Washington Post reporter David A. Fahrenthold is on a quest to confirm the “tens of millions” Donald Trump allegedly donated to charity — that figure, by the way, is according to Trump’s campaign.
His in-depth research has so far revealed a paltry donation of less than $10,000 over the last six years. Fahrenthold’s research also confirms that Trump’s “foundation” is a fraudulent enterprise in which Trump spends other people’s money and takes the credit. Oh, and Trump used charity money to buy a 6 foot painting of himself and an autographed helmet. When confronted with these indisputable facts, the Trump campaign just sticks its head in the stand. Maybe if they keep ignoring Fahrenthold’s questions they think it will all go away?
From Fahrenthold’s latest piece:
Last year, the Trump campaign also put out a detailed list of what it said was $102 million in charitable giving from Trump over five years. But a close look by The Post found that not a single one of the gifts listed was actually a donation of Trump's own money.
Most of the entries, in fact, were free rounds of golf given away by Trump's golf courses, for local charities to auction or raffle off.
Trump has also declined to release his tax returns, unlike all other nominees have for several decades. They would likely make clear what he donates to charity from his own pocket.
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones asks why those who donated to the Trump Foundation are so tight-lipped about their charity when questioned by the press:
Jeez. What kind of hold does Trump have over these folks? They give him money but act like kids with their hands in the cookie jar when anyone asks them about it. Even the ones who didn't give him money act that way. What does it all mean? People are usually proud of donating money to a charitable foundation, aren't they?
And how is it that a billionaire can be so hellbent on never giving a cent of his own money to charity? Trump's behavior is so pathological that this year, even after promising a $1 million donation to vets on live TV, he did his best to quietly renege on it. He finally ponied up, but only after Fahrenthold basically badgered him into it by methodically proving that he hadn't given anyone a dime.
Of course, Trump could prove that all of us are just partisan shills by simply releasing his tax returns and demonstrating that he has too donated to charity. He doesn't even have to release the whole thing. All we need is Schedule A for the past few years.
But we'll never see it. I wonder why?
Jeremy Stahl at Slate:
Donald Trump’s charity is basically just a front for Trump to give away other people’s money in his own name, sometimes for causes that directly benefit Donald Trump.
Turning to the issue of the candidates’ health, both The New York Times and The Washington Post call on both candidates to release medical records. From The New York Times:
Now Americans are deciding between Mr. Trump, who is 70, and Mrs. Clinton, who is 68. Whoever prevails will have to deal with round-the-clock demands, so it seems entirely relevant to inquire about their medical histories and current health.
On Monday, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said she would release additional health information in coming days. For his part, Mr. Trump said he would make public “very, very specific” records, a remarkable promise coming from someone who has resolutely stonewalled on his tax returns. Should both candidates honor these pledges, and provide plenty of detail, the winners will be the voters.
And The Washington Post:
WE ARE not worried that Hillary Clinton is, as she jokingly put it on Jimmy Kimmel’s show last month, “on the brink.” Pneumonia can be a serious condition, but it is generally treatable, and Ms. Clinton appears to be getting good care. Even a 30-something would struggle to stay perfectly healthy on Ms. Clinton’s grueling campaign schedule. We are instead worried about what we might not know about each major-party presidential candidate’s health — concerns that both of them have encouraged by a lack of transparency.
Both campaigns are now promising to be more forthcoming. They need to be much more so.
Conservative Michael Brendan Dougherty at The Week decried the media’s double standard:
These are the abysmally low standards Donald Trump has set for himself, and most of the media has internalized them. The public has probably internalized them as well. Having internalized them, we've dulled the effect that damning articles about Trump's scandals and character would normally have on a campaign.
Consider that Hillary Clinton is being hammered for the opaque and dishonest way her campaign has handled questions of her health. But Trump hasn't released health records, and when asked to do so he issued a ludicrous doctor's note alleging that he would be the fittest man ever to take the office. The note was written in the exact tone of personal exaltation that is the dead giveaway of Trump's dictation. Although he is a notorious teetotaler and germaphobe, Trump is alleged to have been an amphetamine user in Spy Magazine. He is said to love diet soda and fast food. Not exactly the most nutritious diet for a man pushing 70 years of age. The scandal of the doctor's note died. Now Trump has promised to release "very, very specific numbers" from a physical this week — but, if they're anything like other figures he's released, they're bound to be suspiciously positive and subject to change.
Over at The Nation, Joan Walsh also calls out pundits for dropping the ball:
What’s really unfortunate about the media pushback, besides its unfairness to Clinton, is that it shows reporters as well as Republicans—even some Never Trump Republicans—are still uncomfortable facing the huge role race plays in animating the party’s bigoted anti-Obama, anti-Clinton base. And as long as our best reporters and commentators, along with moderate Republicans, ignore that uncomfortable truth, they’re showing us how they both aided in the rise of Trump, and why Trumpism won’t go away, even if he loses. Even after Donald Trump Jr. and Trump adviser Roger Stone shared a “Deplorables” poster that included them, Trump’s father, and the racist “alt-right” Pepe the Frog meme, the media was still flogging Clinton. One of the nation’s two major political parties is morphing into a white-nationalist party, but Clinton is the boor for talking about it.
Eleanor Clift focuses on ageism and sexism:
It’s worth pointing out that Trump is 70 and while he doesn’t have pneumonia, he’s not exactly a picture of health. The point is that we as a society give the guys a lot more leeway than we give the women. We’re accustomed to older men in leadership positions. [...] Clinton is on her own to make her way. There is no template for a woman of her vintage. “Ageism is rampant these days, but of course it’s worse for a woman,” says Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University. “Why is there more fuss about Hillary’s age than Donald’s? Because an older man looks distinguished,” she says, although that’s not the first adjective one would apply to Trump. “Older women are invisible,” says Tannen, in the sense they are insignificant in public life. The medical flap sticks to Clinton and becomes “Healthgate” in a way it wouldn’t for a man because it plays into an existing suspicion that a woman in this role is “not quite right for this,” says Tannen.
Oh, and no biggie here, just a vice-presidential candidate refusing to call white nationalist David Duke “deplorable”...Margaret Hartmann explains why:
Unfortunately for Pence, when some of the people supporting your campaign are objectively awful, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If he’d used Clinton’s term to describe Duke, then he’d be proving her original statement was correct. He chose the other option, so Clinton called him out for standing with bigots: