Bee said. “Well, toward the general direction of anything emanating the musky whiff of Trump pheromones.”

“Short of shooting an endangered gorilla or writing her economic policy on her tits, there’s only one way to grab the media’s attention,” she continued, referring to Clinton’s foreign policy roast of Donald Trump.

Herself pivoting to a segment she called “How the F*ck Did We Get Here?,” Bee explained the Republican party’s reluctant embrace of now-nominee Trump, capped off by Paul Ryan’s recent endorsement.

“One-by-one, Republicans turned up their collars and did the scuttle of shame into Trump’s limo until finally, predictably, the last domino fell.”

Now they find the doors are locked and they can’t get out.

And the stench of Trump’s fetid “Empire” cologne is choking them.

.

QOTD: Republican angst edition

QOTD: Republican angst edition 

by digby

On CNN just a few minutes ago:

Jim Geraghty, National Review: This is only going to get worse for Republicans.There is no better Trump behind the curtain waiting to be unveiled sometime. He’s not going to get more sensible or more constructive with his words. This is who he is. He has the impulse control of a toddler. And there’s no reason to think “oh, by November he’ll pull his act together” he’ll stop making controversial statements.  This is the Trump brand. White nationalism! Why would the Republican party ever want to be associated with this because they’ll lose every swing state and every swing district 

Congressman Lee Zeldin NY: What about the Supreme Court?

Because what you want is a White Nationalist appointing Supreme Court justices. Natch.

Paul Ryan said Trump’s remarks were racist so there’s that.

Doug Heye GOP strategist: Paul Ryan is trying to talk about issues because Republicans can win on issues. But Donald Trump won’t talk about issues. And if you’re on the Hillary Clinton campaign this is the exact script that you want to write. Hillary Clinton is going to try to unify her party tonight and tomorrow. Republicans are fighting about whether or not their candidate is racist. And he sure is saying racist things.

Kate Bolduan: Steve is Hillary Clinton a better option?

Steve Lonegan former Cruz state chairman: I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton. I’m also not voting for Donald Trump. But what’s ironic Kate is that the Courageous Conservative Pac we’re focused down-ballot because we can’t do anything about the White House which is turning out to be a debacle. I would jut remind everybody that there’s a primary today in New Jersey and California. I’d watch what kind of numbers Donald Trump gets. If he gets less than 80% and he’s running unopposed he’s got a big problem and so does the whole Republican party.

Man …

.

How the righteous have fallen by @BloggersRUs

How the righteous have fallen
by Tom Sullivan


Photo by Sascha Wenninger via Creative Commons.

While most eyes are focused on today’s Democratic presidential primary in California, other presidential contests are going on in New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and New Mexico. But the down-ticket races have their own drama. Roll Call highlights congressional primaries in New Jersey, Iowa, California, and North Carolina.

North Carolina held its presidential primary on March 15, but because a federal court threw out the 2011 Republican congressional redistricting map in February, the state’s congressional primaries using newly redrawn districts were postponed until today. (The district I voted in in March is not the same one I vote in today.) There is a primary today for candidates for the state supreme court as well. Because in February, a three-judge superior court panel disallowed the state’s new retention election process for supreme court races, re-opening that contest, which will be held today. State legislative redistricting is still being reviewed in the courts.

One casualty of the congressional redraw in North Carolina is Republican U.S. congresswoman and former T-party darling Renee Elmers:

North Carolina Rep. Renee Ellmers, a Republican elected in 2010 with tea party support, has been pummeled by outside groups on the right upset with some of her legislative actions on spending, immigration and abortion.

In a stroke of political bad luck, redistricting pitted her in a member-on-member primary against Rep. George Holding, the son of a wealthy banking family with plenty of resources at his disposal.

Holding currently represents the 13th District. But because the new district was shifted across the state, he decided to challenge Ellmers in the newly redrawn 2nd District, which includes territory he currently represents. (He actually lives in the nearby 4th District).

Ellmers got a late boost over the weekend with an endorsement from Donald Trump, who recorded a robocall on her behalf. Ellmers is the first congressional candidate the presumptive GOP nominee has endorsed.

We’ll find out later if Trump knows how to pick winners as he says he does.

At Slate, Jamelle Bouie writes:

Unfortunately for Ellmers, her right flank is fully mobilized against her—in a Republican primary, that’s enough to lose. And if she does, it will reverberate throughout the GOP landscape, a warning to any conservative lawmaker who decides they were elected to accomplish something and serve their constituents, not act as a mindless vote for ideology. Which makes this relatively low-key primary in North Carolina extremely relevant to national politics.

More than most, Ellmers’ fight for re-election is illustrative of major trends in the Republican Party; trends that led to a succession of needless standoffs over routine government funding; trends that sacrificed conservative policy victories for affective rage against Obama; and trends that have culminated in the most dysfunctional and ill-prepared nominee to ever grace the presidential stage.

The problem with ideological purity is you can never be pure enough.

More clueless blubbering

More clueless blubbering

by digby

Please:

Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump reversed his position on U.S. intervention in Libya on Sunday, saying in an interview that he would have approved of a “surgical” strike to take out former Libyan Prime Minister Muammar Gaddafi after telling voters the world would be better with the leader still in power.

“I didn’t mind surgical. And I said surgical. You do a surgical shot and you take him out,” Trump said in an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” aired Sunday.
But Trump has said before that U.S. involvement in Libya was a mistake.

“We would be so much better off if Gaddafi would be in charge right now,” Trump said at a Texas debate in February.

But in the interview aired Sunday, Trump flipped that stance.

“I was for something, but I wasn’t for what we have right now,” Trump said. “I wasn’t for what happened. Look at the way — I mean look at with Benghazi and all of the problems that we’ve had. It was handled horribly. … I was never for strong intervention. I could have seen surgical where you take out Gaddafi and his group.”

Future leader of the free world, people. This is what they voted for.

.

Take a little bow, progressives. You did good.

Take a little bow, progressives. You did good.


by digby




Anyone who has read this blog for a while knows that I was an early and vociferous critic of the Obama administration’s Grand Bargain.I first wrote about it in January of 2009, before Obama was inaugurated. And I didn’t let up for more than four years, until it was well and truly dead and buried. If zombie Grand Bargain comes back under the next president you can be sure I’ll go right for the head. It was always a fatuously stupid notion that it was worth cutting Social Security to “get it off the table” on the assumption that they would get something even better in return. You can’t make old people eat cat food as a bargaining chip.

The good news is that virtually every high level Democrat, including President Obama, Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton, is now talking about expanding the program rather than cutting it. It’s completely turned around. And according to this fantastic article, it happened because of good old fashioned progressive activism.

I should just note that those of us who opposed Obama’s position did not demonize him or call him names. We assumed he was making a political calculation and that calculation was a mistake, not that he was corrupt or that he truly wanted old people to suffer. We were harsh in our criticism of the policy but it wasn’t personal and we didn’t indict his character — at least I didn’t and I can’t think of any people who worked on this problem who did. I do not agree with the proposition that the only thing politicians ever respond to is pain. People who believe that have a very cramped view of human nature. It sometimes works and it sometimes doesn’t but it’s no guarantee of success. Indeed, enduring change requires changing hearts and minds

Progressives have done something real and important here. They moved the Democratic Party toward a more progressive position on a vital issue by banding together and persistently fighting for it. They should be proud of it.

The PCCC Bold Progressives has a petition going to include this in the DNC platform:

Tell the Democratic Platform drafting committee to make sure it reflects big progressive ideas like this.

Elizabeth Warren: “I’m proud that President Obama spoke out this week about protecting and expanding Social Security…Both Democratic Presidential candidates support expanding Social Security.”
Turn on images to the see this Huffington Post headline.

On Wednesday, President Obama made huge news by saying for the first time that we must expand Social Security benefits — not cut them. This represents a sea change from 2012 when the White House was pushing to cut benefits as part of a “grand bargain” with Republicans.
THIS IS A GIANT WIN FOR PROGRESSIVES.
And it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Three years of activism by PCCC members and progressive allies led to 7 senators, then nearly all Democratic senators, then the majority of House Democrats, and then both Democratic candidates for president supporting expanding — not cutting — Social Security. And now, a sitting president. Activism matters. Together, we made history.
In 2 weeks, we have an opportunity to etch this victory in stone. That’s when a small committee of 15 Democrats will start writing the 2016 Democratic Platform.

Sign the petition to the platform drafting committee. Tell them to make sure it reflects big progressive ideas that have risen to the forefront in recent years — starting with expanding Social Security, and also including debt-free college, breaking up too-big-to-fail banks and monopolies, paid family leave, a $15 min wage, banning for-profit prisons, ending fracking, a carbon tax to fight climate change, restoring voting rights, grand jury reform, public financing of congressional elections, overturning Citizens United, massive infrastructure investment, and ending the revolving door between Wall Street and government.

This can totally happen. The committee drafting the Democratic Platform includes progressive members of Congress like Barbara Lee, Elijah Cummings, and Keith Ellison and environmental hero Bill McKibben. This is potentially a once in a lifetime opportunity.Sign the petition today.

In 2013, Stephanie and I met with Elizabeth Warren shortly after her victory. In the course of a wide ranging conversation, we brought up how hard PCCC members and progressive allies had been fighting against proposed Social Security cuts.

Elizabeth Warren informed us for the first time that two of her colleagues had bills to expand Social Security benefits. Stephanie and I stared at each other in disbelief.

This idea had been written about by progressive thinkers, ranging from Duncan Black to Heather Parton. But now, with legislation from a red-state senator and a senator from the first presidential state of Iowa, there was an opportunity to fundamentally shift the debate.

A few months later, a group of progressive leaders met in a side room at the Netroots Nation conference in San Jose. We made a joint decision to shift our advocacy from merely fighting cuts to calling for expanding Social Security benefits to meet seniors’ true needs.

Represented in that room were the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Social Security Works, Democracy for America, MoveOn, Progressives United, CREDO Action, Daily Kos, Netroots Nation, Color of Change, the AFL-CIO, and the Working Families Party. Dozens of other organizations, ranging from the National Organization for Women to Latinos for a Secure Retirement, would later mobilize on this issue.

The following month, thanks to donations from people like you, the PCCC joined with allies to poll states such as Iowa, Texas, Kentucky, Colorado, and Hawaii. Expanding Social Security was popular by 2-to-1 or 3-to-1 margins everywhere, while cuts were supported by no more than 15% of voters anywhere.

A progressive platform is popular with the public. Sign the petition to the platform drafting committee telling them to ensure it reflects big progressive ideas that have risen to the forefront in recent years — starting with expanding Social Security.

In late 2013, corporate-funded think tank Third Way attacked Elizabeth Warren on the pages of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal for her endorsement of expanding Social Security. PCCC members fought back, leading to many of Third Way’s own co-chairs resigning!

In 2014, our momentum continued. PCCC members were the #1 grassroots supporters of Senator Brian Schatz (Hawaii) as he fended off a conservative primary challenge by running on expanding Social Security. Congressman Mike Honda (California) and now-Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman (New Jersey) also won competitive primaries after running on this issue.

In January 2015, the Progressive Change Institute’s “Big Ideas” polling showed that likely 2016 voters supported expanding Social Security benefits by 70% to 15% — a landslide. It also showed other big ideas like debt-free college and massive infrastructure investment enormously popular.

In March 2013, as we and our grassroots allies kept the volume high, Elizabeth Warren’s leadership got us from 7 senators to 42 senators in support of expansion. (It’s now 43 of 46 Democrats.) Our allies in the Congressional Progressive Caucus got a majority of House Democrats on the record supporting expansion.

In the past year, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both said they will not cut Social Security — and each have plans to expand benefits. And we’ve come full circle with President Obama now saying, “It is time we finally made Social Security more generous and increase the benefits so that today’s retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they have earned.”


Sign the petition to the platform drafting committee. Tell them the platform needs to be written BOLDLY and embrace big progressive ideas like expanding Social Security.

After signing, you can Tweet at the members of the platform committee, and we will deliver this petition to them before they start work on June 17.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.
— Adam Green, PCCC co-founder

.

He’s handling it all himself now

He’s handling it all himself now

by digby

This is getting embarrassing:

An embattled Donald Trump urgently rallied his most visible supporters to defend his attacks on a federal judge’s Mexican ancestry during a conference call on Monday in which he ordered them to question the judge’s credibility and impugn reporters as racists.

“We will overcome,” Trump said, according to two supporters who were on the call and requested anonymity to share their notes with Bloomberg Politics. “And I’ve always won and I’m going to continue to win. And that’s the way it is.”

There was no mention of apologizing or backing away from his widely criticized remarks about U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is overseeing cases against the Trump University real-estate program.

When former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer interrupted the discussion to inform Trump that his own campaign had asked surrogates to stop talking about the lawsuit in an e-mail on Sunday, Trump repeatedly demanded to know who sent the memo, and immediately overruled his staff.
“Take that order and throw it the hell out,” Trump said.

Told the memo was sent by Erica Freeman, a staffer who circulates information to surrogates, Trump said he didn’t know her. He openly questioned how the campaign could defend itself if supporters weren’t allowed to talk.

“Are there any other stupid letters that were sent to you folks?” Trump said. “That’s one of the reasons I want to have this call, because you guys are getting sometimes stupid information from people that aren’t so smart.”

Brewer, who was on the call with prominent Republicans like Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, interjected again. “You all better get on the page,” she told him.

In response, Trump said that he aspired to hold regular calls with surrogates in order to coordinate the campaign’s message, a role usually reserved for lower ranking staffers than the nominee himself.

Read on … oy.

I will be very curious to see if there is any movement in the polls this week. That may be the only thing that would make Trump sober up.

.

“You are the cause, I am the effect”

“You are the cause, I am the effect”

by digby

You may have heard about the rape case in Palo Alto in which a young man was sentenced to nly six months in jail for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman behind a dumpster outside a party.  The judge felt it would be wrong to sentence him for a longer time because it would have a negative impact on his life.

CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield read aloud the victim’s statement about the negative effect on her life from the assault a factor in this which didn’t seem to be of much concern to the judge. It’s devastating:

Salon’s Sophia Tefaye:

“I fully respected his right to a trial, but even after twelve jurors unanimously convicted him guilty of three felonies, all he has admitted to doing is ingesting alcohol,” Banfield said, reciting the survivor’s words.

“The night the news came out I sat my parents down and told them that I had been assaulted, to not look at the news because it’s upsetting, just know that I’m okay, I’m right here, and I’m okay. But halfway through telling them, my mom had to hold me because I could no longer stand up,” Banfield read, choking up. 

Over the course of 23 minutes, Banfield got emotional at multiple times while reading the letter. 

“Lastly you said, I want to show people that one night of drinking can ruin a life,” Turner’s victim recalled of his defense. 

“A life, one life, yours, you forgot about mine,” Banfield read. 

“Let me rephrase for you, I want to show people that one night of drinking can ruin two lives. You and me. You are the cause, I am the effect”

This is what people are talking about when they talk about rape culture.

.

High alert

High alert

by digby

Here’s a media critic telling it like it is …

It’s normal for Bob Garfield to critique the press — he does it every week as co-host of public radio program “On the Media.”

But now, he’s upping the ante exponentially, delivering strong rebukes to reporters over the airwaves and in a column for losing sight of Donald Trump’s intrinsic flaws as the presumptive Republican nominee. You know — that pattern of xenophobia, racism and misogyny that should have put Trump’s candidacy on life support months ago, according to Garfield.

“It’s about slapping a somnolent media into realizing that the stakes are extremely high,” Garfield said this week. “It’s a rare moment in American history where someone so fundamentally anti-democracy is in position to vie for the presidency.”

Comments like that show how Garfield, at least on the subject of Trump, has leaped from press criticism to advocacy, or “agitation,” as he called it.

Trump’s list of pros and cons tips heavily toward the negative in Garfield’s eyes. That’s why’s he’s so upset that the media have largely stopped challenging Trump’s divisive, hateful record while instead engaging him about his tax returns and possible picks for vice president.

To Garfield, Trump’s ascendancy represents a national emergency, and journalists are asleep at the switch.

“Why has there been no media crusade to deny him the presidency? The press jumps to warn America about missing children, tainted meat and approaching dustings of snow?” Garfield wrote this week in Mediapost. “Why are we not on high fucking alert?”

The worm is turning a bit right now although I wouldn’t place a bet on it staying that way. The press isn’t comfortable doing what Garfield prescribes because they are conditioned to believe that both sides are equivalent. If Trump manages to lower the temperature even a little bit, they’ll happily turn their attention to Clinton to help them achieve a more comfortable equilibrium. The problem is that Trump is an undisciplined amateur who is incapable of being a “normal politician” so it won’t last.

The big question then is whether the press will cover him realistically or if they will instead pathologize Clinton in order to achieve “balance.” I wouldn’t place a bet on it at this point.

.

Why the meltdown? #methodtohismadness

Why the meltdown?


by digby

I wrote about Trump’s crazy behavior for Salon today:

Why is Donald Trump so out of sorts?  Against all odds he managed to win the Republican nomination against the best and brightest stars from all factions of the Republican party. He did it without spending nearly as much money as the rest and without any study or preparation. He dominated the media which reportedly gave him a couple of billion dollars worth of free airtime. He came out of the primary five weeks ago on top of the world, ready to take on the Democrats who were still skirmishing in their primary, divided and at each others’ throats.  It was the perfect time to make that presidential “pivot” from the primary to the general and start to show non-Republican Americans that he could be their president too. That didn’t happen.

Instead we’ve seen Donald Trump do nothing but air his endless grievances, whine about the press, complain that he’s being cheated, and double down on his dyspeptic racism, sexism and xenophobia. The more people tell him to cool it the more he explodes in public. He is the most ungracious winner in American politics. What gives?

If one had to guess it’s that he thought that he’d already gotten the hardest hits he was going to have to take. It seems he believed that because he faced a large group of GOP heavyweights and had the rapt attention of the press for six months that he’d passed the crucible and he’d get unquestioning adoration from here on in. Unfortunately, this is where political inexperience and an unwillingness to listen to anyone but sycophants and the voices in your head creates a problem. The primary was  a cakewalk compared to the general election for a number of reasons, the most important being that his rivals were all walking on eggshells trying not to offend his voters.  Most of them were also Republican office holders and professional politicians who have a responsibility to their party and they generally try not to destroy their own members just in case they become the nominee. By the time they realized that it might actually be Donald Trump it was too late.

The press meanwhile was stuck in a different kind of spin cycle. They mostly just gawked at the spectacle like they were reporting on a 200 car pile-up on the interstate. They didn’t dig very deeply because, like the Republicans, they simply could not fathom that he would actually become the nominee. And frankly, they never really devote a ton of resources to each primary candidate. They do some perfunctory digging and check out oppo from the various rivals but they never go very deeply into the candidates until they get the nomination.  But once the nomination is in hand, it’s no hold barred and he press is going to delve into the nominee’s business, personal life and history in every way. Apparently, Trump didn’t know this.

And he’s not handling it well. There are ominous signs that his campaign is imploding, mostly due to his micromanaging and inability to cut loose his fawning primary operatives in favor of serious professionals who know how to wage a general election campaign. He is more undisciplined than ever from his embarrassing tweets to obtuse comments on the stump like “look at my African-American! Look at him!” (It turns out the man wasn’t actually a supporter.)  He has dodged and prevaricated about why he won’t release his tax returns, using excuses that only a child could believe, raising questions about whether he’s actually as rich as he says he is.

When the Washington Post published an expose on the Veterans fundraiser he held last winter and revealed that he had not written his own pledged million dollar check, he went ballistic on the media at a wild press conference, even calling a reporter a “sleaze” to his face. It was angry enough for reporters to be taken aback despite the fact that he commonly calls them disgusting, despicable liars at his rallies.

And when Hillary Clinton hit him very hard with a tough speech last week in which she used his own words against him to make the case that he’s dangerously unfit for the job, his response was first unusually tepid — he complained in a tweet that she wasn’t “presidential” in a tweet — and then recklessly authoritarian.  At a rally in San Jose, he let fly (13:55) with a long tirade about how she is President Obama’s lapdog who is doing his bidding so he won’t throw her in jail (“it’s “yessir, Mr President Sir! Yessir! What would you like?! What would you like me to say here sir?!”)Then he said this:

I used to say, leave it up to the lawyers. I have watched so many lawyers on so many different networks. I have read so much about the emails. Folks, honestly, she’s guilty as hell. She’s guilty as hell. And the fact that they even allow her to participate in this race is a disgrace to the United States, it’s a disgrace to our nation. It’s a disgrace.

So we’ll see what happens, I don’t know. I’ve always had great confidence in the FBI, I have great respect, I know some FBI folks, I’ve always had great confidence in them. I can’t believe that they would let this go… I’m telling you, it’s a great system we have, we have a great country, we’re going to make it a lot greater by the war, we love our country, but look, we love our country and I don’t believe our country can let her get away with this crime, I don’t believe it. So we’ll see. And you know what? If they do let her get away with it, it will be a big topic of conversation on the campaign trail, I can tell you that.

And then if I win? (pauses, shrugs dramatically, shakes his head) It’s called a five year statue of limitations. If I win … everything’s going to be fair but I’m sure the Attorney General will take a very good look at it from a fair standpoint, ok? I’m sure. I think it’s disgraceful.

In interviews with CNN’s Jake Tapper and CBS’s John Dickerson, he repeated this threat to have her criminally charged  (“very fairly” of course) by his own Justice Department if they fail to jail her before the election. When Dickerson asked what crime it was she was supposed to have committed he said, “she’s guilty of the server, she’s guilty of – you look at confidential information, I mean, all of the information that probably has gotten out all over the world. And then you know what else she’s also guilty of? Stupidity and bad judgment.”

If stupidity and bad judgment are federal crimes, Donald Trump would be serving a hundred consecutive life sentences.

He evidently does not understand that a president does not have the power to have someone thrown in federal prison if they fail to do his bidding nor is it permissible for a presidential candidate to threaten to sic his future Attorney General on his political opponents.  It’s called abuse of power and it’s a very serious business. (He keeps making this “mistake” about presidential power in various contexts and maybe it’s time that people took him at his word.)

But Trump was clearly rattled by more than just criticism by Clinton and the press about his comments and his fundraiser. He’s edgy and he’s agitated in a way we haven’t seen before and it seems to mostly be centered around the questions about his business practices.

There has been some talk about Trump University for a while now simply because there have been a bunch of lawsuits brought against it all over the country. Back in 2013, the New York Attorney General brought suit against Trump for running a bait and switch operation and calling it a “university” which is illegal. The press has been digging into this scam more seriously now that Trump is the presumptive nominee and it clearly makes him nervous.

That may be why at his San Diego rally last week he launched into a bizarre 15 minute tirade against the judge overseeing one of his lawsuits. And what he said was shocking:

“I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself. I think it’s a disgrace that he’s doing this.The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican…I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump.”

The judge is American, born in Indiana. But that didn’t stop Trump. In successive interviews over the past few days he has reiterated his view that the judge was giving him unfair rulings because of his “Mexican heritage”. Trump said over and over again “I’m building a wall! It’s an inherent conflict of interest” as if that explained it perfectly. On Face the Nation when John Dickerson asked if he believed a Muslim judge would treat him unfairly because of his proposal to temporarily bar Muslims from entering the U.S., Trump replied: “It’s possible, yes. Yeah. That would be possible, absolutely.”

He claimed it is simple common sense and blamed the controversy on political correctness. No matter what any of his interviewers said he was obstinate in his insistence that Judge Curiel was biased against him because he’s “building a wall.”

This is a truly ugly charge and one that goes way beyond anything we’ve seen in a presidential race before. It’s one thing to criticize a federal judge. People do that all the time although presidential candidates generally understand that it’s important to show respect for the system and leave that sort of thing to others. But to say that judges of Mexican ethnicity or Muslim religion are presume to be biased due to their backgrounds if they rule against him in a legal proceeding is beyond the pale.

Trump probably believes this. One can guess that he thinks a woman judge could only rule against him out of similar bias. And he would likewise find it absurd if the plaintiffs in one of his lawsuits said the same thing about a white male judge. He is a racist, sexist bigot. But his behavior points to something else as well. He’s throwing up whatever distractions he can to muddy the waters about this Trump University issue. And he’s fraying around the edges as people begin to look more closely at all of his business ventures, many of which seem to be similar scams, like Trump Mortgage and this multi-level marketing scheme, ACN.

It appears that Donald Trump agreed to sell his name to just about anyone who asked him, no matter how cheap or fraudulent. Why would he do that? Perhaps the question he really doesn’t want to have to answer is, “does it make any sense that a billionaire would be involved with a series of tawdry, snakeoil con games?”  Why would he need money that badly? It looks like he’ll say anything to misdirect the press and keep them from asking it.

.