Fred Goldberg, former IRS commissioner/NBC:
Trump has no excuse to not release his tax returns
But nothing prevents us as taxpayers from choosing to release our tax returns — and those who aspire for the highest public office have done so for decades. And they do so precisely because their returns provide a window (for better and worse) into who they are. Those who say Trump should release his tax returns claim we are entitled to view this portrait of the man who aspires to lead our country.
Trump has promised to release his returns when his audit ends, but claims he is under continuous audit by the IRS and that releasing his returns (including returns for years that are now closed) could have an adverse impact on current and future IRS examinations. As a former IRS commissioner and practicing tax lawyer, I understand it may be inconvenient for Trump to release his tax returns but we all know — and the IRS has confirmed — that nothing prevents any of us from releasing our tax returns any time we want. And by the way, for those who listen carefully, Trump's promise means he will never release his tax returns. Trump's advisors also have substantial control over when his current examination will conclude.
Greg Sargent/WaPo on the immigration tango:
If this is right — and I think it probably is — then the goal of his new formula is to let the hard core Trumpist base know that he is fully committed to removing all undocumented immigrants, while simultaneously repackaging the process necessary to accomplish that end in a manner that is more acceptable to suburban swing voters. As [America’s Voice executive director Frank] Sharry notes, this accomplishes both of these ends.
As Brian Beutler explains, Trump is not budging off the idea that all illegal immigrants are nothing more than criminals who can never be assimilated here. He’s simply trying to make the response he’s proposing sound a bit more humane so it doesn’t alienate whites who aren’t hostile towards illegal immigrants — or at least see the moral and practical complexities their situations present — but not so humane, forgiving and (gasp!!!) assimilationist that it alienates core base voters.
IOW, try to con the reporters and wink at the base. Sounds about like what he always does. He has no principles but loves the adulation. That’s what drives his campaign.
The Clintons have known that Nobel peace Prize winner since their days in Arkansas. Hey, are you enjoying this discussion about the Clinton Foundation? That’s exactly why Trump hired the Breidbart crew. They help focus the attacks on the Clintons to a razor sharp edge:
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani suggested Sunday that the Clinton Foundation should be indicted on racketeering charges.
“If I was attorney general, I would indict the Clinton Foundation as a racketeering enterprise,” Giuliani, who served as U.S. attorney in New York and as associate attorney general in the Ronald Reagan administration, told “Fox News Sunday.”
Okay, okay, maybe they don’t. They’re still talking to their base. But it’s interesting that the Clinton camp is choosing to take Breidbart’s Steve Bannon on very directly this Thursday, in a speech billed as taking on the white nationalist nature of the campaign. WaPo:
In a renewed effort to diminish her opponent, Hillary Clinton plans to deliver a speech this week in Nevada on the “disturbing” connection between Donald Trump’s campaign and the “alt-right,” a conservative movement often associated with white nationalism.
Isaac Bailey/CNN:
Donald Trump is making his pitch to African-American voters in these terms: "What the hell do you have to lose?"
Here's my answer…
The ground has been fertile for quite some time for the Republican Party to break through with voters of color. I know -- because I've voted for Republicans, up and down the ticket. But the elevation of Trump has all but guaranteed I won't be voting for the party again any time soon.
What do you have to lose? Donald Trump keeps asking African Americans. But really that’s his question to all of us. The core premise of his campaign is that our country is so weak, and our leaders are such losers, that we should put all our money on Trump the wild card, the savior. The restoration to greatness is at hand, but only if we choose him.
Trump made that explicit the other day by christening himself “Mr. Brexit.” He’s the candidate of disruptive change, exciting and unsettling and the ride of your life. What we can expect the day after Hurricane Trump makes landfall at the White House? Hey, don’t harsh the euphoria.
Here’s the thing, though. Trump may be asking “what do you have to lose?” as a rhetorical question, but there’s an answer to it, and that answer is “an enormous amount.”
J. Eric Oliver (free access)/SAGE/Annals of American Political and Social Science:
Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 Election
Despite the wide application of the label “populist” in the 2016 election cycle, there has been little systematic evidence that this election is distinctive in its populist appeal. Looking at historical trends, contemporary rhetoric, and public opinion data, we find that populism is an appropriate descriptor of the 2016 election and that Donald Trump stands out in particular as the populist par excellence. Historical data reveal a large “representation gap” that typically accompanies populist candidates. Content analysis of campaign speeches shows that Trump, more so than any other candidate, employs a rhetoric that is distinctive in its simplicity, anti-elitism, and collectivism. Original survey data show that Trump’s supporters are distinctive in their unique combination of anti-expertise, anti-elitism, and pronationalist sentiments. Together, these findings highlight the distinctiveness of populism as a mechanism of political mobilization and the unusual character of the 2016 race.
On the Clinton Foundation, two tweet storms. The first is from Laura Seay about what the Clinton Foundation actually does:
This is from MIT science writer Tom Levenson who takes Jonathan Chait to task for 'bothsiderism' on the Clinton Foundation:
There is also a Part II.
These are important because there are a lot of CF criticism piece on the air and in print that don’t bother to discuss what the Foundation actually does, or emphasize the ‘appearance” rather than the actuality of a problem.
But here’s the thing. The network of connected people is both vast and murky, and the Clintons know most of them. You can decry it, but that doesn’t make it go away or cease to be. Washington is all about networking and who you know. There’s nothing unique there about Hillary Clinton. And that’s what the emails highlight about the Foundation.
And none of that is a quid pro quo. It’s not illegal, and it’s not outside the norm of common practice. But it is what the Trump/Breidbart campaign will go after. Be prepared.
Michael Cohen/Boston Globe:
Clinton’s e-mail ‘scandals’ are pure fiction
I’m fairly sure that when William Shakespeare penned the phrase “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” he did not have in mind the constant cycle of scandals that envelop Bill and Hillary Clinton. But the phrase easily applies.
When it comes to the Clintons, the most mundane actions can be raised to the specter of national outrage, because of the appearance, but not actual incident, of impropriety.
StatNews:
In death of D.A. Henderson, credited with eradicating smallpox, the world loses an intellectual giant
There are few people in the field of global public health so well-known that you merely need to utter two initials to evoke instant recognition.
But to raise in conversation Dr. Donald Ainslee Henderson, the man who led the successful effort to eradicate smallpox, all anyone ever bothered to say was “D.A.”
Nate Cohn/NY Times:
With less than three months to go until the presidential election, there’s still time for Donald J. Trump to make it a closer race.
But suppose that he doesn’t, and that Hillary Clinton enters the final stretch with a clear and consistent lead? Then the focus would turn down the ballot — to whether Democrats could retake the Senate, or even whether they have a shot to retake the House of Representatives.
A House takeover by Democrats is no small task. They would need to pick up 30 seats, and, as of today, it’s hard to identify 30 seats where Republicans are in serious danger.
But if Mrs. Clinton maintains her lead, some of the conditions for big Democratic gains might start to emerge, and 2016 could turn into a so-called wave election.
But even that might not be enough for Democrats to retake the House.
The following is posted to remind people how difficult it is to do things in politics: