Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #921 The Trumpenkampfverbande, Part 4: Trump on the Stump (The Underground Reich Emerges Into Plain View, Part 2)

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained HERE. The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by ear­ly win­ter of 2016. The new dri­ve (avail­able for a tax-deductible con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more.) (The pre­vi­ous flash dri­ve was cur­rent through the end of May of 2012.)

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE.

This broad­cast was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

thinkbignkickassMeinKampfIntro­duc­tion: Con­tin­u­ing our cov­er­age of what we have termed “The Trumpenkampfverbande”–the Nazi phe­nom­e­non that is the Pres­i­den­tial can­di­da­cy of Don­ald Trump.

A major ele­ment of analy­sis here con­cerns Trump’s skill­ful use of the rhetor­i­cal tech­niques used so suc­cess­ful­ly by Adolf Hitler.

Josh Mar­shall [of Talk­ing Points Memo] not­ed: ” . . . This was as wild and as unbri­dled a speech as I’ve seen from Trump. Even if you couldn’t under­stand Eng­lish, it would be stun­ning to watch the slash­ing hand ges­tures, the red face, the yelling. It’s hard to imag­ine any pres­i­den­tial can­di­date in liv­ing mem­o­ry giv­ing such a speech. And again, this is if you didn’t know what the words even meant.

As the speech was unfold­ing, I said some­thing on Twit­ter that I’m sure many will find extreme or beyond the pale. But watch­ing this speech, com­pared to the press con­fer­ence today in Mex­i­co City, what kept com­ing to my mind was the con­trast between Hitler’s uni­formed ral­ly speech­es from the hus­tings and the suit­ed, states­man Hitler we see in the old news reels in Munich and at oth­er icon­ic moments in the late 1930s. . . . the dem­a­gog­ic style, the fren­zied invo­ca­tion of famil­ial blood sac­ri­ficed to bar­bar­ic out­siders – these are not unique to him [Hitler]. When we see this lurid, stab-in-the-back incite­ment, the wild hyper­bole, the febrile rail­ing against out­siders who will make us no longer a coun­try – the sim­i­lar­i­ties are real. More than any­thing, per­haps the most chill­ing part of this day is the con­trast between the two men – a mea­sured, calm states­man fig­ure we saw this after­noon and this rail­ing, angry dem­a­gogue fig­ure who cap­tured the emo­tion­al tenor of a Klan ral­ly. . . .”

The sim­i­lar­i­ty not­ed above by Josh Mar­shall was not coin­ci­den­tal: . . . . Don­ald Trump appears to take aspects of his Ger­man back­ground seri­ous­ly. John Wal­ter works for the Trump Orga­ni­za­tion, and when he vis­its Don­ald in his office, Ivana told a friend, he clicks his heels and says, ‘Heil Hitler,’ pos­si­bly as a fam­i­ly joke. . . . Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her hus­band reads a book of Hitler’s col­lect­ed speech­es, ‘My New Order,’ which he keeps in a cab­i­net by his bed. . . .”

Waffen SS-clad World War II reenactors, in original photo used by Trump

Waf­fen SS-clad World War II reen­ac­tors, in orig­i­nal pho­to used by Trump

Observers have not­ed that Trump appar­ent­ly stud­ied the book care­ful­ly: “. . . . But it appears that one way or anoth­er, much of the con­tent in My New Order about how Hitler says pro­pa­gan­da works, and how he struc­tures his speak­ing style, and how Hitler tar­gets the low­est-com­mon denom­i­na­tor as his intend­ed audi­ence, has seeped into Trump: the way he speaks, argues, rages and responds in pub­lic. This goes beyond what has been report­ed in the New York Times, which ana­lyzed 95,000 words from five months of speech­es and con­clud­ed that Trump shares a style with the 20th cen­tu­ry’s biggest dem­a­gogues. . . . What is real­ly stunning—whether or not he care­ful­ly read My New Order—is that Trump is chan­nel­ing the very tenets about how pro­pa­gan­da works laid out by Hitler in his books. . . .”

Next, we note that a recent Trump cam­paign dis­clo­sure appears to be yet anoth­er “dog whis­tle” for Trump’s Nazi fol­low­ers. Cit­ing 88 high-rank­ing mil­i­tary offi­cers sup­port­ing Trump, the Trump cam­paign is prob­a­bly ref­er­enc­ing the num­ber as a long-stand­ing numer­i­cal code for “Heil Hitler.” In the after­math of the Allied occu­pa­tion of Ger­many, it was for­bid­den to use the Nazi salute. Instead, “88” was giv­en voice by the Nazi faithful–“H” is the eighth let­ter of the alpha­bet.

It is worth not­ing that, from an actu­ar­i­al stand­point, the pos­si­bil­i­ty that exact­ly 88 offi­cers would have backed Trump is high­ly unlikely. The num­ber could be any­thing, from the stand­point of prob­a­bil­i­ty.

That exact number–88–is very, very unlike­ly.

A sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of the pro­gram reviews the sources of Trump’s mon­ey. In FTR #‘s 919 and 920, we not­ed that the most sig­nif­i­cant of Trump’s cred­i­tors is Deutsche Bank, inex­tri­ca­bly linked with the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work. The Union Bank of Switzer­land is anoth­er Bor­mann-linked bank involved with Trump’s real estate empire. Trump’s Chica­go tow­er was bailed out by a con­sor­tium led by George Soros, who got his start in busi­ness “Aryaniz­ing” Jew­ish prop­er­ty dur­ing the Holo­caust.

A telling obser­va­tion was made by Soledad O’Brien, a for­mer CNN host: ” . . . ‘If you look at Hillary Clinton’s speech where she basi­cal­ly point­ed out that what Don­ald Trump has done — actu­al­ly quite well — has nor­mal­ized white suprema­cy,’ O’Brien explained to CNN host Bri­an Stel­ter on Sun­day. ‘I think she made a very good argu­ment, almost like a lawyer. Here are ways in which he has actu­al­ly worked to nor­mal­ize con­ver­sa­tions that many peo­ple find hate­ful. I’ve seen on-air, white suprema­cists being inter­viewed because they are Trump del­e­gates,’ she not­ed. ‘And they do a five minute seg­ment, the first minute or so talk­ing about what they believe as white suprema­cists. So you have nor­mal­ized that. . . . The for­mer CNN host argued that the ques­tion that jour­nal­ists should be ask­ing is if Trump is ‘soft­en­ing the ground for peo­ple — who are white suprema­cists, who are white nation­al­ists, who would self-iden­ti­fy that way — to feel com­fort­able with their views being brought into the nation­al dis­course to the point where they can do a five minute inter­view hap­pi­ly on nation­al tele­vi­sion? And the answer is yes, clear­ly,’ she said. ‘And there is lots of evi­dence of that.’ . . .”

The pro­gram con­cludes with one of our peri­od­ic read­ings of a pas­sage from They Thought They Were Free, in which a Ger­man pro­fes­sor who lived through the rise of Hitler described the sub­jec­tive expe­ri­ence of what it was like. Read it, lis­ten to it and decide if it reflects what you are expe­ri­enc­ing.

Pro­gram High­lights Include:

  • Review of our analy­sis of Trump’s state­ments about Putin/Russia/Ukraine as a man­i­fes­ta­tion of Ger­man “Ost­poli­tik.”
  • Pre­sen­ta­tion of a skill­ful man­i­fes­ta­tion of Ost­poli­tik by Wal­ter Schel­len­brg, in charge of for­eign intel­li­gence for the SD, the SS intel­li­gence ser­vice.
  • Analy­sis of the suc­cess of Schel­len­berg’s Ost­poli­tik pro­pa­gan­da as reg­is­tered with Allen Dulles.

1. In Talk­ing Points Memo, Josh Mar­shall notes the sim­i­lar­i­ty between Adolf Hitler’s rhetor­i­cal style and that of Don­ald Trump. The con­trast between the ful­mi­nat­ing par­ti­san address­ing his fol­low­ers and the “states­man” engag­ing oth­er politi­cians at major func­tions caught Mar­shal­l’s eye.

“Blood and Race and Trump” by Josh Mar­shall; Talk­ing Points Memo Editor’s Blog; 9/01/2016.

We’ve now heard Trump’s big immi­gra­tion pol­i­cy speech.

Let me start with a gen­er­al com­ment on tone. This was as wild and as unbri­dled a speech as I’ve seen from Trump. Even if you couldn’t under­stand Eng­lish, it would be stun­ning to watch the slash­ing hand ges­tures, the red face, the yelling. It’s hard to imag­ine any pres­i­den­tial can­di­date in liv­ing mem­o­ry giv­ing such a speech. And again, this is if you didn’t know what the words even meant.

As the speech was unfold­ing, I said some­thing on Twit­ter that I’m sure many will find extreme or beyond the pale. But watch­ing this speech, com­pared to the press con­fer­ence today in Mex­i­co City, what kept com­ing to my mind was the con­trast between Hitler’s uni­formed ral­ly speech­es from the hus­tings and the suit­ed, states­man Hitler we see in the old news reels in Munich and at oth­er icon­ic moments in the late 1930s. . . . But the dem­a­gog­ic style, the fren­zied invo­ca­tion of famil­ial blood sac­ri­ficed to bar­bar­ic out­siders – these are not unique to him. When we see this lurid, stab-in-the-back incite­ment, the wild hyper­bole, the febrile rail­ing against out­siders who will make us no longer a coun­try – the sim­i­lar­i­ties are real. More than any­thing, per­haps the most chill­ing part of this day is the con­trast between the two men – a mea­sured, calm states­man fig­ure we saw this after­noon and this rail­ing, angry dem­a­gogue fig­ure who cap­tured the emo­tion­al tenor of a Klan ral­ly. As I said, the abil­i­ty to shift from one per­sona to the oth­er is a sign of dan­ger in itself. . . .

2a. Trump has, in fact, digest­ed Hitler’s rhetor­i­cal style, hav­ing acquired and read a book of Hitler’s speech­es.

“After the Gold Rush” by Marie Bren­ner; Van­i­ty Fair; 9/1990.

. . . . Don­ald Trump appears to take aspects of his Ger­man back­ground seri­ous­ly. John Wal­ter works for the Trump Orga­ni­za­tion, and when he vis­its Don­ald in his office, Ivana told a friend, he clicks his heels and says, “Heil Hitler,” pos­si­bly as a fam­i­ly joke.

. . . . Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her hus­band reads a book of Hitler’s col­lect­ed speech­es, My New Order, which he keeps in a cab­i­net by his bed. . . . Hitler’s speech­es, from his ear­li­est days up through the Pho­ny War of 1939, reveal his extra­or­di­nary abil­i­ty as a mas­ter pro­pa­gan­dist. . . .

2b. An Alter­net piece pro­vides more detail about My New Order and how Trump has incor­po­rat­ed Hitler’s rhetor­i­cal style:

“Is Don­ald Trump Get­ting His Cues from Hitler? How the GOP Leader Is Fol­low­ing the Führer’s Recipe” by Steven Rosen­feld; Alter­net; 12/10/2015.

. . . . Adolf Hitler’s My New Order is not just any book. It came after Hitler’s two-vol­ume Mein Kampf (Ger­man for My Strug­gle), and was pub­lished in 1925 and 1926 before the Nazi rise to nation­al pow­er and World War II. It is not just a col­lec­tion of excerpts from speech­es Hitler made between 1918 and 1941; it is pro­fuse­ly indexed and filled with details about the speech­es’ impact on the media and polit­i­cal estab­lish­ment.

The Amer­i­can lit­er­ary mag­a­zine Kirkus Review, found­ed in 1933, puts it this way: “Par­al­lel­ing actu­al quo­ta­tions from Hitler’s own utter­ances, he [the edi­tor of the Eng­lish edi­tion] includes cor­re­spond­ing data show­ing the effect on the world press, and his own com­men­tary relat­ing the state­ments to doc­trines pre­vi­ous­ly pre­sent­ed in Mein Kampf… Sec­tion after sec­tion fol­lows pat­tern-back­ground, speech, press.” . . . . But it appears that one way or anoth­er, much of the con­tent in My New Order about how Hitler says pro­pa­gan­da works, and how he struc­tures his speak­ing style, and how Hitler tar­gets the low­est-com­mon denom­i­na­tor as his intend­ed audi­ence, has seeped into Trump: the way he speaks, argues, rages and responds in pub­lic. This goes beyond what has been report­ed in the New York Times, which ana­lyzed 95,000 words from five months of speech­es and con­clud­ed that Trump shares a style with the 20th cen­tu­ry’s biggest dem­a­gogues.

Trump’s speech­es are filled with sim­plis­tic racist attacks, first against Mex­i­cans and more recent­ly Mus­lims. He belit­tles and insults his com­peti­tors for the 2016 Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial nom­i­na­tion. He attacks Democ­rats’ polit­i­cal “cor­rect­ness” as weak. He mocks women and dis­abled peo­ple. He threat­ens to oblit­er­ate the ene­mies he names. He doesn’t care about facts or incon­sis­ten­cies, and plays to his fol­low­ers’ fears and prej­u­dices.

All of these tac­tics, from the repet­i­tive style of his speech­es, to believ­ing what­ev­er he says is true, to his exces­sive and unri­valed view in his lead­er­ship, are mod­eled by Hitler in My New Order, accord­ing to a psy­cho­log­i­cal pro­file of the book in the Sep­tem­ber 2013 issue of the schol­ar­ly jour­nal, Psy­chi­atric Quar­ter­ly. “The ele­ments of a delu­sion­al sys­tem are there,” it states. “This is not sim­ply to say that the man is mad and so has plunged the world into chaos; but it is to say that there is over­whelm­ing evi­dence in 19 years of his speech­es that Hitler him­self firm­ly believes many of his most absurd dec­la­ra­tions, includ­ing some which are con­tra­dic­to­ry.”

What is real­ly stunning—whether or not he care­ful­ly read My New Order—is that Trump is chan­nel­ing the very tenets about how pro­pa­gan­da works laid out by Hitler in his books. . . .

2d. A recent Trump cam­paign dis­clo­sure appears to be yet anoth­er “dog whis­tle” for Trump’s Nazi fol­low­ers. Cit­ing 88 high-rank­ing mil­i­tary offi­cers sup­port­ing Trump, the Trump cam­paign is prob­a­bly ref­er­enc­ing the num­ber as a long-stand­ing numer­i­cal code for “Heil Hitler.” In the after­math of the Allied occu­pa­tion of Ger­many, it was for­bid­den to use the Nazi salute. Instead, “88” was giv­en voice by the Nazi faithful–“H” is the eighth let­ter of the alpha­bet.

It is worth not­ing that, from an actu­ar­i­al stand­point, the pos­si­bil­i­ty that exact­ly 88 offi­cers would have backed Trump is high­ly unlikely. The num­ber could be any­thing, from the stand­point of prob­a­bil­i­ty.

That exact number–88–is very, very unlike­ly.

“Trump Announces 88 Top For­mer Mil­i­tary Offi­cials Back­ing Him” by David Corn; Moth­er Jones; 9/6/2016.

. . . .(Last month, a group of 50 GOP nation­al secu­ri­ty wonks signed a let­ter declar­ing that Trump “would be a dan­ger­ous Pres­i­dent and would put at risk our country’s nation­al secu­ri­ty and well-being.”) Now Trump is fight­ing back. On Mon­day, he released a list of 88 for­mer gen­er­als and admi­rals who back his pres­i­den­tial bid. . . .

2e. The excuse–not credible–was giv­en that “we were run­ning out of time.”

“Don­ald Trump Is Endorsed by Near­ly 90 Mil­i­tary Fig­ures” by Mag­gie Haber­man; The New York Times.; 9/6/2016.

. . . . Describ­ing the group as “nation­al secu­ri­ty pro­fes­sion­als for Trump,” Lt. Gen. Michael T. Fly­nn, a retired Army offi­cer who had been under con­sid­er­a­tion to be Mr. Trump’s run­ning mate, said it came togeth­er organ­i­cal­ly.

“We had to stop accept­ing names because we were run­ning out of time,” he said. . . .

3a. We have not­ed Trump’s real estate deal­ings in the past, and the opaque nature of his rela­tion­ships. Orga­nized crime ele­ments are one of the ele­ments for which Trump’s real estate empire appar­ent­ly “fronts.”

A New York Times inves­ti­ga­tion revealed that Ger­man cor­po­rate ele­ments are anoth­er major play­er in the com­plex Trump real estate deal­ings. The nature of the rela­tion­ships is so com­plex that not even The Times could unrav­el some of the rela­tion­ships.

Deutsche Bank and the Union Bank of Switzer­land are major Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work play­ers. The Hin­neberg com­pa­ny, as a dom­i­nant inter­na­tion­al ship­ping con­cern and a major Ger­man cor­po­ra­tion is almost cer­tain­ly a major Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work play­er.

“Trump’s Empire: A Maze of Debts and Opaque Ties” by Susanne Craig; The New York Times; 8/21/2016.

. . . .Yet The Times’s exam­i­na­tion under­scored how much of Mr. Trump’s busi­ness remains shroud­ed in mys­tery. He has declined to dis­close his tax returns or allow an inde­pen­dent val­u­a­tion of his assets.

Ear­li­er in the cam­paign, Mr. Trump sub­mit­ted a 104-page fed­er­al finan­cial dis­clo­sure form. It said his busi­ness­es owed at least $315 mil­lion to a rel­a­tive­ly small group of lenders and list­ed ties to more than 500 lim­it­ed lia­bil­i­ty com­pa­nies. Though he answered the ques­tions, the form appears to have been designed for can­di­dates with sim­pler finances than his, and did not require dis­clo­sure of por­tions of his busi­ness activ­i­ties. . . .

. . . .The Times found three oth­er instances in which Mr. Trump had an own­er­ship inter­est in a build­ing but did not dis­close the debt asso­ci­at­ed with it. In all three cas­es, Mr. Trump had pas­sive invest­ments in lim­it­ed lia­bil­i­ty com­pa­nies that had bor­rowed sig­nif­i­cant amounts of mon­ey.

One of these invest­ments involves an office tow­er at 1290 Avenue of Amer­i­c­as, near Rock­e­feller Cen­ter. In a typ­i­cal­ly com­plex deal, loan doc­u­ments show that four lenders — Ger­man Amer­i­can Cap­i­tal, a sub­sidiary of Deutsche Bank; UBS Real Estate Secu­ri­ties; Gold­man Sachs Mort­gage Com­pa­ny; and Bank of Chi­na — agreed in Novem­ber 2012 to lend $950 mil­lion to the three com­pa­nies that own the build­ing. Those com­pa­nies, obscure­ly named HWA 1290 III LLC, HWA 1290 IV LLC and HWA 1290 V LLC, are owned by three oth­er com­pa­nies in which Mr. Trump has stakes. . . . .

. . . .At 40 Wall Street in Man­hat­tan, a lim­it­ed lia­bil­i­ty com­pa­ny, or L.L.C., con­trolled by Mr. Trump holds the ground lease — the lease for the land on which the build­ing stands. In 2015, Mr. Trump bor­rowed $160 mil­lion from Lad­der Cap­i­tal, a small New York firm, using that long-term lease as col­lat­er­al. On his finan­cial dis­clo­sure form that debt is list­ed as val­ued at more than $50 mil­lion. . . .

. . . .Trac­ing the own­er­ship of many of Mr. Trump’s build­ings can be a com­pli­cat­ed task. Some­times he owns a build­ing and the land under­neath it; some­times, he holds a par­tial inter­est or just the com­mer­cial por­tion of a prop­er­ty.

And in some cas­es, the iden­ti­ties of his busi­ness part­ners are obscured behind lim­it­ed lia­bil­i­ty com­pa­nies — rais­ing the prospect of a pres­i­dent with unknown busi­ness ties.

At 40 Wall Street, Mr. Trump does not own even a sliv­er of the actu­al land; his long-term ground lease gives him the right to improve and man­age the build­ing. The land is owned by two lim­it­ed lia­bil­i­ty com­pa­nies; Mr. Trump pays the two enti­ties a total of $1.6 mil­lion a year for the ground lease, accord­ing to doc­u­ments filed with the S.E.C.

The major­i­ty own­er, 40 Wall Street Hold­ings Cor­po­ra­tion, owns 80 per­cent of the land; New Scan­dic Wall Lim­it­ed Part­ner­ship owns the rest, accord­ing to pub­lic doc­u­ments. New Scan­dic Wall Lim­it­ed Partnership’s chief exec­u­tive is Joachim Fer­di­nand von Grumme-Dou­glas, a busi­ness­man based in Europe, accord­ing to these doc­u­ments.

The peo­ple behind 40 Wall Street Hold­ings are hard­er to iden­ti­fy. For years, Germany’s Hin­neberg fam­i­ly, which made its for­tune in the ship­ping indus­try, con­trolled the prop­er­ty through a com­pa­ny called 40 Wall Lim­it­ed Part­ner­ship. In late 2014, their inter­est in the land was trans­ferred to a new com­pa­ny, 40 Wall Street Hold­ings. The Times was not able to iden­ti­fy the own­er or own­ers of this com­pa­ny, and the Trump Orga­ni­za­tion declined to com­ment. . . .

3b. The pro­gram presents analy­sis of the rela­tion­ship between Union Bank of Switzer­land, the Nazi I.G. Far­ben chem­i­cal car­tel and the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work, eco­nom­ic com­po­nent of a Third Reich gone under­ground and per­pet­u­at­ed Mafia-like through its con­nec­tions to deci­sive­ly pow­er­ful eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal inter­ests.

Note that UBS has helped cap­i­tal­ize the Thyssen indus­tri­al group with pro­found his­tor­i­cal, polit­i­cal and com­mer­cial links to the Bush fam­i­ly, as well as the Under­ground Reich.

Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; Paul Man­ning; Copy­right 1981 [HC]; Lyle Stu­art Inc.; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; pp. 160–161.

. . . .In 1948 a suit was to be filed by cer­tain minor­i­ty stock­hold­ers of Inter­han­del against the attor­ney gen­er­al of the Unit­ed States, as suc­ces­sor to the wartime Alien Prop­er­ty Cus­to­di­an, and the U.S. Trea­sury, for the return of 89 per­cent of GAF (the Amer­i­can branch of I.G. Far­ben), of a val­ue of $100 mil­lion plus $1.8 mil­lion seized in cash in 1942. Inter­han­del, through its Amer­i­can attor­neys, first filed an admin­is­tra­tive claim, which was denied. The suit then went to the Dis­trict Court for the Dis­trict of Colum­bia, then to the Supreme Court, and back to Dis­trict Court. The Swiss claim was based on the argu­ment that Inter­han­del was a Swiss cor­po­ra­tion, that it was not nor had it ever been an ene­my of the Unit­ed States, and that it owned the shares in ques­tion. The Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment rebut­tal was that Inter­han­del was the result of a con­spir­a­cy between the pri­vate bank of H. Sturzeneg­ger, for­mer­ly E.Greutert & Cie., and I.G. Far­benin­dus­trie of Ger­many and oth­ers “to con­ceal, cam­ou­flage, and cloak the own­er­ship, con­trol, and com­bi­na­tion by I.G. Far­ben of prop­er­ties and inter­ests in many coun­tries of the world, includ­ing the U.S.”

As the case dragged through the U.S. courts, Schmitz would have Inter­han­del cos­meti­cized even more. Charles de Loes, past pres­i­dent of the Swiss Bankers Asso­ci­a­tion, would be elect­ed chair­man, and the gen­er­al man­ag­er of each of the Big Three banks would be appoint­ed to the board. They would agree to this because the hon­or of Swiss bank­ing and its prin­ci­ple of bank­ing secre­cy would be at stake. In addi­tion, 25 per­cent of Inter­han­del stock would be reg­is­tered in the name of Union Bank, whose man­ag­er, Dr. Alfred Schae­fer, was of known integri­ty. The Swiss believed the asso­ci­a­tion of such a man of high bank­ing repute at Inter­han­del would impress Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment author­i­ties. But the Ger­man con­nec­tion would still be there. Not only Her­mann Schmitz, but also the bank­ing con­nec­tion of Union Bank of Switzer­land, Dr. Schaefer’s bank, and Deutsche Bank, which act­ed in con­cert on so many deals involv­ing not only I.G. Far­ben but also big Ruhr indus­tri­al­ists such as Thyssen A.G., the largest steel­mak­er in Ger­many. In Jan­u­ary 1978 these two lead banks, act­ing through the UBS-DBCor­po­ra­tion, an Amer­i­can firm of the Union Bank of Switzer­land and the Deutsche Bank of Ger­many, would be the finan­cial advi­sors for Thyssen A.G. in its $275 mil­lion cash takeover of the Budd Com­pa­ny of Troy, Michi­gan, a lead­ing U.S. man­u­fac­tur­er of auto com­po­nents, truck trail­ers, and rail cars. UBSDB Cor­po­ra­tion would also say that the West Ger­man com­pa­nies it rep­re­sent­ed were show­ing a “very sub­stan­tial inter­est in all sorts of Amer­i­can ven­tures, includ­ing merg­ers and acqui­si­tion.” . . .

4a. Don­ald Trump’s bank of choice: Deutsche Bank! As the arti­cle below points out, it’s a long rela­tion­ship going back to the ear­ly 90’s, with at least $2.5 bil­lion lent. Even when the 2008 crash strained Trump’s rela­tion­ship with Deutsche Bank, the com­pa­ny’s pri­vate bank­ing arm con­tin­ued to back “The Don­ald.”

“When Don­ald Trump Needs a Loan, He Choos­es Deutsche Bank” by Anupree­ta Das; The Wall Street Jour­nal; 3/20/2016.

Despite some clash­es, the Repub­li­can front-run­ner has been a reg­u­lar client of the Ger­man lender

One of Don­ald Trump’s clos­est allies on Wall Street is a now-strug­gling Ger­man bank.

While many big banks have shunned him, Deutsche Bank AG has been a stead­fast finan­cial backer of the Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial candidate’s busi­ness inter­ests. Since 1998, the bank has led or par­tic­i­pat­ed in loans of at least $2.5 bil­lion to com­pa­nies affil­i­at­ed with Mr. Trump, accord­ing to a Wall Street Jour­nal analy­sis of pub­lic records and peo­ple famil­iar with the mat­ter.

That doesn’t include at least anoth­er $1 bil­lion in loan com­mit­ments that Deutsche Bank made to Trump-affil­i­at­ed enti­ties.

The long-stand­ing con­nec­tion makes Frank­furt-based Deutsche Bank, which has a large U.S. oper­a­tion and has been grap­pling with rep­u­ta­tion­al prob­lems and an almost 50% stock-price decline, the finan­cial insti­tu­tion with prob­a­bly the strongest ties to the con­tro­ver­sial New York busi­ness­man.

But the rela­tions at times have been rocky. Deutsche Bank’s giant invest­ment-bank­ing unit stopped work­ing with Mr. Trump after an acri­mo­nious legal spat, even as anoth­er arm of the com­pa­ny con­tin­ued to loan him mon­ey.

Oth­er Wall Street banks, after doing exten­sive busi­ness with Mr. Trump in the 1980s and 1990s, pulled back in part due to frus­tra­tion with his busi­ness prac­tices but also because he moved away from real-estate projects that required financ­ing, accord­ing to bank offi­cials. Cit­i­group Inc., J.P. Mor­gan Chase & Co. and Mor­gan Stan­ley are among the banks that don’t cur­rent­ly work with him.

At Gold­man Sachs Group Inc., bankers “know bet­ter than to pitch” a Trump-relat­ed deal, said a for­mer Gold­man exec­u­tive. Gold­man offi­cials say there is lit­tle over­lap between its core invest­ment-bank­ing group and Mr. Trump’s busi­ness­es.

Deutsche Bank’s rela­tion­ship with Mr. Trump dates to the 1990s. The bank, eager to expand in the U.S. via com­mer­cial-real-estate lend­ing, set out to woo big New York devel­op­ers such as Mr. Trump and Har­ry Mack­lowe.

One of the bank’s first loans to Mr. Trump, in 1998, was $125 mil­lion to ren­o­vate the office build­ing at 40 Wall Street. More deals soon fol­lowed, with the bank agree­ing over the next few years to loan or help under­write bonds worth a total of more than $1.3 bil­lion for Trump enti­ties.

By 2005, Deutsche Bank had emerged as one of Mr. Trump’s lead­ing bankers. That year, the Ger­man bank and oth­ers lent a Trump enti­ty $640 mil­lion to build the 92-sto­ry Trump Inter­na­tion­al Hotel and Tow­er in Chica­go. Deutsche Bank offi­cials bad­ly want­ed the deal because it came with a $12.5 mil­lion fee attached, said a per­son famil­iar with the mat­ter.

Mr. Trump charmed the bankers, fly­ing them on his pri­vate Boe­ing 727 jet, accord­ing to peo­ple who trav­eled with him.

But when the hous­ing bub­ble burst, the rela­tion­ship frayed.

In 2008, Mr. Trump failed to pay $334 mil­lion he owed on the Chica­go loan because of lack­lus­ter sales of the building’s units. He then sued Deutsche Bank. His argu­ment was that the eco­nom­ic cri­sis con­sti­tut­ed a “force majeure”—an unfore­seen event such as war or nat­ur­al disaster—that should excuse the repay­ment until con­di­tions improved.

His lawyers were inspired to invoke the clause after hear­ing for­mer Fed­er­al Reserve chair­man Alan Greenspan describe the cri­sis as a “once-in-a-cen­tu­ry cred­it tsuna­mi,” accord­ing to a per­son who worked on the case for Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump also attacked Deutsche Bank’s lend­ing prac­tices and said that as a big bank, it was par­tial­ly respon­si­ble for caus­ing the finan­cial cri­sis. He sought $3 bil­lion in dam­ages.

Deutsche Bank in turn sued Mr. Trump, say­ing it was owed $40 mil­lion that the busi­ness­man had per­son­al­ly guar­an­teed in case his com­pa­ny was unable to repay the loan.

Deutsche Bank argued that Mr. Trump had a cav­a­lier his­to­ry toward banks, quot­ing from his 2007 book, “Think Big And Kick Ass In Busi­ness And Life.”

“I fig­ured it was the bank’s prob­lem, not mine,” Mr. Trump wrote, accord­ing to the law­suit. “What the hell did I care? I actu­al­ly told one bank, ‘I told you you shouldn’t have loaned me that mon­ey. I told you that god­damn deal was no good.’”

The court reject­ed Mr. Trump’s argu­ments but the suit forced Deutsche Bank to the nego­ti­at­ing table. The two sides agreed to set­tle their suits out of court in 2009. The fol­low­ing year, they extend­ed the orig­i­nal loan by five years. It was paid off in 2012—with the help of a loan from the Ger­man firm’s pri­vate bank.

While Deutsche Bank didn’t lose mon­ey on the deal, the fra­cas soured its invest­ment bankers on work­ing with Mr. Trump. “He was per­sona non gra­ta after that,” said a banker who worked on the deal.

But not every­one with­in Deutsche Bank want­ed to sev­er the rela­tion­ship. The company’s pri­vate-bank­ing arm, which caters to ultra­rich fam­i­lies and indi­vid­u­als, picked up the slack, lend­ing well over $300 mil­lion to Trump enti­ties in the fol­low­ing years. . . .

4b. The fact that Don­ald Trump recent­ly bor­rowed a large sum a mon­ey to one of the finan­cial world’s biggest ser­i­al reg­u­la­to­ry vio­la­tors should become an issue in the 2016.

“Trump Has a Con­flict-of-Inter­est Prob­lem No Oth­er White House Can­di­date Ever Had” by Russ Choma and David Corn; Moth­er Jones; 6/01/2016.

He owes at least $100 mil­lion to a for­eign bank that’s bat­tled with US reg­u­la­tors.

In his most recent finan­cial dis­clo­sure state­ment, Don­ald Trump notes he has bil­lions of dol­lars in assets. But the pre­sump­tive GOP nom­i­nee also has a tremen­dous load of debt that includes five loans each over $50 mil­lion. (The dis­clo­sure form, which pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates must sub­mit, does not com­pel can­di­dates to reveal the spe­cif­ic amount of any loans that exceed $50 mil­lion, and Trump has cho­sen not to pro­vide details.) Two of those mega­loans are held by Deutsche Bank, which is based in Ger­many but has US sub­sidiaries. And this prompts a ques­tion that no oth­er major Amer­i­can pres­i­den­tial can­di­date has had to face: What are the impli­ca­tions of the chief exec­u­tive of the US gov­ern­ment being in hock for $100 mil­lion (or more) to a for­eign enti­ty that has tried to evade laws aimed at cur­tail­ing risky finan­cial shenani­gans, that was recent­ly caught manip­u­lat­ing mar­kets around the world, and that attempts to influ­ence the US gov­ern­ment?

4c. George Soros led a group of three hedge funds that lend­ed Trump $160 mil­lion in high-inter­est loans which was on top of the $650 mil­lion from Deutsche Bank. And we already know what hap­pened to those Deutsche Bank loans (it was paid off with a new loan from Deutsche Bank’s pri­vate bank).

But what about that $160 mil­lion high-inter­est mez­za­nine loan Soros helped finance? Well, it’s not easy to find much infor­ma­tion on that, but it turns out some­one cre­at­ed a blog, apt­ly named trumpsoroschicago.wordpress.com, with just a sin­gle post ded­i­cat­ed sole­ly to elu­ci­dat­ing what hap­pened from pub­lic sources. And it sure looks like that high-inter­est loan was also for­giv­en in 2012 and there’s no indi­ca­tion it was for­giv­en by issu­ing a new loan, but instead just for­giv­en. In past dis­cus­sion and analy­sis, we not­ed that Soros got his start in busi­ness “Aryaniz­ing” Jew­ish prop­er­ty in Hun­gary dur­ing the Holo­caust. This may well have been a spring­board to oper­at­ing as what we have termed “a Bor­mann Jew.”

If Trump was indeed unable to pay back both his Deutsche Bank and mez­za­nine loans, that sounds cir­cum­stan­tial­ly odd. It would be an odd time for mas­sive loan for­give­ness when the high-end Chica­go sky­scraper mar­ket was look­ing pret­ty good in 2012. The con­do units on the Trump Tow­er were basi­cal­ly sold out by 2014, so busi­ness was clear­ly pret­ty good in the wake of that round of loan for­give­ness.

All in all, it’s a very strange busi­ness sto­ry.

“Did George Soros Free Don­ald Trump of a $312 Mil­lion Debt?” by sorostrumpchica­go; Trumpsoroschicago.wordpress.com; 3/19;2016.

* In 2005 Trump start­ed con­struc­tion on his sky­scraper the Trump Inter­na­tion­al Hotel and Tow­er (Chica­go)
* To build the tow­er, Trump received a loan from Deutsche Bank for $650 mil­lion
* Trump also received a $160 mil­lion mez­za­nine loan* from a group of pri­vate investors includ­ing George Soros, Fortress Invest­ment Group and Black­acre Cap­i­tal (The loan was esti­mat­ed by the Wall Street Jour­nal of hav­ing a total val­ue as high as $360 mil­lion with accrued inter­est)
* By Octo­ber 2008 Trump had sold near­ly $600 mil­lion in con­do and con­do-hotel units, more than half of the total val­ue of all the units in his tow­er
* After sev­en years (2005–2012) Trump was on his way to pay­ing off his main con­struc­tion loan to Deutsche Bank
* For rea­sons unex­plained to the pub­lic, the major­i­ty of Trump’s mez­za­nine loan was qui­et­ly for­giv­en by the loan’s orig­i­nal lenders
* No media out­let cov­er­ing the deal has put togeth­er the pieces and told the pub­lic that George Soros let Don­ald Trump off the hook for what has been val­ued between $82 and $312 mil­lion in debt
* Why would Soros give what amounts to a mas­sive debt relief to Trump dur­ing a finan­cial­ly suc­cess­ful peri­od in Trump’s life? Are these men friends, ene­mies or busi­ness part­ners?

We have come across infor­ma­tion relat­ed to a long and bizarre finan­cial deal between Don­ald J. Trump, George Soros, Fortress Invest­ment Group and Black­acre Cap­i­tal, a deal dis­cov­ered by fol­low­ing a spe­cif­ic on-going mon­ey trail and like­ly part­ner­ship between these enti­ties.

In 2005, when Trump began financ­ing the con­struc­tion of the tallest res­i­den­tial tow­er on the North Amer­i­can con­ti­nent the Trump Inter­na­tion­al Hotel and Tow­er (Chica­go), he need­ed more than just the basic loan he had received from Deutsche Bank. Trump need­ed what is called a “mez­za­nine loan”, a loan which is far more expen­sive than a reg­u­lar bank loan. This kind of loan needs to be paid off more quick­ly to avoid high inter­est pay­ments. It also needs to be paid back in full to keep the lender from tak­ing own­er­ship of the under­ly­ing asset.

“Mez­za­nine financ­ing is basi­cal­ly debt cap­i­tal that gives the lender the rights to con­vert to an own­er­ship or equi­ty inter­est in the com­pa­ny if the loan is not paid back in time and in full…

…Since mez­za­nine financ­ing is usu­al­ly pro­vid­ed to the bor­row­er very quick­ly with lit­tle due dili­gence on the part of the lender and lit­tle or no col­lat­er­al on the part of the bor­row­er, this type of financ­ing is aggres­sive­ly priced with the lender seek­ing a return in the 20–30% range.” 1

Soros along with Fortress and Black­acre came to Trump with just such a loan at a cost­ly $160 mil­lion prin­ci­pal*. The Wall Street Jour­nal had val­ued the loan at as much as $360 mil­lion, depend­ing on the length of time it accrued inter­est.

“Don­ald Trump has lined up three New York hedge funds, includ­ing mon­ey from bil­lion­aire George Soros, to invest $160 mil­lion in his Chica­go sky­scraper, a key piece in per­haps the largest con­struc­tion financ­ing in the city’s his­to­ry, accord­ing to real estate sources and pub­lic doc­u­ments… The mas­sive financ­ing, which sources say also will include a $650 mil­lion con­struc­tion loan from Deutsche Bank…” 2

“Big names back Trump tow­er” Chica­go Tri­bune – Octo­ber 28, 2004

“A loan doc­u­ment says Mr. Trump could have to pay Fortress as much as $360 mil­lion, depend­ing on how long the loan accrues inter­est. Com­bined with the Deutsche Bank senior loan, he would owe more than $1 bil­lion in total.” 3

“In Chica­go, Trump Hits Head­winds” The Wall Street Jour­nal – Octo­ber 29, 2008

By Octo­ber 2008, the tow­er was almost com­plete and Trump had sold near­ly $600 mil­lion in con­do and con­do-hotel units, more than half of the total val­ue of all units in the tow­er.

“So far, Mr. Trump has lined up buy­ers for a bit less than $600 mil­lion of con­do units and con­do-hotel units in a res­i­den­tial mar­ket that has vir­tu­al­ly seized up… He has closed around $200 mil­lion in sales so far, with rough­ly $380 mil­lion still in con­tract.”3

“In Chica­go, Trump Hits Head­winds” The Wall Street Jour­nal – Octo­ber 29, 2008

In 2012, Trump con­tin­ued to owe mon­ey to his lenders but sales of his con­do­mini­ums had picked up and his tow­er had a 69% occu­pan­cy rate. As Crain’s Chica­go put it: “The region’s hous­ing and con­do mar­ket is still mired in a his­toric slump. But when it comes to buy­ing and sell­ing in Chicago’s high-end con­do mar­ket, life is sur­pris­ing­ly good… Con­do­mini­um own­ers at the $850 mil­lion Trump Inter­na­tion­al Hotel & Tow­er and oth­er new­er top-end build­ings have, more often than not, expe­ri­enced val­ue appre­ci­a­tion when they sold in recent years.”4

While Trump was not yet mak­ing a prof­it on his tow­er, his sales and val­ue appre­ci­a­tions were such that his build­ing was gen­er­at­ing sig­nif­i­cant rev­enue, more than enough rev­enue to pay back to his lenders large por­tions of his loans. As for­mer New York real estate devel­op­er David Rose writes in his arti­cle “How to pay off a Sky­scraper”:

“After a num­ber of years have passed, sev­er­al things are like­ly to have hap­pened: 1) the mort­gage has been sig­nif­i­cant­ly paid down; 2) the val­ue of the under­ly­ing build­ing has increased; and 3) the own­er has wait­ed for a time in the eco­nom­ic cycle where mort­gage rates are low. At that point [they] will ‘refi­nance’ the orig­i­nal mort­gage, and put the bal­ance to work some­where else where it can make even more mon­ey.”5

“How Long Does It Take To Pay Off a Sky­scraper?” Slate – July 12, 2012

(For­tu­nate­ly for Trump, favor­able finan­cial con­di­tions exist­ed in 2012. 6By all accounts, includ­ing his own, Trump was ready and able to pay off the loans for his Chica­go tow­er. 7)

Yet Trump did not have to wor­ry about pay­ing back the major­i­ty of his mez­za­nine loan. A spe­cial group of lenders came in and erased a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of this oblig­a­tion.

That group was the orig­i­nal mez­za­nine loan lenders: Soros, Fortress and Black­acre; all of whom decid­ed to for­give Trump’s future inter­est pay­ments on the loan, sell­ing it to him at the mas­sive­ly reduced price of $48 mil­lion. To put that in stark­er terms, Soros and the oth­ers effec­tive­ly gave Trump pos­si­bly hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars in debt for­give­ness, while cut­ting down the prin­ci­pal of his loan by $82 mil­lion**. Basi­cal­ly, Soros and the oth­ers for­gave Trump as much as $312 mil­lion for no appar­ent rea­son.

“Don­ald Trump has paid $48 mil­lion to buy out junior cred­i­tors on his 92-sto­ry Chica­go con­do­mini­um and hotel project… The New York devel­op­er says he bought the debt, which had a face val­ue of $130 mil­lion, back from a group of cred­i­tors led by Fortress Invest­ment Group.” 8

“Trump buys out tow­er cred­i­tors” Crain’s Chica­go Busi­ness– March 28, 2012

In a fur­ther twist to the sto­ry, in the same arti­cle from Chica­go Busi­ness revealed: “After buy­ing out the junior debt [the mez­za­nine loan], Mr. Trump says he now owes about $120 mil­lion on the build­ing that comes due in 1½ years.”8

The afore­men­tioned shows us that in 2012 Trump had already paid off most of the Deutsche Bank loan before Soros, etc. came in and wiped out most of his mez­zai­n­ine debt. This rais­es the ques­tion, why wasn’t Trump expect­ed by Soros, Fortress and Black­acre to pay back their riski­er, high-inter­est mez­za­nine loan? Also, how was Trump able to pay down his Deutsche Bank loan – demon­strat­ing the means to pay off all his loans – yet still have Soros and the oth­ers give him some­where between $82 mil­lion and $312 mil­lion in debt for­give­ness?

Addi­tion­al­ly to that, why have we heard almost noth­ing about this gigan­tic give­away to Trump? And why were Soros and Black­acre, two of the three main investors in the mez­za­nine loan, scrubbed from media’s cov­er­age of the final debt for­give­ness deal? What back­room agree­ments were made con­cern­ing this mez­za­nine loan?

And indeed, not only was this deal made in a cloaked man­ner, it may have been the most gen­er­ous amount of debt for­give­ness ever giv­en on a mez­za­nine loan to a bor­row­er who was in good finan­cial health and who had a steadi­ly appre­ci­at­ing asset, as was Trump and his Chica­go tow­er.

Foot­notes:

*Two arti­cles quote the total for the mez­za­nine loan at $130 mil­lion, how­ev­er due to the lim­it­ed cov­er­age of the deal we do not know at this time which is the true fig­ure. 67

**If we were to rely on the orig­i­nal fig­ure of the $160 mil­lion prin­ci­pal, this would be $112 mil­lion give­away on the loan’s prin­ci­ple to Trump

Sources:

1. “Mez­za­nine Financ­ing” Investo­pe­dia:http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mezzaninefinancing.asp
2. “Big names back Trump tow­er” Chica­go Tri­bune – Octo­ber 28, 2004:http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004–10-28/news/0410280265_1_donald-trump-soros-fund-management-blackacre-institutional-capital-management
3. “In Chica­go, Trump Hits Head­winds” The Wall Street Jour­nal – Octo­ber 29, 2008:http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122523704293478077
4. “Trumped up: Tro­phy tow­ers’ con­dos rise above hous­ing slump” Crain’s Chica­go Busi­ness – April 14, 2012:http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120414/ISSUE01/304149974/trumped-up-trophy-towers-condos-rise-above-housing-slump
5. “How Long Does It Take To Pay Off a Sky­scraper?” Slate – July 12, 2012:http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/07/12/how_long_does_it_take_to_pay_off_a_skyscraper_.html
6. “Mort­gage rates sink to new record low” CNN Mon­ey – June 7, 2012:http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/07/real_estate/mortgage-rates/
7. “The 400 Rich­est Amer­i­cans – #134 Don­ald Trump” Forbes – Sept. 17, 2008:http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
8. “Trump buys out tow­er cred­i­tors” Crain’s Chica­go Busi­ness – March 28, 2012:http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20120328/CRED03/120329769/trump-buys-out-tower-creditors
9. “Trump sues lenders for more time to pay off loan on Tow­er” Chica­go Real Estate Dai­ly – Novem­ber 07, 2008:http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20081107/CRED03/200031749/trump-sues-lenders-for-more-time-to-pay-off-loan-on-tower

4d. We review the pro­found rela­tion­ship of the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work and Deutsche Bank:

Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; Paul Man­ning; Copy­right 1981 [HC]; Lyle Stu­art Inc.; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; pp. 139, 205.

. . . . When Bor­mann gave the order for his rep­re­sen­ta­tives to resume pur­chas­es of Amer­i­can cor­po­rate stocks, it was usu­al­ly done through the neu­tral coun­tries of Switzer­land and Argenti­na. From for­eign exchange funds on deposit in Swiss banks and in Deutsche Sudamerikan­ishe Bank, the Buenos Aires branch of Deutsche Bank, large demand deposits were placed in the prin­ci­pal mon­ey-cen­ter banks of New York City; Nation­al City (now Citibank), Chase (now Chase Man­hat­tan N.A.), Man­u­fac­tur­ers and Hanover (now man­u­fac­tur­ers Hanover Trust), Mor­gan Guar­an­ty, and Irv­ing Trust. Such deposits are inter­est-free and the banks can invest this mon­ey as they wish, thus turn­ing tidy prof­its for them­selves. In return, they pro­vide rea­son­able ser­vices such as the pur­chase of stocks and trans­fer or pay­ment of mon­ey on demand by cus­tomers of Deutsche bank such as rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Bor­mann busi­ness orga­ni­za­tions and and Mar­tin Bor­mann him­self, who has demand accounts in three New York City banks. They con­tin­ue to do so. The Ger­man invest­ment in Amer­i­can cor­po­ra­tions from these sources exceed­ed $5 bil­lion and made the Bor­mann eco­nom­ic struc­ture a web of pow­er and influ­ence. The two Ger­man-owned banks of Spain, Ban­co Ale­man Transat­lanti­co (now named Ban­co Com­er­cial Transat­lanti­co), and Ban­co Ger­man­i­co de la Amer­i­ca del Sur, S.A., a sub­sidiary of Deutsche Bank served to chan­nel Ger­man mon­ey from Spain to South Amer­i­ca, where fur­ther invest­ments were made. . . .

. . . . The [FBI] file revealed that he had been bank­ing under his own name from his office in Ger­many in Deutsche Bank of Buenos Aires since 1941; that he held one joint account with the Argen­tin­ian dic­ta­tor Juan Per­on, and on August 4, 5 and 14, 1967, had writ­ten checks on demand accounts in first Nation­al City Bank (Over­seas Divi­sion) of New York, The Chase Man­hat­tan Bank, and Man­u­fac­tur­ers Hanover Trust Co., all cleared through Deutsche Bank of Buenos Aires. . . .

5. In con­nec­tion both with Trump’s real estate hold­ings and John P. Schmitz’s cor­po­rate work, we review the con­trol of Ger­man indus­try and finance by the Bor­mann net­work.

Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile by Paul Man­ning; Copy­right 1981 by Paul Man­ning; Lyle Stu­art Inc. [HC]; ISBN 0–8184-0309‑B; pp. 284–285.

. . . Atop an orga­ni­za­tion­al pyra­mid that dom­i­nates the indus­try of West Ger­many through banks, vot­ing rights enjoyed by major­i­ty share­hold­ers in sig­nif­i­cant car­tels, and the pro­fes­sion­al input of a rel­a­tive­ly young lead­er­ship group of lawyers, invest­ment spe­cial­ists, bankers, and indus­tri­al­ists, he [Bor­mann] is sat­is­fied that he achieved his aim of help­ing the Father­land back on its feet. To ensure con­ti­nu­ity of pur­pose and direc­tion, a close watch is main­tained on the prof­it state­ments and man­age­ment reports of cor­po­ra­tions under its con­trol else­where. This lead­er­ship group of twen­ty, which is in fact a board of direc­tors, is chaired by Bor­mann, but pow­er has shift­ed to the younger men who will car­ry on the ini­tia­tive that grew from that his­toric meet­ing in Stras­bourg on August 10, 1944. Old Hein­rich Mueller, chief of secu­ri­ty for the NSDAP in South Amer­i­ca, is the most feared of all, hav­ing the pow­er of life and death over those deemed not to be act­ing in the best inter­ests of the orga­ni­za­tion. Some still envi­sion a Fourth Reich. . . What will not pass is the eco­nom­ic influ­ences of the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion, whose com­mer­cial direc­tives are obeyed almost with­out ques­tion by the high­est ech­e­lons of West Ger­man finance and indus­try. ‘All orders come from the share­hold­ers in South Amer­i­ca,’ I have been told by a spokesman for Mar­tin Bor­mann. . . . 

theythoughttheywerefree

6. In FTR #s 918 and 919, we detailed our view that Trump’s benign state­ments about Rus­sia, Ukraine and Putin are of the same nature as the 1949 “Open Let­ter to Stal­in” pub­lished in the Buerg­er Zeitung. They are intend­ed to pre­cip­i­tate a “bid­ding war” between the West and Rus­sia, to the even­tu­al bet­ter­ment of Ger­many.

We may very well see, ulti­mate­ly, a non-NATO, non-nuclear, “Euro­pean War Union” replace NATO, along with a Rus­sia-inclu­sive trade union stretch­ing “from Lis­ton to Vladi­vos­tok.”  The “Euro­pean War Union” would be sold to Rus­sia as a less threat­en­ing enti­ty than the U.S.-led NATO.

We present a text excerpt illus­trat­ing how long this Ger­man-spon­sored “East vs. West” bid­ding war con­duct­ed for the ben­e­fit of Ger­many has been going on.

In the clos­ing stages of World War II, Wal­ter Schel­len­berg, in charge of for­eign intel­li­gence for the SD (the SS intel­li­gence ser­vice) played the “Ost­poli­tik” card to Allen Dulles, who, in turn, played it to the State Depart­ment. This was a suc­cess­ful gam­bit, and helped lay the ground­work for the resur­gence of the Under­ground Reich and the return to pow­er of Nazis in the “new” Ger­many.

The Old Boys: The Amer­i­can Elite and the Ori­gins of the CIA by Bur­ton Hersh; Charles Scrib­n­er’s & Sons [HC]; Copy­right 1992 by Bur­ton Hersh; ISBN 0–684-19348–5; pp. 121–123.

It now became pri­or­i­ty num­ber one that as much of West­ern Europe as pos­si­ble fall to the cap­i­tal­ist West, and as intact as pos­si­ble. To this end, [Wal­ter] Schel­len­berg seems to ave con­coct­ed an extreme­ly sub­tle dis­in­for­ma­tion cam­paign, designed large­ly to con­vince one man. On Feb­ru­ary 4, 1945, Allen Dulles wired the State Depart­ment that “Colonel MASSON head of Swiss SI who, as pre­vi­ous­ly report­ed has had close con­tact with his Ger­man oppo­site num­ber SCHELLENBERG advised that envoy from Schel­len­berg was here and hint­ed he want­ed to see me. Envoy appar­ent­ly tried to cre­ate impres­sion that stiff resis­tance on West Front and main­te­nance Ital­ian Front as con­trast­ed with rapid with­draw­al East Front­was part of plan to open all of Ger­many to Rus­sia but that pos­si­bly if Anglo-Sax­ons dis­posed to mod­i­fy uncon­di­tion­al sur­ren­der con­tact with West­ern Pow­ers might be use­ful. Envoy also hint­ed at some under­stand­ing between Ger­many and Rus­sia to open door to lat­ter.

“Believ­ing that this might be trap to cause trou­ble between Rus­sians and our­selves par­tic­u­lar­ly at this junc­tion I expressed NO inter­est in see­ing envoy.”

By the time he reached the Allied Com­mand in Paris a week lat­er, Dulles had appar­ent­ly recon­sid­ered. In an extend­ed report dat­ed Feb­ru­ary 11 from Robert Mur­phy to Euro­pean Affairs Divi­sion Chief Matthews at State, Mur­phy alludes to the SS approach and sum­ma­rizes Dulles’s esti­mate: “Allen said that all indi­ca­tions cur­rent­ly received from Ger­many indi­cate a def­i­nite trend toward the idea that Ger­many’s only sal­va­tion lies to the East. The con­vic­tion seems to be grow­ing that while the Rus­sians may be hard and bru­tal, even cru­el, and that they will pun­ish the prin­ci­pal Nation­al Social­ist offend­ers, they still offer an affir­ma­tive eco­nom­ic and indus­tri­al future which will pro­tect the Ger­mans against star­va­tion and pover­ty. They believe that the Rus­sians will be depen­dent on Ger­man indus­tri­al prod­ucts which means that Ger­man plants will con­tin­ue to work at full capac­i­ty and that the unem­ploy­ment prob­lem will thus be solved.

“on the oth­er hand, look­ing at the West, the Anglo-Amer­i­cans offer noth­ing of an affir­ma­tive nature and the prin­ci­pal pub­lic­i­ty is to the effect that the Amer­i­can inten­tion is to reduce Ger­many to an agri­cul­tur­al basis with no pro­vi­sion for the mil­lions employed in indus­try.” To over­come the much-pub­li­cized Mor­gen­thau plan pro­pos­als, “Dulles urged very vig­or­ous­ly that some­thing of an affir­ma­tive nature be com­mu­ni­cat­ed in one form or anoth­er to the Ger­man peo­ple and also that some expla­na­tion of what we have in mind under the pol­i­cy of uncon­di­tion­al sur­ren­der be giv­en. He expressed the con­vic­tion that chaos will reign in Ger­many after the col­lapse.” Since the day he arrived in Bern, Allen had been insist­ing that only the fear of Com­mu­nism inhib­it­ed the Ger­man resis­tance. Dulles now pushed for the exploita­tion of cap­tured Ger­man offi­cers to sway the pop­u­la­tion in the Reich, since “Russ­ian mil­i­tary suc­cess­es in the East are due not alone to mil­i­tary prowess but to treach­ery behind the lines, a good part of which has been inspired by the Ger­man gen­er­als now in Russ­ian hands.” . . . .

. . . . By insin­u­at­ing that Ger­many might pre­fer the Bol­she­viks, the SD intel­lec­tu­als were angling unceas­ing­ly for nego­ti­at­ing lever­age. . . .

7. For­mer CNN host Soledad O’Brien attacked the cable news busi­ness has behaved irre­spon­si­bly in this elec­tion and pre­sent­ed a “Ser­pen­t’s Walk”-style plat­form for Nazi/white suprema­cist views: ” . . . ‘If you look at Hillary Clinton’s speech where she basi­cal­ly point­ed out that what Don­ald Trump has done — actu­al­ly quite well — has nor­mal­ized white suprema­cy,’ O’Brien explained to CNN host Bri­an Stel­ter on Sun­day. ‘I think she made a very good argu­ment, almost like a lawyer. Here are ways in which he has actu­al­ly worked to nor­mal­ize con­ver­sa­tions that many peo­ple find hate­ful. I’ve seen on-air, white suprema­cists being inter­viewed because they are Trump del­e­gates,’ she not­ed. ‘And they do a five minute seg­ment, the first minute or so talk­ing about what they believe as white suprema­cists. So you have nor­mal­ized that. . . . The for­mer CNN host argued that the ques­tion that jour­nal­ists should be ask­ing is if Trump is ‘soft­en­ing the ground for peo­ple — who are white suprema­cists, who are white nation­al­ists, who would self-iden­ti­fy that way — to feel com­fort­able with their views being brought into the nation­al dis­course to the point where they can do a five minute inter­view hap­pi­ly on nation­al tele­vi­sion? And the answer is yes, clear­ly,’ she said. ‘And there is lots of evi­dence of that.’ . . .”

“Soledad O’Brien Evis­cer­ates CNN: ‘You Have Nor­mal­ized’ White Suprema­cy with Shod­dy Trump Report­ing” by David Edwards; Raw Sto­ry; 9/04/2016.

For­mer CNN host Soledad O’Brien blast­ed the cable news busi­ness over the week­end for prof­it­ing off the hate speech that has fueled Don­ald Trump’s polit­i­cal rise.

Accord­ing to O’Brien, the media had gone through “con­tor­tions to make things seem equal all the time” when com­par­ing Trump to Demo­c­ra­t­ic nom­i­nee Hillary Clin­ton.

“If you look at Hillary Clinton’s speech where she basi­cal­ly point­ed out that what Don­ald Trump has done — actu­al­ly quite well — has nor­mal­ized white suprema­cy,” O’Brien explained to CNN host Bri­an Stel­ter on Sun­day. “I think she made a very good argu­ment, almost like a lawyer. Here are ways in which he has actu­al­ly worked to nor­mal­ize con­ver­sa­tions that many peo­ple find hate­ful.”

“I’ve seen on-air, white suprema­cists being inter­viewed because they are Trump del­e­gates,” she not­ed. “And they do a five minute seg­ment, the first minute or so talk­ing about what they believe as white suprema­cists. So you have nor­mal­ized that.”

“And then Don­ald Trump will say, ‘Hillary Clin­ton, she’s a big­ot.’ And it’s cov­ered, the jour­nal­ist part comes in, ‘They trade barbs. He said she’s a big­ot and she points out that he might be appeal­ing to racists.’ It only becomes ‘he said, she said.’ When in actu­al­i­ty, the fact that Don­ald Trump said she’s a big­ot with­out the long laun­dry list of evi­dence, which if you looked at Hillary Clinton’s speech, she actu­al­ly did have a lot of real­ly good fac­tu­al evi­dence that we would all agree that are things that have hap­pened and do exist. They are treat­ed as if they are equal.”

O’Brien insist­ed “that’s where jour­nal­ists are fail­ing: the con­tor­tions to try to make it seem fair.”

The for­mer CNN host argued that the ques­tion that jour­nal­ists should be ask­ing is if Trump is “soft­en­ing the ground for peo­ple — who are white suprema­cists, who are white nation­al­ists, who would self-iden­ti­fy that way — to feel com­fort­able with their views being brought into the nation­al dis­course to the point where they can do a five minute inter­view hap­pi­ly on nation­al tele­vi­sion?”

“And the answer is yes, clear­ly,” she said. “And there is lots of evi­dence of that.”

O’Brien observed that cable news out­lets were effec­tive­ly being reward­ed for bad behav­ior.

“So hate­ful speech brings a real­ly inter­est­ed, angry audi­ence,” she not­ed. “This is genius! We should do this more often. What shall we do when this elec­tion is over? We’re going to have to think about ways to real­ly rile peo­ple up, make them angry and divide them.”

“Because that is some­thing that cable news, frankly, and every­body can cov­er real­ly well,” O’Brien lament­ed. “So, I find it very frus­trat­ing. I believe he was over-cov­ered at the begin­ning.”

“Now, it is ‘he said, she said’ all the time. We have lost con­text. We actu­al­ly don’t even cov­er the details of some­thing. We just cov­er the back and forth of it. It’s fun­ny to watch if it weren’t our own coun­try and our own gov­ern­ment actu­al­ly oper­at­ing.”

8. The pro­gram con­cludes with a Ger­man uni­ver­si­ty professor’s account of what it was like to live dur­ing the rise of Hitler. Note the sim­i­lar­i­ty to aspects of the con­tem­po­rary polit­i­cal land­scape. Con­sid­er Don­ald Trump and Hitler.

They Thought they Were Free: The Ger­mans 1933–1945; by Mil­ton May­er; copy­right 1955 [SC]; Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go Press; ISBN 0–226-51190–1; pp. 166–172.

“ ‘What hap­pened here was the grad­ual habit­u­a­tion of the peo­ple, lit­tle by lit­tle, to being gov­erned by sur­prise, to receiv­ing deci­sions delib­er­at­ed in secret, to believ­ing that the sit­u­a­tion was so com­pli­cat­ed that the gov­ern­ment had to act on infor­ma­tion which the peo­ple could not under­stand because of nation­al secu­ri­ty, so dan­ger­ous that even if the peo­ple could under­stand it, it could not be released because of nation­al secu­ri­ty. And their sense of iden­ti­fi­ca­tion with Hitler, their trust in him may have inci­den­tal­ly reas­sured those who would oth­er­wise have wor­ried about it. Their trust in him made it eas­i­er to reas­sure oth­ers who might have wor­ried about it. This sep­a­ra­tion of gov­ern­ment from peo­ple, this widen­ing of the gap, took place so grad­u­al­ly and so insen­si­bly, each step dis­guised (per­haps not even inten­tion­al­ly) as a tem­po­rary emer­gency mea­sure or asso­ci­at­ed with true patri­ot­ic alle­giance or with real social pur­pos­es. And all the crises and reforms (real crises and reforms too) so occu­pied the peo­ple that they did not see the slow motion under­neath, of the whole process of the Gov­ern­ment grow­ing remot­er and remot­er.

“The dic­ta­tor­ship, and the whole process of its com­ing into being, was, above all divert­ing. It pro­vid­ed an excuse not to think for peo­ple who did not want to think any­way. I do not speak of your ‘lit­tle men,’ your bak­er and so on; I speak of my col­leagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fun­da­men­tal things and nev­er had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dread­ful, fun­da­men­tal things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with con­tin­u­ous changes and ‘crises’ and so fas­ci­nat­ed, yes, fas­ci­nat­ed, by the machi­na­tions of the ‘nation­al ene­mies,’ with­out and with­in, that we had no time to think about these things that were grow­ing, lit­tle by lit­tle, all around us. Uncon­scious­ly, I sup­pose, we were grate­ful. Who wants to think?”

“‘To live in this process is absolute­ly not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of polit­i­cal aware­ness, acu­ity, than most of us had ever had occa­sion to devel­op. Each step was so small, so incon­se­quen­tial, so well explained or, on occa­sion, ‘regret­ted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the begin­ning, unless one under­stood what the whole thing was in prin­ci­ple, what all these ‘lit­tle mea­sures’ that no ‘patri­ot­ic Ger­man’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it devel­op­ing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn grow­ing. One day it is over his head.’”

“‘How is this to be avoid­ed, among ordi­nary men, even high­ly edu­cat­ed extra­or­di­nary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all hap­pened I have pon­dered that pair of great max­ims, Prin­cipi­is obs­ta and Finem respice—‘Resist the begin­nings’ and ‘Con­sid­er the end.’ But one must fore­see the end in order to resist, or even see, the begin­nings. One must fore­see the end clear­ly and cer­tain­ly and how is this to be done, by ordi­nary men or even by extra­or­di­nary men? Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did; they didn’t, but they might have. And every­one counts on that might.’”

“‘Your Lit­tle Men, your Nazi friends, were not against Nation­al Social­ism in prin­ci­ple. Men like me, who were, are the greater offend­ers, not because we knew bet­ter (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed bet­ter. Pas­tor Niemoller spoke for the thou­sands and thou­sands of men like me when he spoke too mod­est­ly of him­self) and said that when the Nazis attacked the com­mu­nists he was a lit­tle uneasy but, after all he was not a com­mu­nist, and so he did noth­ing and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasi­er but still he did noth­ing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Church­man, and he did some­thing, but then it was too late.’ ‘Yes’ I said”

“You see,” my col­league went on, “one doesn’t see exact­ly where or how to move. Believe me this is true. Each act, each shock­ing occa­sion, is worse than the last, but only a lit­tle worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for that one great shock­ing occa­sion, think­ing that oth­ers, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resist­ing some­how. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trou­ble.’ Why not?–Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of stand­ing alone, that restrains you; it is also gen­uine uncer­tain­ty.”

“Uncer­tain­ty is a very impor­tant fac­tor, and, instead of decreas­ing as time goes on, it grows. Out­side, in the streets, in the gen­er­al com­mu­ni­ty, ‘every­one’ is hap­py. One hears no protest, and cer­tain­ly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slo­gans against the gov­ern­ment paint­ed on walls and fences. In Ger­many, out­side the great cities per­haps, there is not even this. In the uni­ver­si­ty com­mu­ni­ty, in you own com­mu­ni­ty, you speak pri­vate­ly to your col­leagues, some of whom cer­tain­ly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re see­ing things’ or you’re an alarmist.”

“And you are an alarmist. You are say­ing that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the begin­nings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end and how do you know or even sur­mise the end? On the one hand your ene­mies, the law, the regime, the Par­ty, intim­i­date you. On the oth­er, your col­leagues pooh-pooh you as pes­simistic or even neu­rot­ic. You are left with your close friends, who are, nat­u­ral­ly peo­ple who have always thought as you have.”

“But your friends are few­er now. Some have drift­ed off some­where or sub­merged them­selves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meet­ings or gath­er­ings. Infor­mal groups become small­er; atten­dance drops off in lit­tle orga­ni­za­tions, and the orga­ni­za­tions them­selves with­er. Now, in small gath­er­ings of your old­est friends you feel that you are talk­ing to your­selves, that you are iso­lat­ed from the real­i­ty of things. This weak­ens your con­fi­dence still fur­ther and serves as a fur­ther deter­rent to—to what? It is clear­er all the time that, if you are going to do any­thing, you must make an occa­sion to do it, and then you are obvi­ous­ly a trou­ble­mak­er. So you wait, and you wait.” “But the one great shock­ing occa­sion, when tens or hun­dreds or thou­sands will join with you nev­er comes. That’s the dif­fi­cul­ty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come imme­di­ate­ly after the first and small­est, thou­sands, yes, mil­lions would have been suf­fi­cient­ly shocked if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in’43 had come imme­di­ate­ly after the ‘Ger­man firm’ stick­ers on the win­dows of non-Jew­ish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it hap­pens. In between come all the hun­dreds of lit­tle steps, some of them imper­cep­ti­ble, each of them prepar­ing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at step C. And so on to D.”

“And one day, too late, your prin­ci­ples, if you were ever sen­si­ble of them, all rush in upon you. The bur­den of self decep­tion has grown too heavy, and some minor inci­dent, in my case my lit­tle boy, hard­ly more than a baby, say­ing ‘Jew swine’ col­laps­es it all at once, and you see that every­thing, every­thing, has changed and changed com­plete­ly under your nose. The world you live in—your nation your peo­ple –is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reas­sur­ing, the hous­es, the shops, the jobs, the meal­times, the vis­its, the con­certs, the cin­e­ma, the hol­i­days. But the spir­it, which you nev­er noticed, because you made the life­long mis­take of iden­ti­fy­ing it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the peo­ple who hate and fear do not even know it them­selves; when every­one is trans­formed, no one is trans­formed. Now you live in a sys­tem which rules with­out respon­si­bil­i­ty, even to God. The sys­tem itself could not have intend­ed this in the begin­ning, but in order to sus­tain itself it was com­pelled to go all the way.”

“You have gone almost all the way your­self. Life is a con­tin­u­ing process, a flow, not a suc­ces­sion of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new lev­el, car­ry­ing you with it, with­out any effort on your part. On this new lev­el you live, you have been liv­ing, more com­fort­ably every day, with new morals, new prin­ci­ples. You have accept­ed things that your father, even in Ger­many, could not have imag­ined.

“Sud­den­ly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accu­rate­ly, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do noth­ing).”

Discussion

5 comments for “FTR #921 The Trumpenkampfverbande, Part 4: Trump on the Stump (The Underground Reich Emerges Into Plain View, Part 2)”

  1. One of the inter­est­ing and dis­turb­ing quirks about the mod­ern media age over the last cou­ple of decades, as orig­i­nal­ly exem­pli­fied by the rise and dom­i­nance of “Big Lie” out­lets like Fox News and the medi­a’s hys­ter­ics over every last alleged Clin­ton scan­dal through­out the 90’s, is that the emer­gence of the “24 hour cycle” and mul­ti­ple cable news chan­nels coin­cid­ed with the emer­gence of a media cul­ture where basi­cal­ly only one or two “big” sto­ries get talked about by the chat­ter­ing class­es on a giv­en day. And often times it’s the same “big” hand­ful of sto­ries that were cov­ered the pre­vi­ous day, with super­fi­cial cov­er­age at best or straight up dis­in­fo.

    Sure, the US media has always had major prob­lems, but things some­how got worse. A lot worse. As more and more Amer­i­cans came to rely exclu­sive­ly in TV news, or just stopped pay­ing atten­tion all togeth­er, the media turned into Short Atten­tion-Span The­ater. The col­lec­tive work­ing mem­o­ry — or the abil­i­ty to main­tain mul­ti­ple con­cepts in one’s head at a giv­en moment for the pur­pose of analy­sis and prob­lem solv­ing — col­lapsed the indus­try tasked with main­tain­ing a mean­ing­ful nation­al dis­course and the kind of media envi­ron­ment that allows for a com­pre­hen­sive under­stand of com­plex sit­u­a­tions effec­tive­ly dis­ap­peared. But, per­haps most chill­ing­ly, all of this hap­pened with min­i­mal media cov­er­age of it hap­pen­ing. It was like the nation devel­oped Alzheimer’s and no one ever told it.

    Now, flash for­ward a cou­ple decades and what do we find? We find our­selves trans and fixed and trapped by the mael­strom of lies from a far-right real­i­ty TV star. It’s one of those dis­as­ter sce­nar­ios that’s simul­ta­ne­ous­ly out­landish and inevitable con­se­quence of a media that has proven itself unable to deal with real­i­ty:

    The New York Time
    op-Ed

    Don­ald Trump’s ‘Big Liar’ Tech­nique

    Paul Krug­man
    SEPT. 9, 2016

    Long ago, you-know-who sug­gest­ed that pro­pa­gan­dists should apply the “big lie” tech­nique: make their false­hoods so huge, so egre­gious, that they would be wide­ly accept­ed because nobody would believe they were lying on that grand a scale. And the tech­nique has worked well for despots and would-be despots ever since.

    But Don­ald Trump has come up with some­thing new, which we can call the “big liar” tech­nique. Tak­en one at a time, his lies are medi­um-size — not triv­ial, but most­ly not ris­ing to the lev­el of blood libel. But the lies are con­stant, com­ing in a steady tor­rent, and are nev­er acknowl­edged, sim­ply repeat­ed. He evi­dent­ly believes that this strat­e­gy will keep the news media flum­moxed, unable to believe, or at least say open­ly, that the can­di­date of a major par­ty lies that much.

    And Wednes­day night’s “Com­man­der in Chief” tele­vised forum sug­gest­ed that he may be right.

    ...

    Back to the issue: All politi­cians are human beings, which means that all of them some­times shade the truth. (Show me some­one who claims to nev­er lie, and I’ll show you some­one who is lying.) The ques­tion is how much they lie, and how con­se­quen­tial­ly.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, Hillary Clin­ton has been cagey about her email arrange­ments when she was sec­re­tary of state. But when you look at what the inde­pen­dent fact-check­ers who have giv­en her a “pants on firepants on fire” or “four Pinoc­chios” rat­ing on this issue actu­al­ly have to say, it’s remark­ably weak: She stands accused of being over­ly legal­is­tic or over­stat­ing the extent to which she has been cleared, but not of mak­ing major claims that are com­plete­ly at odds with real­i­ty.

    Oh, and it bare­ly got cov­ered in the media, but her claim that Col­in Pow­ell advised her to set up a pri­vate email account was … com­plete­ly true, val­i­dat­ed by an email that Mr. Pow­ell sent three days after she took office, which con­tra­dicts some of his own claims.

    And over all, her record on truth­ful­ness, as com­piled by Poli­ti­Fact, looks pret­ty good for a politi­cian — much bet­ter than that of any of the con­tenders for the Repub­li­can nom­i­na­tion, and for that mat­ter much bet­ter than that of Mitt Rom­ney in the last pres­i­den­tial elec­tion.

    Mr. Trump, on the oth­er hand, is in a class of his own. He lies about sta­tis­tics like the unem­ploy­ment rate and the crime rate. He lies about for­eign pol­i­cy: Pres­i­dent Oba­ma is “the founder of ISIS.” But most of all, he lies about him­self — and when the lies are exposed, he just keeps repeat­ing them.

    One obvi­ous ques­tion going into Wednesday’s forum was whether Mr. Trump would repeat his fre­quent claim that he opposed the Iraq war from the start. This claim is demon­stra­bly false: His only doc­u­ment­ed pre­war remarks on the sub­ject sup­port the war, and the inter­view he likes to cite as evi­dence of his pre­science took place more than a year after the war began. But he keeps say­ing it any­way; if he did it again, how would Matt Lauer, the mod­er­a­tor, respond?

    Well, he did do it again — and Mr. Lauer, who used about a third of his time with Mrs. Clin­ton talk­ing about emails, let it stand and moved on to the next ques­tion.

    Why is it appar­ent­ly so hard to hold Mr. Trump account­able for bla­tant, in-your-face lies? Part of the answer may be that jour­nal­ists are over­whelmed by the sheer vol­ume of out­ra­geous mate­r­i­al. After all, which Trump line should be the head­lin­er for a news analy­sis of Wednesday’s event? His Iraq lie? His praise for Vladimir Putin, who ““has an 82 per­cent approval rat­ing””? His den­i­gra­tion of the Amer­i­can mil­i­tary, whose com­man­ders, he says, have been “reduced to rub­ble”?

    There’s also a deep dif­fi­dence about point­ing out uncom­fort­able truths. Back in 2000, when I was first writ­ing this col­umn, I was dis­cour­aged from using the word “lie” about George W. Bush’s dis­hon­est pol­i­cy claims. As I recall, I was told that it was inap­pro­pri­ate to be that blunt about the can­di­date of one of our two major polit­i­cal par­ties. And some­thing sim­i­lar may be going on even now, with few peo­ple in the media will­ing to accept the real­i­ty that the G.O.P. has nom­i­nat­ed some­one whose lies are so bla­tant and fre­quent that they amount to sociopa­thy.

    Even that obser­va­tion, how­ev­er, doesn’t explain the asym­me­try, because some of the same media orga­ni­za­tions that appar­ent­ly find it impos­si­ble to point out Mr. Trump’s raw, con­se­quen­tial lies have no prob­lem harass­ing Mrs. Clin­ton end­less­ly over minor mis­state­ments and exag­ger­a­tions, or some­times over actions that were per­fect­ly inno­cent. Is it sex­ism? I real­ly don’t know, but it’s shock­ing to watch.

    And mean­while, if the ques­tion is whether Mr. Trump can real­ly get away with his big liar rou­tine, the evi­dence from Wednes­day night sug­gests a dis­heart­en­ing answer: Unless some­thing changes, yes he can.

    “And mean­while, if the ques­tion is whether Mr. Trump can real­ly get away with his big liar rou­tine, the evi­dence from Wednes­day night sug­gests a dis­heart­en­ing answer: Unless some­thing changes, yes he can.”

    It sure does look like the ‘Big Liar’ strate­gic is a very viable path the most pow­er­ful office in the world, which is indeed rather dis­heart­en­ing. Per­haps even bone-chill­ing­ly ter­ri­fy­ing. And we haven’t even seen what it would be like if Trump was actu­al­ly elect­ed. Just imag­ine the bliz­zard of dai­ly out­rages he could unleash. Espe­cial­ly when the Trump admin­is­tra­tion learns that all it needs to do to cov­er up some sort of hor­rif­ic pol­i­cy out­rage is say some­thing insen­si­tive to cre­ate a dis­trac­tion out­rage. What per­cent of pol­i­cy out­rages would even be acknowl­edge by a media that can only cov­er one or two sto­ries and day with­out any his­toric con­text and can’t help but imme­di­ate­ly for­get all the pre­vi­ous things Trump said and did in a rush to cov­er the lat­est crazy thing he said or did? Would at least half of Pres­i­dent Trump’s pol­i­cy out­rages get any main­stream cov­er­age at all or is that too opti­mistic?

    These are the kinds of sur­re­al­ist ques­tions we get to ask now that were decades into the real­i­ty TV era of news. And while some of those ques­tions are sort of unan­swer­able, there are some answers we can obtain of what to expect. For instance, if you’re won­der­ing what type of white nation­al­ist dystopia Trump’s “Alt-Right” neo-Nazi back­ers would like to cre­ate while Trump’s “Big Liar” strat­e­gy basi­cal­ly gives them media cov­er while main­stream­ing their ideas, there’s no need to ask Trump or any point since he’ll just lie. Instead, just ask the Alt-Right. They’re hap­py to share their vision for a Trumpian future:

    Moth­er Jones

    Alt-Right Move­ment Presents Its Vision for an All-White Soci­ety With Trump Paving the Way
    In a bizarre press con­fer­ence, these white nation­al­ists hailed the GOP nom­i­nee’s style.

    Pema Levy
    Sep. 9, 2016 5:54 PM

    The alt-right move­ment, rev­el­ing in the spot­light cast upon it by the Don­ald Trump cam­paign, made its debut to the main­stream media on Fri­day with a press con­fer­ence to lay out its goal of an all-white soci­ety and its love for Trump.

    The once-fringe move­ment has sud­den­ly found a promi­nent place in the Trump cam­paign and among its most loy­al back­ers. Stephen Ban­non, the Trump cam­paign CEO, was until recent­ly the head of the con­ser­v­a­tive web­site Bre­it­bart News, which he called “the plat­form for the alt-right.” But the move­men­t’s moment in the lime­light got off to a rough start.

    Orig­i­nal­ly set to be held at the Nation­al Press Club, Fri­day’s event was can­celed ear­li­er in the week when the venue scut­tled it amid secu­ri­ty con­cerns. Not to be deterred, the alt-right lead­ers came up with a new plan: a secret loca­tion.

    Reporters cov­er­ing the event were instruct­ed to go to the entrance of the Old Ebbitt Grill, near the White House. There, they would encounter a man in a char­coal suit and brown tie who would reveal the new loca­tion of the con­fer­ence. Short­ly after 1 p.m., I approached the restau­rant and saw the man in the gray suit stand­ing out­side. He instruct­ed me to round the cor­ner to the Willard Hotel and make my way down­stairs to the Pea­cock Lounge. Soon after I arrived, Richard Spencer, the man who coined the term “alt-right,” kicked off the event.

    ...

    Spencer invit­ed two promi­nent mem­bers of the move­ment to join him. One was Peter Brimelow, the founder of the web­site VDARE.com, which the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter describes as an “immi­grant-bash­ing hate site that reg­u­lar­ly pub­lish­es works by white suprema­cists, anti-Semi­tes, and oth­ers on the rad­i­cal right.” (Brimelow freely admit­ted dur­ing the event that he pub­lish­es white nation­al­ists.) The oth­er was Jared Tay­lor, a self-described “race real­ist” who explained why the white race is supe­ri­or to all oth­ers (except for East Asians, he said, who are supe­ri­or to whites). The audi­ence was a mix of reporters and what appeared to be alt-right mem­bers and fans.

    Spencer had fash­ioned a logo for the occa­sion, con­sist­ing of a gold­en tri­an­gu­lar let­ter A fol­lowed by an R made of two stacked tri­an­gles. He said it had a young, futur­is­tic look, in con­trast to the flags and eagles that adorn the logos of the past. So what did these futur­is­tic tri­an­gles rep­re­sent? Spencer pro­posed the fol­low­ing “mantra” for his move­ment: “Race is real, race mat­ters, and race is the foun­da­tion of iden­ti­ty.” The ulti­mate ide­al is that the world be divid­ed into eth­no-states so that white peo­ple could have a “home­land.”

    Spencer’s ideas about race are inter­twined with his sup­port for Trump. Spencer explained that he likes Trump’s immi­gra­tion pol­i­cy, which not only calls for mass depor­ta­tion of undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants but also reduces legal immi­gra­tion into the coun­try. (Spencer’s ide­al pol­i­cy would also favor immi­grants from Europe.) But as Spencer put it, it’s Trump’s more intan­gi­ble qual­i­ties that make him a hero of the alt-right. To Spencer, Trump’s brash style sug­gests a white savoir, unwill­ing to be bul­lied by the polit­i­cal­ly cor­rect crowd.

    “I don’t think our sup­port of Trump is real­ly about pol­i­cy at the end of the day,” Spencer said. “I think it’s real­ly about Trump’s style, the fact that he does­n’t back down, the fact that he’s will­ing to con­front his enemies…You look at that and you think, ‘This is what a leader looks like.’ ”

    Spencer con­tin­ued, “It real­ly is about him and it’s about, in a way, pro­ject­ing onto him our hopes and dreams. There’s some­thing called ‘me mag­ic,’ and that is a self-ful­fill­ing prophecy…We want to make Trump; we want to imag­ine him in our image. And that is maybe—you can see that in a meme of Trump as a Napoleon or Trump as some fig­ure out of the Dune nov­els in an arcade of the future in a robot­ic suit of armor fight­ing ene­mies. All of that stuff is sil­ly, all of that stuff is ridicu­lous, but it actu­al­ly gets at some­thing real and that is that we want some­thing more, we want some­thing hero­ic, we want some­thing that is not defined by lib­er­al­ism or indi­vid­ual rights or bour­geois norms. We want some­thing that is tru­ly Euro­pean and tru­ly hero­ic.”

    For this descrip­tion, Spencer was greet­ed with much applause by his fans in the room. He elab­o­rat­ed that rather than a mul­ti­cul­tur­al Amer­i­ca, his ide­al is a white empire. He described his “dream…ethno-state” as “a home­land for all Euro­peans,” which would take an “impe­r­i­al form.”

    “It’s very sim­i­lar to the idea of Zion­ism for Jews in the 19th cen­tu­ry,” he said. “It’s actu­al­ly very sim­i­lar to the ide­al of com­mu­nism for the left in the 19th cen­tu­ry. It’s not here, it’s in the future, we should dream about it.”

    What would this utopia look like? Spencer said it’s too far off to get into specifics. But he and Tay­lor, whose role at Fri­day’s event was to give aca­d­e­m­ic assur­ances that the races of the world are not equal, dis­agreed on whether Jews would be wel­comed into the white utopia home­land. Spencer took the posi­tion that they were not “Euro­pean” and there­fore would take their place in their own eth­no-state. Tay­lor coun­tered, “I don’t think that if a Jew­ish per­son iden­ti­fies with the West and with Europe than that’s some­thing that we should deny.” As Spencer acknowl­edged, the alt-right has yet to sort out these mere details.

    But Spencer did offer up a vision of an alt-right soci­ety. “If the alt-right were in pow­er, we would all have arrived here via mag­net­ic lev­i­ta­tion trains,” he said. “We would have passed by great forests and beau­ti­ful images of blond women in a wheat field with their hands, run­ning them through the wheat.” The audi­ence tit­tered. “It would be a won­der­ful sight.”

    “Spencer had fash­ioned a logo for the occa­sion, con­sist­ing of a gold­en tri­an­gu­lar let­ter A fol­lowed by an R made of two stacked tri­an­gles. He said it had a young, futur­is­tic look, in con­trast to the flags and eagles that adorn the logos of the past. So what did these futur­is­tic tri­an­gles rep­re­sent? Spencer pro­posed the fol­low­ing “mantra” for his move­ment: “Race is real, race mat­ters, and race is the foun­da­tion of iden­ti­ty.” The ulti­mate ide­al is that the world be divid­ed into eth­no-states so that white peo­ple could have a “home­land.”

    That’s right, the founder of the “Alt-Right”, a move­ment the Trump cam­paign basi­cal­ly put at the top of the tick­et with the selec­tion of Steven Ban­non as the cam­paign man­ag­er, just unfurled his move­men­t’s new logo. To the press. A logo designed to sym­bol­ize and exalt racial iden­ti­ty pol­i­tics. Which, again, was revealed at an event they invit­ed the nation­al press to.

    Sure, out­lets like Moth­er Jones cov­ered it. But has there been any oth­er big main­stream news sto­ries about Trump’s “Alt-Right” super­fans, a core con­stituen­cy of the Trump cam­paign and a move­ment Trump is work­ing to to main­stream, dis­cussing their vision for turn the US into a white eth­no-nation­al­ist state? Is there any main­stream cov­er­age of the fact that the big divide with­in this key Trump con­stituen­cy is over whether or not Jews will be allowed to live in their future whites-only Amer­i­ca?

    No, instead it appears that this sto­ry did­n’t make it on to the list of dai­ly Trumpian out­rages wor­thy of cov­er­age. Maybe that’s due to all the atten­tion cur­rent­ly being giv­en to a com­ment Hillary Clin­ton made sug­gest­ing — which she pref­aced by say­ing she was about to be gross­ly gen­er­al­is­tic — that Trump’s back­ers includes a sig­nif­i­cant num­ber of peo­ple with deplorable views. Maybe that’s the rea­son there’s so lit­tle cov­er­age of the Alt-Right’s com­ing out par­ty where they open­ly announced their love of Trump and vision for a whites-only impe­r­i­al state. Because Hillary’s com­ment is clear­ly the big news­wor­thy sto­ry of the day:

    The Wash­ing­ton Post

    Clin­ton says she regrets label­ing ‘half’ of Trump sup­port­ers ‘deplorable’

    By Abby Phillip and Jose A. Del­Re­al
    Sep­tem­ber 10 at 2:31 PM

    Hillary Clinton’s claim at a fundrais­er that half of Don­ald Trump’s sup­port­ers fit into a “bas­ket of deplorables” prompt­ed a swift and neg­a­tive reac­tion Sat­ur­day from Repub­li­cans, includ­ing denun­ci­a­tions and calls for her to apol­o­gize.

    The com­ments echoed an accu­sa­tion that Clin­ton has levied pre­vi­ous­ly — that Trump appeals to and ampli­fies racist, xeno­pho­bic and anti-Semit­ic view­points. But Clin­ton trig­gered a fresh con­tro­ver­sy by claim­ing that “half” of Trump’s sup­port­ers fit that descrip­tion.

    At a key moment in the cam­paign, when both can­di­dates are try­ing to sharp­en their focus for the final, post-Labor Day sprint, Clinton’s remarks took atten­tion from Trump’s spate of gaffes this week and also from her own effort to turn the public’s atten­tion to her qual­i­fi­ca­tions for office and vision for the nation.

    “You know, to just be gross­ly gen­er­al­is­tic, you could put half of Trump’s sup­port­ers into what I call the ‘bas­ket of deplorables’. Right?” Clin­ton said to applause and laugh­ter from sup­port­ers at an “LGBT for Hillary” fundrais­er Fri­day night in New York that also fea­tured a per­for­mance by Bar­bra Streisand. “The racist, sex­ist, homo­pho­bic, xeno­pho­bic, Islam­o­pho­bic — you name it.”

    She con­tin­ued: “He has giv­en voice to their web­sites that used to only have 11,000 peo­ple — now how 11 mil­lion. He tweets and retweets their offen­sive, hate­ful, mean-spir­it­ed rhetoric.

    “Now, some of those folks — they are irre­deemable, but thank­ful­ly they are not Amer­i­ca.”

    Con­dem­na­tion for the first por­tion of her remarks came swift­ly from Trump’s allies and from the can­di­date him­self, who on Twit­ter called the remarks “so insult­ing” and pre­dict­ed that Clin­ton would pay a price in the polls.

    In state­ment issued lat­er Sat­ur­day, Trump said that Clinton’s “true feel­ings” had come out. “How can she be Pres­i­dent of our coun­try when she has such con­tempt and dis­dain for so many great Amer­i­cans?” Trump said. “Hillary Clin­ton should be ashamed of her­self.”

    Trump’s cam­paign man­ag­er Kellyanne Con­way called for Clin­ton to apol­o­gize, some­thing that Trump him­self has nev­er done in the face of con­tro­ver­sy.

    Indi­ana Gov. Mike Pence, Trump’s run­ning mate, also weighed in: “Hillary Clinton’s low opin­ion of the peo­ple who sup­port this cam­paign should be denounced in the strongest pos­si­ble terms. The truth of the mat­ter is that the men and women who sup­port Don­ald Trump’s cam­paign are hard-work­ing Amer­i­cans. Let me say from the bot­tom of my heart: Hillary, they are not a bas­ket of any­thing. They are Amer­i­cans, and they deserve your respect.”

    Pence direct­ly com­pared Clinton’s remarks to Pres­i­dent Obama’s con­tro­ver­sial 2008 com­ments about peo­ple who “cling to guns or reli­gion.” He said that such state­ments should pre­clude her from being elect­ed pres­i­dent.

    Oth­ers com­pared the con­tro­ver­sy to 2012 Repub­li­can nom­i­nee Mitt Romney’s infa­mous “47 per­cent” com­ment. Even if the com­par­i­son was impre­cise — at the most, Clinton’s com­ments referred to about a quar­ter of the elec­torate — the Trump cam­paign will seek to use them to fur­ther define Clin­ton in the remain­ing months of the elec­tion.

    In Romney’s case, he was record­ed at a pri­vate fundrais­er claim­ing that 47 per­cent of vot­ers “will vote for the pres­i­dent no mat­ter what” because they are “depen­dent upon gov­ern­ment,” “believe that they are vic­tims” and “pay no income tax.” The Repub­li­can was wide­ly crit­i­cized for giv­ing the impres­sion that he was writ­ing off half the coun­try because of their eco­nom­ic sta­tus.

    Rom­ney and Oba­ma both made their remarks at pri­vate events, while Clin­ton knew she was on the record. Clinton’s aides defend­ed her efforts to define a sig­nif­i­cant chunk of Trump’s sup­port­ers as out of step with Amer­i­can val­ues, and the can­di­date issued a state­ment Sat­ur­day after­noon say­ing she regret­ted using the word “half” to describe those sup­port­ers.

    “That was wrong,” Clin­ton said. “But let’s be clear, what’s real­ly ‘deplorable’ is that Don­ald Trump hired a major advo­cate for the so-called ‘alt-right’ move­ment to run his cam­paign and that David Duke and oth­er white suprema­cists see him as a cham­pi­on of their val­ues.”

    In the state­ment, Clin­ton blast­ed Trump specif­i­cal­ly for his feud with a Mus­lim Gold Star fam­i­ly, his attacks against a His­pan­ic fed­er­al judge hear­ing two cas­es against him, and his promi­nent role in the “birther” move­ment pro­mot­ing the idea that Oba­ma was not born in the Unit­ed States.

    In her remarks at the fundrais­er, Clin­ton also called for empa­thy for the oth­er “half” of Trump’s sup­port­ers.

    “That oth­er bas­ket of peo­ple are peo­ple who feel that the gov­ern­ment has let them down, the econ­o­my has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody wor­ries about what hap­pens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just des­per­ate for change,” Clin­ton said. “It doesn’t real­ly even mat­ter where it comes from.

    “They don’t buy every­thing he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be dif­fer­ent — they won’t wake up and see their jobs dis­ap­pear, lose a kid to hero­in, feel like they’re in a dead end,” she con­tin­ued. “Those are peo­ple we have to under­stand and empathize with as well.”

    Clinton’s spokesman, Nick Mer­rill, said on Twit­ter that “sup­port­ers” referred only to the peo­ple at Trump’s ral­lies.

    “She gave an entire speech about how the alt-right move­ment is using his cam­paign to advance its hate move­ment,” Mer­rill wrote. “Obvi­ous­ly not every­one sup­port­ing Trump is part of the alt-right, but alt-right lead­ers are with Trump.”

    “And their sup­port­ers appear to make up half his crowd when you observe the tone of his events,” he added.

    Clinton’s run­ning mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), said Sat­ur­day in an inter­view with The Wash­ing­ton Post that Clin­ton has noth­ing to apol­o­gize for.

    “She was gen­er­al­iz­ing and say­ing there are some of his sup­port­ers we’ll nev­er get because they’re moti­vat­ed by some dark motives, but there are oth­er sup­port­ers that have legit­i­mate con­cerns and ques­tions about the econ­o­my, and we’ve got to speak to them in the cam­paign. And even to the extent that they vote against us, we still have to respond to their con­cerns if we have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to gov­ern.”

    In an elec­tion cycle that has been more char­ac­ter­ized by Trump’s con­tro­ver­sies, Clinton’s com­ments rep­re­sent a rever­sal of for­tunes and a rare moment when she stepped on a news cycle that had not been favor­able to Trump. The flap also comes as polls show Trump nar­row­ing Clinton’s lead both nation­al­ly and in bat­tle­ground states.

    Hours before Clinton’s remarks at the fundrais­er, Trump was fac­ing new crit­i­cism for appear­ing on a state-owned Russ­ian tele­vi­sion net­work to praise Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin and dis­par­age U.S. for­eign pol­i­cy. Clin­ton her­self seized on those com­ments at a news con­fer­ence ear­li­er in the day.

    “I’m not sure any­thing sur­pris­es us any­more,” Clin­ton said. “But I was cer­tain­ly dis­ap­point­ed that some­one run­ning for pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States would con­tin­ue this unseem­ly iden­ti­fi­ca­tion with and praise of the Russ­ian pres­i­dent, includ­ing on Russ­ian tele­vi­sion.”

    And in a wide-rang­ing speech Fri­day night, Trump said that as pres­i­dent, he would shoot Iran­ian boats out of the water if they make improp­er “ges­tures” toward Amer­i­can ves­sels, that Clin­ton is so pro­tect­ed from hav­ing to face con­se­quences that she could mur­der some­one in front of 20,000 wit­ness­es and not face pros­e­cu­tion and that vot­ers need to be “very, very vig­i­lant” on Elec­tion Day.

    Ever since he installed new cam­paign lead­er­ship about three weeks ago, Trump has soft­ened his tone on the cam­paign trail and most­ly stuck to pre­pared ral­ly speech­es loaded onto teleprompters. That lev­el of dis­ci­pline seemed to fade Fri­day night dur­ing a ral­ly in a packed are­na in the Flori­da Pan­han­dle.

    How­ev­er, hours lat­er, Trump’s allies seized on the “deplorables” com­ment to paint Clin­ton as dis­mis­sive of a large por­tion of vot­ers.

    Although it wasn’t the first time that Clin­ton used such lan­guage to describe an ele­ment of Trump’s sup­port, there have been no pub­lic reports in which she quan­ti­fied the num­ber or pro­por­tions.

    And an inter­view this week with Israeli TV, she used sim­i­lar lan­guage — again with­out quan­ti­fy­ing the amount of Trump’s sup­port that she would call “the deplorables.”

    Weeks ago, Clin­ton also deliv­ered a major speech devot­ed to Trump’s asso­ci­a­tion with the alt-right, the name for a move­ment of white nation­al­ist ide­ol­o­gy.

    She accused Trump of irre­spon­si­bly high­light­ing those voic­es by ampli­fy­ing their mes­sages on Twit­ter. The speech was part of a broad­er case aimed at mod­er­ate Repub­li­cans and inde­pen­dent vot­ers, whom the cam­paign is encour­ag­ing to break from Trump in part because of the alt-right fig­ures who sup­port him.

    Clin­ton reprised that part of her case against Trump at the fundrais­ing event Fri­day night. But the furor over “deplorables” put her aides and sup­port­ers on the defense, and they attempt­ed to refo­cus atten­tion on the parts of Clinton’s remarks that called for mutu­al under­stand­ing.

    ...

    ““You know, to just be gross­ly gen­er­al­is­tic, you could put half of Trump’s sup­port­ers into what I call the ‘bas­ket of deplorables’. Right?” Clin­ton said to applause and laugh­ter from sup­port­ers at an “LGBT for Hillary” fundrais­er Fri­day night in New York that also fea­tured a per­for­mance by Bar­bra Streisand. “The racist, sex­ist, homo­pho­bic, xeno­pho­bic, Islam­o­pho­bic — you name it.””

    Ooooo....what an out­ra­geous thing to say, espe­cial­ly after pref­ac­ing the remark with “to just be gross­ly gen­er­al­is­tic” to make it clear that you’re about to engage in some degree of hyper­bole. That’s clear­ly a much more impor­tant sto­ry to cov­er than the fact that the head of the Alt-Right move­ment, a move­ment pop­u­lar­ized by the head of Trump’s cam­paign, just had a neo-Nazi com­ing out par­ty in DC and invit­ed the press there.

    Although it’s worth not­ing that there is one legit­i­mate defense that the Trump cam­paign can give in response to the asser­tion that the Trump cam­paign’s base of sup­port is infest­ed with peo­ple hold­ing deplorable views: Giv­en the shock­ing suc­cess of Trump’s “Big Liar” strat­e­gy in pre­vent­ing any mean­ing­ful main­stream news cov­er­age of the Trump cam­paign’s exten­sive ties and the efforts to main­stream groups like the Alt-Right, it’s entire­ly pos­si­ble that a num­ber of Trump’s non-Alt-Right sup­port­ers real­ly are gen­uine­ly clue­less about the fact that they’re back­ing a can­di­date who sup­port­ers, and is sup­port­ed by, white suprema­cists who are so open about their views that they just held a press con­fer­ence about them.

    Obvi­ous­ly this is all Hillary’s fault and much more cov­er­age of her cul­pa­bil­i­ty in this sit­u­a­tion is warranted...to the exclu­sion of any mean­ing­ful cov­er­age of the neo-Nazi nature of the Trump cam­paign and the “Big Liar” strat­e­gy he uses to simul­ta­ne­ous­ly expose and obscure it. That is clear­ly what is required.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 10, 2016, 3:39 pm
  2. We appear to have reached some sort of meta­phys­i­cal high­er plane of trolling from the Trump cam­paign: In response to Hillary Clin­ton’s rather amus­ing and tame “bas­ket of deplorables” com­ment, the Trump cam­paign has released a new TV add decry­ing Hillary’s “vicious demo­niza­tion” of Trump’s sup­port­ers and now Trump is call­ing Hillary unfit to be pres­i­dent unless she ful­ly apol­o­gizes.

    So Trump spends over a year now demon­strat­ing to the world that you can suc­cess­ful­ly win the GOP pres­i­den­tial nom­i­na­tion by run­ning a cam­paign that aggres­sive­ly cham­pi­ons racism, sex­ism, homo­pho­bia, xeno­pho­bia, etc and makes dog-whistling to neo-Nazis one of its key out­reach strate­gies while hir­ing an “Alt-Right” cam­paign man­ag­er. Hillary then points out this exten­sive white nation­al­ist con­tin­gent in Trump’s base, a con­tin­gent the Trump cam­paign has made pains to specif­i­cal­ly court with end­less dog-whis­tles, by mak­ing her “bas­ket of deplorables” com­ment and that com­ment, accord­ing to Trump, dis­qual­i­fies her from being pres­i­dent.

    Now, this is obvi­ous­ly hilar­i­ous­ly cyn­i­cal con­cern trolling on the part of the Trump cam­paign. It’s also the kind of con­cern trolling that actu­al­ly invites and encour­ages the rest of the media to join in on the con­cern trolling by tak­ing it at face val­ue because any out­let that now seri­ous­ly asks, “should Hillary Clin­ton drop out if she does­n’t com­plete­ly retract her com­ment?” is now part of the Trump cam­paign’s con­cern trolling. But part of what makes the tim­ing of this quite inter­est­ing is that this method of con­cern trolling is very sim­i­lar to con­cern trolling the Trump cam­paign and right-wing media have been using for months now to raise ques­tions about Hillary Clin­ton’s health. And this whole thing is hap­pen­ing right after Hillary almost faints at a 9/11 cer­e­mo­ny after catch­ing pneu­mo­nia. It’s going to be a Trumpian con­cern trolling bonan­za!

    So it looks like we’re on the verge of a week of epic Trumpian con­cern trolling, and it’s exact­ly the kind of con­cern trolling that the Trump cam­paign can use to the media to join in on and ampli­fy: First, con­cern that Hillary is unfit for office because she described Trump’s care­ful­ly cul­ti­vat­ed base of white nation­al­ists and big­ots as “a bas­ket of deplorables.” Also, she’s unfit because her pneu­mo­nia real­ly means she has some sort of hor­ri­ble hid­den ill­ness.

    And as the arti­cle below notes, the Trump cam­paign isn’t even both­er­ing to jump all of the Clin­ton health scare because they’re con­fi­dent that the media will con­cern troll on their behalf with­out any Trumpian efforts (That’s team­work!). Instead, the cam­paign is going to focus on how deplorable Hillary’s “bas­ket of deplorables” com­ment was and how much it hurts their feel­ings. It appears the Trump cam­paign is con­vinced that this com­ment, and all the hurt feel­ings that it appar­ent­ly gen­er­at­ed from Trump’s base, could be the com­ment that sinks her cam­paign. Yep. The Trump cam­paign is actu­al­ly try­ing to pull a “Have you no decen­cy?” moment. Get ready to be con­cern trolled like you’ve nev­er been con­cern trolled before

    Politi­co

    Trump shrugs at Clin­ton’s health to lev­el ‘deplorables’ attack

    Show­ing restraint on Clinton’s health, Trump Tow­er urges sur­ro­gates to focus on the com­ment he thinks might undo her.

    By Shane Gold­mach­er

    09/12/16 12:48 PM EDT

    Updat­ed 09/12/16 02:02 PM EDT

    Hillary Clin­ton hand­ed Don­ald Trump two poten­tial­ly detri­men­tal sto­ry­lines and, in a fresh bout of restraint, the Repub­li­can nom­i­nee hasn’t tried to grab both issues at once.

    Over the last 24 hours, Trump’s team has urged its sur­ro­gates, and the can­di­date him­self, to tamp down talk of her health and instead focus unre­lent­ing­ly on her cast­ing tens of mil­lions of his sup­port­ers into a “bas­ket of deplorables,” call­ing them “racist, sex­ist, homo­pho­bic, xeno­pho­bic, Islama­pho­bic, you name it.” (Clin­ton has apol­o­gized for say­ing such labels applied to “half” his back­ers.)

    Trump, who bull­dozed his way to the Repub­li­can nom­i­nee insult­ing his oppo­nents and var­i­ous eth­nic and reli­gious groups, expressed out­rage at Clinton’s “vile,” “smear­ing” com­ments in a Bal­ti­more speech before the Nation­al Guards Asso­ci­a­tion in which he said the for­mer sec­re­tary of state had dis­qual­i­fied her­self from pub­lic office.

    Out: Trump’s 15-month focus on being polit­i­cal incor­rect. In: Trump’s umbrage over some­thing Clin­ton said that was polit­i­cal­ly incor­rect — and a bold, new dec­la­ra­tion that Clin­ton could no longer “cred­i­bly cam­paign” for the pres­i­den­cy.

    “You can­not run for pres­i­dent if you have such con­tempt in your heart for the Amer­i­can vot­er,” Trump declared. “You can­not lead this nation is you have such a low opin­ion of its peo­ple.”

    Ear­li­er on Mon­day, Trump said on Fox and Friends that the “bas­ket of deplorables” remark was “the sin­gle biggest mis­take of the polit­i­cal sea­son.”

    His cam­paign sought cap­i­tal­ize quick­ly rolling out with a new TV ad on Mon­day morn­ing — by far their fastest turn-around of the gen­er­al elec­tion — accus­ing her of attack­ing, “Peo­ple like you, you and you.” The ad was sent to TV sta­tions in Ohio, Penn­syl­va­nia, Flori­da and North Car­oli­na, the cam­paign announced, four bat­tle­ground states that are the linch­pin of any Trump path to the White House.

    The ad clos­es with the words “vicious­ly demo­nized” appear­ing on screen. Trump used the exact same phrase in his Bal­ti­more speech, anoth­er sign of new dis­ci­pline and syn­er­gy between Trump on the stump and the cam­paign oper­at­ing behind the scenes.

    The mes­sage that Trump and his sur­ro­gates are try­ing to dri­ve: Clinton’s remarks offered a win­dow into the “real” Hillary Clin­ton.

    “It shows the true side of her, she was relaxed, she was with friends, she was at a fundrais­er, and then the real Hillary comes out. The fake Hillary’s say­ing, ‘I stand for all Amer­i­cans,’” Rep. Chris Collins of New York, the first con­gress­man to back Trump dur­ing the pri­ma­ry and a key Capi­tol Hill ally, said in an inter­view. “Well no, she just wrote off half of the Repub­li­can Par­ty.”

    When Trump him­self was asked on Fox about Clinton’s buck­ling-knees-episode and the lat­er announce­ment from her cam­paign that she had pneu­mo­nia, he most­ly piv­ot­ed. “I hope she gets well soon. I don’t know what’s going on,” Trump said.

    The belief among Trump’s allies and advis­ers is that the media will pur­sue the health sto­ry­line with­out him insert­ing him­self, while he can keep the “deplorables” remark in the head­lines. Trump got an assist from an unlike­ly source on Mon­day when one of Pres­i­dent Obama’s for­mer top advis­ers, David Axel­rod, tweet­ed, “Antibi­otics can take care of pneu­mo­nia. What’s the cure for an unhealthy pen­chant for pri­va­cy that repeat­ed­ly cre­ates unnec­es­sary prob­lems?”

    Collins praised Trump’s restraint around Clinton’s health and cred­it­ed his new cam­paign man­ag­er.

    “The day that Kellyanne Con­way came on board, Mr. Trump has been sig­nif­i­cant­ly more dis­ci­plined and on mes­sage and that’s not a coin­ci­dence,” Collins said.

    ...

    Indeed, Trump was hard­ly a per­fect mod­el of dis­ci­pline on Mon­day. He called into CNBC and con­tin­ued his use of a racial­ized slur against Sen. Eliz­a­beth War­ren (call­ing her “Poc­a­hon­tas”), declared inac­cu­rate­ly that the Fed­er­al Reserve is “obvi­ous­ly not inde­pen­dent” and that its chair, Janet Yellen, “should be ashamed of her­self” for keep­ing inter­est rates low.s

    But those com­ments seemed to quick­ly dis­si­pate, and Trump’s Bal­ti­more event pro­vid­ed fresh fod­der for the “deplorables” sto­ry­line as Trump took offense to Clinton’s gen­er­al­iza­tion of his sup­port­ers. “She divides peo­ple into bas­kets as though they were objects, not human beings,” Trump said.

    Then the can­di­date who has refused to apol­o­gize to any­one over any­thing spe­cif­ic — he’s offered broad regret once — despite more than a year of attacks demand­ed an apol­o­gy for Clin­ton.

    “Hillary Clin­ton,” Trump not­ed, “still hasn’t apol­o­gized to those she’s slan­dered.”

    “You can­not run for pres­i­dent if you have such con­tempt in your heart for the Amer­i­can voter...You can­not lead this nation is you have such a low opin­ion of its peo­ple.”

    Yep, the “Alt-Right” dream can­di­date actu­al­ly, beloved by white suprema­cists, actu­al­ly said that with­out a hint of irony. Because trolling works like that. At least that’s one way to troll. Anoth­er obvi­ous trolling tac­tic that could be employed in this sit­u­a­tion is to con­tin­ue act­ing all hurt about being asso­ci­at­ed with white suprema­cists while simul­ta­ne­ous­ly say­ing that you don’t mind being asso­ci­at­ed with them at all. Or, bet­ter yet, pro­claim that you’re actu­al­ly “hon­ored” to be thrown in the same bas­ket as the Alt-Right. That would be some YUUUGE trolling right there:

    Talk­ing Points Memo Livewire

    Trump Ally, Son Share Meme Fea­tur­ing Sym­bol Of White Nation­al­ist Alt-Right

    By Alle­gra Kirk­land
    Pub­lished Sep­tem­ber 12, 2016, 8:35 AM EDT

    Two mem­bers of Don­ald Trump’s inner cir­cle shared memes on social media over the week­end fea­tur­ing a sym­bol pop­u­lar with the white nation­al­ist alt-right.

    Riff­ing off of Hillary Clinton’s remark that some of Trump’s sup­port­ers are racists, misog­y­nists, and xeno­phobes who belong in a “bas­ket of deplorables,” the meme shared by Don­ald Trump Jr. and Trump ally Roger Stone showed key Trump allis pho­to­shopped onto a poster from the move “The Expend­ables.” In the edit­ed poster for “The Deplorables,” those armed staffers and Trump boost­ers are shown along­side Pepe the Frog, a car­toon fig­ure that first cropped up on the 4chan web­site and has since become asso­ci­at­ed with the white suprema­cist move­ment online.

    Trump, Indi­ana Gov. Mike Pence ®, New Jer­sey Gov. Chris Christie ®, Ben Car­son, con­spir­a­cy the­o­rist Alex Jones, and alt-right fig­ure­head Milo Yiannopou­los were among those in includ­ed in the image.

    “Appar­ent­ly I made the cut as one of the Deplorables,” Trump Jr. wrote on Insta­gram in a cap­tion accom­pa­ny­ing the meme, say­ing he was “hon­ored” to be grouped among Trump’s sup­port­ers.

    Infor­mal Trump advi­sor Roger Stone shared the same image on Twit­ter, say­ing he was “so proud to be one of the Deplorables.”

    Pepe the Frog has emerged as an unof­fi­cial mas­cot of the alt-right, a loose­ly defined group of white nation­al­ists who con­gre­gate online to debate IQ dif­fer­ences between the races and joke about burn­ing Jew­ish jour­nal­ists in ovens.

    Last fall, Trump him­self shared a meme fea­tur­ing him­self as pres­i­dent Pepe. He has retweet­ed users with han­dles like @WhiteGenocideTM on mul­ti­ple occa­sions.

    @codyave: @drudgereport @BreitbartNews @Writeintrump “You Can’t Stump the Trump” https://t.co/0xITB7XeJV pic.twitter.com/iF6S05se2w”— Don­ald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Octo­ber 13, 2015

    Trump has dis­avowed sup­port from the alt-right and white suprema­cists like for­mer KKK Grand Wiz­ard David Duke, though he hired Steve Ban­non, chair­man of the alt-right pro­mot­ing Bre­it­bart News, as his cam­paign CEO in August.

    ...

    ““Appar­ent­ly I made the cut as one of the Deplorables,” Trump Jr. wrote on Insta­gram in a cap­tion accom­pa­ny­ing the meme, say­ing he was “hon­ored” to be grouped among Trump’s sup­port­ers.

    Bra­vo! In a tweet osten­si­bly intend­ed to counter Hillary’s “deplorables” com­ments, Trump Jr. acknowl­edges that the fig­ures in the retweet­ed “Deplorables” meme image, includ­ing Pepe the neo-Nazi mas­cot and Milo Yiannopou­los, are indeed “Trump’s sup­port­ers” and he’s “hon­ored” to be grouped with them. Now that is some world class trolling right there!

    Over­all, it looks like we’re in a fas­ci­nat­ing sit­u­a­tion where Hillary’s cam­paign may have, inten­tion­al­ly or unin­ten­tion­al­ly, set up a dynam­ic with this “bas­ket of deplorables” com­ment that could peel off from the rest of his core sup­port­ers the part of Trump’s base that still isn’t com­fort­able back­ing an open white nation­al­ist. And the Trump cam­paign’s response to pre­vent those non-“deplorable” (but mere­ly deeply con­fused) sup­port­ers from get­ting embar­rassed into drop­ping their sup­port is to use those sup­port­ers as a kind of rhetor­i­cal human shield for his “deplorable” white nation­al­ist core: If you call out its white nation­al­ist core, the Trump cam­paign’s response is group all of its sup­port­ers in with that white nation­al­ist core and decry “how dare you call all these decent peo­ple such despi­ca­ble names,” while simul­ta­ne­ous­ly send­ing out “plus, we’re hon­ored to be asso­ci­at­ed with such deplorable peo­ple” memes. *winky wink!* Or, maybe some­thing more like “plus, we’re hon­ored to be asso­ci­at­ed with such non-deplorable peo­ple”:

    Talk­ing Points Memo Edi­tor’s Blog

    Pence Refus­es to Call David Duke “Deplorable”

    By Josh Mar­shall
    Pub­lished Sep­tem­ber 12, 2016, 5:40 PM EDT

    Veep can­di­date Mike Pence is cur­rent­ly being inter­viewed by Wolf Blitzer. And it’s not going ter­ri­bly well. One key moment hap­pened when Pence refused to call David Duke “deplorable.” Tran­script after the jump ...

    BLITZER: But [Clin­ton] said, there are sup­port­ers, and you know this, there are some sup­port­ers of Don­ald Trump and Mike Pence, who, David Duke, for exam­ple, some oth­er white nation­al­ist, who would fit into that cat­e­go­ry of deplorables. Right?”

    PENCE: “As I’ve told you the last time I was on, I’m not sure why the media keeps drop­ping David Duke’s name. Don­ald Trump has denounced David Duke repeat­ed­ly. We don’t want his sup­port and we don’t want the sup­port of peo­ple who think like him.”

    BLITZER: “You called him a deplorable. You would call him a deplorable?”

    PENCE: “No, I’m not in the name-call­ing busi­ness, Wolf, you know me bet­ter than that.”

    There’s more from this inter­view, full report short­ly.

    “As I’ve told you the last time I was on, I’m not sure why the media keeps drop­ping David Duke’s name. Don­ald Trump has denounced David Duke repeat­ed­ly. We don’t want his sup­port and we don’t want the sup­port of peo­ple who think like him.

    LOL! Some­one might want to inform Mike that Don­ald Trump Jr and Roger Stone are, in fact, quite hon­ored to be put in the same group as Pepe the neo-Nazi Frog and Milo Yian­pop­u­lous. Mike must not have checked his twit­ter feed for the Trump cam­paign’s lat­est super-secret neo-Nazi meme-tweets. How deplorable of him. *oops*

    As we can see, it isn’t easy being a non-deplorable Trump sup­port­er. First you find your­self teamed up with a bas­ket of deplorables, and the next thing you know The Don­ald throws you in the same bas­ket with them and forces you to defend their deplorable hon­or while pre­tend­ing they’re invis­i­ble and not real­ly there at all. And then Mike Pence refus­es to acknowl­edge the valid­i­ty of call­ing any­one deplorable, even David Duke. Yeah, that has to be con­fus­ing.

    And in tan­gen­tial­ly relat­ed news, the co-chair of “Vet­er­ans for Trump” decid­ed to pub­licly spec­u­late that Hillary Clin­ton caught pneu­mo­nia because she secret­ly has Parkin­son’s dis­ease. In case you’re assum­ing that this is the same co-chair of “Vet­er­ans for Trump” who recent­ly clar­i­fied that Hillary should be shot for trea­son over her emails serv­er (but not assas­si­nat­ed because that would be unrea­son­able, you see), no, that was Vet­er­an’s for Trump co-chair Al Bal­dasaro. This lat­est co-chair was Daniel Tam­bu­rel­lo. Both are very non-deplorable co-chairs for a very non-deplorable orga­ni­za­tion, no doubt.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 12, 2016, 2:54 pm
  3. Ken­tuck­y’s far-right gov­er­nor, Matt Bevin, appar­ent­ly isn’t sat­is­fied with the large num­ber of pre­ventable deaths he’s cre­at­ing with the gut­ting of Ken­tuck­y’s Med­ic­aid expan­sion. Now he’s pre­dict­ing, and basi­cal­ly call­ing for, much, much more wide­spread suf­fer­ing and death. But only if Hillary wins, in which case the tree of lib­er­ty is going to need some water­ing:

    Right Wing Watch

    KY Gov. Matt Bevin: Elec­tion Of Hillary Clin­ton May Call For Shed­ding Blood Of ‘Tyrants’ And ‘Patri­ots’

    Sub­mit­ted by Peter Mont­gomery on Mon­day, 9/12/2016 10:21 am

    Numer­ous speak­ers at last weekend’s Val­ues Vot­er Sum­mit sug­gest­ed that the Amer­i­can repub­lic might not sur­vive a Hillary Clin­ton pres­i­den­cy. Dur­ing the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion it has become almost rou­tine to hear far-right lead­ers talk about the pos­si­bil­i­ty of armed rev­o­lu­tion against the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. But it was still jar­ring to hear a sit­ting gov­er­nor sug­gest that Amer­i­ca might only sur­vive the elec­tion of Hillary Clin­ton through blood­shed.

    Matt Bevin, who was elect­ed gov­er­nor of Ken­tucky last year after express­ing “absolute” sup­port for mar­riage-refus­ing coun­ty clerk Kim Davis, received the Dis­tin­guished Chris­t­ian States­man award from the D. James Kennedy Cen­ter for Chris­t­ian States­man­ship on Fri­day night. Speak­ing on Sat­ur­day, he told VVS atten­dees that the coun­try is fac­ing a fork in the road: “We don’t have mul­ti­ple options; we’re going one way or we’re going the oth­er way, polit­i­cal­ly, spir­i­tu­al­ly, moral­ly, eco­nom­i­cal­ly, from a lib­er­ty stand­point. We’re going one way or we’re going the oth­er way.”

    Bevin recount­ed a sto­ry from his col­lege days about how he con­front­ed a pro­fes­sor who he said mocked Chris­tian­i­ty, the way lib­er­als always do: “They try to silence us. They try to get us to shut our mouths. They try to embar­rass us. Don’t be embar­rassed. We were not redeemed to have a spir­it of timid­i­ty.” He urged young peo­ple, “Be bold. There’s enough Neville Cham­ber­lains in the world. Be a Win­ston Churchill…There are quite enough sheep already. Be a shep­herd.”

    Amer­i­can free­dom, Bevin said, was “pur­chased at an extra­or­di­nary price,” say­ing that one and a half mil­lion Amer­i­cans have giv­en their lives in uni­form. “Amer­i­ca is worth fight­ing for. Amer­i­ca is worth fight­ing for, ide­o­log­i­cal­ly.”

    “I want us to be able to fight ide­o­log­i­cal­ly, men­tal­ly, spir­i­tu­al­ly, eco­nom­i­cal­ly, so that we don’t have to do it phys­i­cal­ly,” said Bevin. “But that may in fact be the case.” He explained that it might take the shed­ding of the blood of tyrants and patri­ots for Amer­i­ca to sur­vive a Hillary Clin­ton pres­i­den­cy:

    Some­body asked me yes­ter­day, I did an inter­view and they said, “Do you think it’s pos­si­ble, if Hillary Clin­ton were to win the elec­tion, do you think it’s pos­si­ble that we’ll be able to sur­vive? That we would ever be able to recov­er as a naton? And while there are peo­ple who have stood on this stage and said we would not, I would beg to dif­fer. But I will tell you this: I do think it would be pos­si­ble, but at what price? At what price? The roots of the tree of lib­er­ty are watered by what? The blood, of who? The tyrants to be sure, but who else? The patri­ots. Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room. It might be that of our chil­dren and grand­chil­dren. I have nine chil­dren. It breaks my heart to think that it might be their blood that is need­ed to redeem some­thing, to reclaim some­thing, that we through our apa­thy and our indif­fer­ence have giv­en away.

    “Some­body asked me yes­ter­day, I did an inter­view and they said, “Do you think it’s pos­si­ble, if Hillary Clin­ton were to win the elec­tion, do you think it’s pos­si­ble that we’ll be able to sur­vive? That we would ever be able to recov­er as a naton? And while there are peo­ple who have stood on this stage and said we would not, I would beg to dif­fer. But I will tell you this: I do think it would be pos­si­ble, but at what price? At what price? The roots of the tree of lib­er­ty are watered by what? The blood, of who? ...”

    What an opti­mistic mes­sage from the gov­er­nor: Yes, it’s pos­si­ble that the US could sur­vive if Hillary becomes pres­i­dent giv­en that we’re in a nation­al “fork in the road”.... if the tree of lib­er­ty is watered in blood. But it’s pos­si­ble! What a very non-deplorable state­ment.

    It’s also a state­ment that left the par­tic­u­lar tim­ing of a civ­il war rather vague if Hillary wins. The way Bevin was putting it, it could hap­pen soon or gen­er­a­tions from now. Roger Stone, on the oth­er hand, recent­ly share some more thoughts on the threat of vio­lence should Hillary win and it sounds like it’s going to get bad fast. Like, get ready for rov­ing hordes of Mus­lim rape gangs son. That fast, in which case it sounds like the tree of lib­er­ty is going to be get­ting a water­ing soon. Although not with any of Roger’s blood. You can’t get blood from a Stone. He’ll be flee­ing to Cos­ta Rica instead:

    The Hill

    Roger Stone: If Clin­ton wins, I’m mov­ing to Cos­ta Rica

    By Jessie Hell­mann
    August 27, 2016, 01:32 pm

    Don­ald Trump sup­port­er Roger Stone would move to Cos­ta Rica if Hillary Clin­ton is elect­ed pres­i­dent.

    “If Hillary wins, we’re done as a nation. We’ll be over­run by hordes of young Mus­lims, like Ger­many and France, rap­ing, killing, vio­lat­ing, des­e­crat­ing,” Stone said in an inter­view with the Finan­cial Times.

    “If Hillary wins, there will be wide­spread unrest, civ­il dis­obe­di­ence, bad­ly divid­ed gov­ern­ment in which half the coun­try believes she, her daugh­ter, and her hus­band belong in prison. There’ll be no good­will. No hon­ey­moon. There will be sys­tem­at­ic inspec­tion of all of her actions because some­one who has been a crook in the past will be a crook in the future. It will be sad. I’ll prob­a­bly be forced to move to Cos­ta Rica.”

    ...

    “If Hillary wins, there will be wide­spread unrest, civ­il dis­obe­di­ence, bad­ly divid­ed gov­ern­ment in which half the coun­try believes she, her daugh­ter, and her hus­band belong in prison. There’ll be no good­will. No hon­ey­moon. There will be sys­tem­at­ic inspec­tion of all of her actions because some­one who has been a crook in the past will be a crook in the future. It will be sad. I’ll prob­a­bly be forced to move to Cos­ta Rica.”

    Keep in mind that if the post-elec­tion blood­shed the far-right has been pin­ing for actu­al­ly came to pass and got so bad that Roger Stone actu­al­ly felt the need to flee to Cos­ta Rica, he’s not flee­ing alone. He’s pre­sum­ably going to bring friends in that kind of sit­u­a­tion. Very non-deplorable friends. And Roger Stone has a lot of non-deplorable friends. The kind of that Cos­ta Rica prob­a­bly does­n’t need hang­ing around.

    All in all, some­one should prob­a­bly warn Cos­ta Rica that some sort of extreme immi­grant vet­ting pro­gram might be nec­es­sary. Tough times ahead.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | September 12, 2016, 6:39 pm
  4. It looks like the incom­ing Trump admin­is­tra­tion won’t need to make the final con­flict-of-inter­est-rid­dled call on penal­iz­ing Deutsche Bank over its role in the mort­gage cri­sis. Deutsche Bank just for­mal­ly set­tled:

    Reuters

    Deutsche Bank signs $7.2 bil­lion deal with U.S. over risky mort­gages

    Tue Jan 17, 2017 | 5:36pm EST

    By Karen Freifeld | NEW YORK

    Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) (DB.N) final­ized a $7.2 bil­lion set­tle­ment with the U.S. Depart­ment of Jus­tice over its sale of tox­ic mort­gage secu­ri­ties in the run-up to the 2008 finan­cial cri­sis, the gov­ern­ment agency said on Tues­day.

    Deutsche’s agree­ment rep­re­sents the largest res­o­lu­tion for the con­duct of a sin­gle enti­ty in mis­lead­ing investors in res­i­den­tial mort­gage-backed secu­ri­ties, the depart­ment said in a state­ment. The set­tle­ment was high­er than the $7 bil­lion paid by Cit­i­group to fed­er­al and state author­i­ties in 2014.

    “Deutsche Bank did not mere­ly mis­lead investors: it con­tributed direct­ly to an inter­na­tion­al finan­cial cri­sis,” Attor­ney Gen­er­al Loret­ta Lynch said in the state­ment.

    John Cryan, Deutsche’s chief exec­u­tive, said that the bank’s con­duct between 2005 and 2007 fell short of stan­dards and was “unac­cept­able.” He said the bank had exit­ed many of the under­ly­ing activ­i­ties and improved stan­dards.

    Deutsche Bank ADR-list­ed shares closed down 3.2 per­cent to $18.56 on the New York Stock Exchange.

    The Frank­furt-based bank announced it had reached the agree­ment in prin­ci­ple with U.S. author­i­ties on Dec. 23.

    Its stock price hit a record low in Sep­tem­ber after the bank acknowl­edged the Jus­tice Depart­ment made an open­ing demand of $14 bil­lion.

    The Jus­tice Depart­ment reached $46 bil­lion in set­tle­ments with U.S. banks over the shod­dy secu­ri­ties that con­tributed to the U.S. hous­ing mar­ket col­lapse and finan­cial cri­sis before turn­ing to Deutsche and oth­er Euro­pean banks.

    Oth­er banks paid more than Deutsche, but their set­tle­ments also includ­ed wrong­do­ing by insti­tu­tions they acquired dur­ing the cri­sis. Bank of Amer­i­ca Corp (BAC.N), for instance, agreed to pay $16.7 bil­lion, which also cov­ered Mer­rill Lynch and Coun­try­wide Finan­cial. JPMor­gan Chase & Co (JPM.N) set­tled for $13 bil­lion, includ­ing mis­con­duct by Wash­ing­ton Mutu­al and Bear Stearns.

    As part of its deal, Deutsche Bank will pay a civ­il mon­e­tary penal­ty of $3.1 bil­lion and pro­vide $4.1 bil­lion in con­sumer relief to home­own­ers, bor­row­ers and com­mu­ni­ties harmed by its prac­tices.

    The bank also agreed to a state­ment of facts that describes how it made false and mis­lead­ing rep­re­sen­ta­tions to investors about the loans under­ly­ing bil­lions of dol­lars worth of mort­gage secu­ri­ties issued by the bank in 2006 and 2007.

    In May 2006, a super­vi­sor is quot­ed as warn­ing a senior trad­er that a loan orig­i­na­tor would under­write loans to any­one with “half a pulse”, accord­ing to the state­ment of facts.

    The super­vi­sor also said that month that Deutsche Bank, among oth­ers, “tolerate[d] mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion” from orig­i­na­tors who accept­ed blacked out pay stubs to state that bor­row­ers had high­er incomes.

    Deutsche Bank also knew appraisals were inflat­ed, and con­cealed sec­ond liens on prop­er­ties.

    ...

    Sep­a­rate­ly, Deutsche Bank will slash bonus­es for senior employ­ees by about 90 per­cent, a move that will be announced on Wednes­day, Spiegel report­ed.

    ““Deutsche Bank did not mere­ly mis­lead investors: it con­tributed direct­ly to an inter­na­tion­al finan­cial cri­sis,” Attor­ney Gen­er­al Loret­ta Lynch said in the state­ment.”

    Well, that’s one con­flict-of-inter­est bul­let suc­cess­ful­ly dodged. One bul­let from a con­flict-of-inter­est machine gun with an seem­ing­ly unlim­it­ed clip.

    So find­ing out how a Trump admin­is­tra­tion will treat his pre­ferred lender when things go awry will just have to wait for the next major finan­cial cri­sis. 3...2...1...

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | January 17, 2017, 8:02 pm
  5. Here’s a sto­ry that’s prob­a­bly going to have a lot of peo­ple tak­ing a sec­ond look at that https://trumpsoroschicago.wordpress.com blog describ­ing the mys­te­ri­ous busi­ness rela­tion­ship between Don­ald Trump and George Soros: It turns out Jared Kush­n­er neglect­ed to dis­close his inter­est in Cadre, a real-estate tech start­up Kush­n­er co-found­ed in 2014 that end­ed up solic­it­ing funds from a vari­ety of polit­i­cal­ly note­wor­thy investors, includ­ing Peter Thiel and Chi­nese entre­pre­neur David Yu, co-founder with Aliba­ba Group Hold­ing Ltd.’s Jack Ma of a Shang­hai-based pri­vate-equi­ty firm. And it turns out that Cadre got a $250 mil­lion line of cred­it from the fam­i­ly office of George Soros, and that fam­i­ly office is also report­ed­ly an investor:

    The Wall Street Jour­nal

    Trump Advis­er Kushner’s Undis­closed Part­ners Include Gold­man and Soros
    Invest­ments show ties to major finance and tech­nol­o­gy names

    By Jean Eagle­sham, Juli­et Chung and Lisa Schwartz
    Updat­ed May 2, 2017 8:34 p.m. ET

    Jared Kush­n­er, the president’s son-in-law and senior advis­er, is cur­rent­ly in busi­ness with Gold­man Sachs Group Inc. and bil­lion­aires George Soros and Peter Thiel, accord­ing to peo­ple famil­iar with the mat­ter and secu­ri­ties fil­ings.

    The pre­vi­ous­ly undis­closed busi­ness rela­tion­ships with titans of the finan­cial and tech­nol­o­gy worlds are through a real-estate tech start­up called Cadre that Mr. Kush­n­er co-found­ed and cur­rent­ly part­ly owns.

    Gold­man and Messrs. Soros and Thiel, as well as oth­er bil­lion­aires’ firms, also have stakes in the com­pa­ny, which is based in a Man­hat­tan build­ing owned by the Kush­n­er family’s com­pa­ny, accord­ing to peo­ple close to Cadre.

    The Cadre stake is one of many interests—and ties to large finan­cial institutions—that Mr. Kush­n­er didn’t iden­ti­fy on his gov­ern­ment finan­cial-dis­clo­sure form, accord­ing to a Wall Street Jour­nal review of secu­ri­ties and oth­er fil­ings. Oth­ers include loans total­ing at least $1 bil­lion, from more than 20 lenders, to prop­er­ties and com­pa­nies part-owned by Mr. Kush­n­er, the Jour­nal found. He has also pro­vid­ed per­son­al guar­an­tees on more than $300 mil­lion of the debt, accord­ing to the analy­sis.

    In his dis­clo­sure form filed ear­li­er this year, Mr. Kush­n­er didn’t iden­ti­fy Cadre as among his hun­dreds of assets. The Jour­nal iden­ti­fied his Cadre stake through a review of secu­ri­ties and oth­er fil­ings as well as inter­views with peo­ple famil­iar with the com­pa­ny and Mr. Kushner’s finances.

    Jamie Gore­lick, a lawyer rep­re­sent­ing Mr. Kush­n­er, said in a state­ment that his stake in Cadre is housed in a com­pa­ny he owns, BFPS Ven­tures LLC. His own­er­ship of BFPS is report­ed on his dis­clo­sure form, although it doesn’t men­tion Cadre.

    Ms. Gore­lick said the Cadre stake is described in a revised ver­sion of his dis­clo­sure form that will be made pub­lic after it has been cer­ti­fied by ethics offi­cials. She said Mr. Kush­n­er has pre­vi­ous­ly dis­cussed his Cadre own­er­ship with the Office of Gov­ern­ment Ethics and that Mr. Kush­n­er has “resigned from Cadre’s board, assigned his vot­ing rights and reduced his own­er­ship share.”

    ...

    Ms. Gore­lick said it is “very nor­mal” for a finan­cial-dis­clo­sure form to be revised and that the form was pre­pared by Mr. Kushner’s lawyers on his behalf. A White House spokes­woman referred ques­tions to Mr. Kushner’s lawyer.

    Trevor Pot­ter, a Repub­li­can for­mer chair­man of the Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion, and oth­er ethics experts said invest­ments such as Mr. Kushner’s own­er­ship of Cadre typ­i­cal­ly need to be dis­closed. They said Mr. Kush­n­er didn’t appear to vio­late dis­clo­sure rules by not pub­licly report­ing his busi­ness-relat­ed debts and guar­an­tees. But they said such arrange­ments ide­al­ly should be dis­closed, in part because they could force Mr. Kush­n­er to recuse him­self from cer­tain issues involv­ing the lenders.

    “Any­thing that presents a poten­tial for the con­flict of inter­est should be dis­closed so that the pub­lic and the press can mon­i­tor this,” Mr. Pot­ter said.

    Ethics experts’ con­cern is that Mr. Kushner’s busi­ness con­nec­tions could jeop­ar­dize his impar­tial­i­ty in cer­tain areas and that, absent dis­clo­sures, the pub­lic is in the dark about poten­tial con­flicts.

    Mr. Kushner’s rapid­ly expand­ing respon­si­bil­i­ties range from work­ing on a Mid­dle East peace deal to mak­ing the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment oper­ate more effi­cient­ly. As a senior fed­er­al offi­cial, he is bound by ethics laws that require him to recuse him­self from mat­ters that would direct­ly affect his finan­cial inter­ests.

    Ms. Gore­lick, who was deputy attor­ney gen­er­al in for­mer Pres­i­dent Bill Clinton’s admin­is­tra­tion, said Mr. Kush­n­er will “recuse con­sis­tent with gov­ern­ment ethics rules.”

    Mr. Kush­n­er, the 36-year-old scion of a real-estate fam­i­ly, agreed with fed­er­al ethics offi­cials to divest him­self of more than 80 assets after he and his wife, Ivan­ka Trump, were hired by her father, Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump, as senior aides. White House offi­cials have said some of the sales were need­ed to avoid poten­tial con­flicts between Mr. Kushner’s far-reach­ing job duties and his per­son­al finan­cial inter­ests.

    Mr. Kush­n­er is retain­ing more than 200 oth­er assets, worth a total of at least $116 mil­lion, accord­ing to his dis­clo­sures. These are most­ly apart­ments and office blocks around the U.S. Like his father-in-law, he has declined to put these assets in a blind trust, which ethics experts regard as the clean­est way to avoid con­flicts of inter­est. Some­one close to Mr. Kush­n­er said there are prac­ti­cal prob­lems that made a blind trust not a real­is­tic option.

    Mr. Kush­n­er co-found­ed Cadre in 2014 with his broth­er, Joshua Kush­n­er, and Ryan Williams, a 29-year-old friend and for­mer employ­ee of Kush­n­er Cos., the fam­i­ly-con­trolled busi­ness that Mr. Kush­n­er ran until recent­ly. Cadre mar­kets prop­er­ties to prospec­tive investors, who can put their mon­ey into spe­cif­ic build­ings or into an invest­ment fund run by Cadre, which col­lects fees on each deal.

    To get off the ground, Cadre turned to a Gold­man Sachs fund and a num­ber of high-pro­file investors. Among them were the ven­ture-cap­i­tal firms of Mr. Thiel, Sil­i­con Valley’s most promi­nent sup­port­er of the GOP pres­i­dent, and Vin­od Khosla, a co-founder of Sun Microsys­tems Inc., accord­ing to Cadre’s web­site. Per­son­al back­ers include Chi­nese entre­pre­neur David Yu, co-founder with Aliba­ba Group Hold­ing Ltd.’s Jack Ma of a Shang­hai-based pri­vate-equi­ty firm, hedge-fund man­ag­er Daniel Och and real-estate mag­nate Bar­ry Stern­licht, peo­ple close to Cadre said.

    Cadre also secured a $250 mil­lion line of cred­it from the fam­i­ly office of Mr. Soros, a top Demo­c­ra­t­ic donor who Mr. Trump crit­i­cized dur­ing his pres­i­den­tial cam­paign, the peo­ple close to the com­pa­ny said. Mr. Soros’s fam­i­ly office is also an investor in Cadre.

    The investors declined or didn’t respond to requests to com­ment on their back­ing of Cadre, but a per­son famil­iar with Mr. Soros’s fam­i­ly office said it had invest­ed in ear­ly 2015 before Mr. Trump declared his pres­i­den­tial can­di­da­cy.

    Cadre has solicit­ed mon­ey from investors for sev­er­al Kush­n­er Cos. real-estate projects, accord­ing to infor­ma­tion sent to prospec­tive investors and reviewed by the Jour­nal. Jared Kush­n­er per­son­al­ly has stakes in some of the real-estate projects for which Cadre has raised mon­ey, accord­ing to Cadre doc­u­ments and his dis­clo­sure form.

    While Mr. Williams acts as the pub­lic face of Cadre, Mr. Kush­n­er remains one of the own­ers, with the pow­er to “influ­ence the [firm’s] man­age­ment or poli­cies,” accord­ing to the lat­est pub­lic infor­ma­tion on file with the Finan­cial Indus­try Reg­u­la­to­ry Author­i­ty. Mr. Kushner’s com­pa­ny JCK Cadre LLC is shown as own­ing 25% to 50% of Quadro Part­ners Inc., which owns at least 75% of Real­Cadre LLC, which does busi­ness as Cadre. Mr. Kush­n­er has reduced his own­er­ship stake to less than 25%, his lawyer Ms. Gore­lick said.

    Mr. Williams, chief exec­u­tive of Cadre, said the com­pa­ny has been work­ing with reg­u­la­tors to update its pub­lic fil­ings to “reflect Jared’s non­op­er­a­tional, non­man­age­ment rela­tion­ship with the com­pa­ny, which has been in place since the inau­gu­ra­tion.”

    BFPS Ven­tures, the com­pa­ny that Mr. Kushner’s lawyer said holds his Cadre stake, is shown on his finan­cial-dis­clo­sure form as own­ing unspec­i­fied New York real estate val­ued at more than $50 mil­lion. The form adds that “the con­flict­ing assets of this inter­est have been divest­ed.”

    Beyond Cadre, some of the assets Mr. Kush­n­er is hold­ing on to are hard to pin­point, part­ly because they are housed in enti­ties with gener­ic names such as “KC Dum­bo Office,” accord­ing to the dis­clo­sure form.

    The Jour­nal matched many of the assets to spe­cif­ic real-estate invest­ments. An analy­sis of the debts on those prop­er­ties, using real-estate data ser­vices Prop­er­tyShark and Trepp LLC as well as prop­er­ty records, found ties to a broad swath of U.S. and for­eign banks, pri­vate-equi­ty firms, real-estate com­pa­nies and gov­ern­ment-owned lenders.

    Lenders to Mr. Kush­n­er, either direct­ly or via prop­er­ties he co-owns, include Bank of Amer­i­ca Corp. , Black­stone Group LP, Cit­i­group Inc., UBS Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG and Roy­al Bank of Scot­land Group PLC. Roy­al Bank of Scot­land didn’t respond to requests for com­ment; rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the oth­er firms declined to com­ment.

    Mr. Kush­n­er will recuse him­self from mat­ters to which Deutsche Bank or RBS are par­ties because he has pro­vid­ed per­son­al guar­an­tees on their loans, said a per­son famil­iar with his ethics arrange­ment.

    “Cadre also secured a $250 mil­lion line of cred­it from the fam­i­ly office of Mr. Soros, a top Demo­c­ra­t­ic donor who Mr. Trump crit­i­cized dur­ing his pres­i­den­tial cam­paign, the peo­ple close to the com­pa­ny said. Mr. Soros’s fam­i­ly office is also an investor in Cadre.”

    Yowza. You can see why Kush­n­er would have pre­ferred to not dis­close this rela­tion­ship. And note how the con­flicts of inter­est from Cadre are one of many Kush­n­er (and there­fore Trump) main­tains. There’s also, for instance, the con­flict of inter­est that comes from at least $1 bil­lion in loans to prop­er­ties and com­pa­nies part-owned by Kush­n­er, $300 mil­lion of which Kush­n­er has per­son­al­ly guar­an­teed:

    ...
    The Cadre stake is one of many interests—and ties to large finan­cial institutions—that Mr. Kush­n­er didn’t iden­ti­fy on his gov­ern­ment finan­cial-dis­clo­sure form, accord­ing to a Wall Street Jour­nal review of secu­ri­ties and oth­er fil­ings. Oth­ers include loans total­ing at least $1 bil­lion, from more than 20 lenders, to prop­er­ties and com­pa­nies part-owned by Mr. Kush­n­er, the Jour­nal found. He has also pro­vid­ed per­son­al guar­an­tees on more than $300 mil­lion of the debt, accord­ing to the analy­sis.

    ...

    Mr. Kush­n­er, the 36-year-old scion of a real-estate fam­i­ly, agreed with fed­er­al ethics offi­cials to divest him­self of more than 80 assets after he and his wife, Ivan­ka Trump, were hired by her father, Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump, as senior aides. White House offi­cials have said some of the sales were need­ed to avoid poten­tial con­flicts between Mr. Kushner’s far-reach­ing job duties and his per­son­al finan­cial inter­ests.

    Mr. Kush­n­er is retain­ing more than 200 oth­er assets, worth a total of at least $116 mil­lion, accord­ing to his dis­clo­sures. These are most­ly apart­ments and office blocks around the U.S. Like his father-in-law, he has declined to put these assets in a blind trust, which ethics experts regard as the clean­est way to avoid con­flicts of inter­est. Some­one close to Mr. Kush­n­er said there are prac­ti­cal prob­lems that made a blind trust not a real­is­tic option.

    ...

    Lenders to Mr. Kush­n­er, either direct­ly or via prop­er­ties he co-owns, include Bank of Amer­i­ca Corp. , Black­stone Group LP, Cit­i­group Inc., UBS Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG and Roy­al Bank of Scot­land Group PLC. Roy­al Bank of Scot­land didn’t respond to requests for com­ment; rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the oth­er firms declined to com­ment.

    Mr. Kush­n­er will recuse him­self from mat­ters to which Deutsche Bank or RBS are par­ties because he has pro­vid­ed per­son­al guar­an­tees on their loans, said a per­son famil­iar with his ethics arrange­ment.

    “Mr. Kush­n­er will recuse him­self from mat­ters to which Deutsche Bank or RBS are par­ties because he has pro­vid­ed per­son­al guar­an­tees on their loans, said a per­son famil­iar with his ethics arrange­ment.”

    Yep, Jared Kush­n­er, the guy who Trump has assigned to do ALMOST EVERYTHING (which is sad­ly not an exag­ger­a­tion), just might have more con­flicts of inter­est than Trump. Ok, prob­a­bly not more than Trump him­self since Trump has spent a life­time devel­op­ing con­flicts of inter­est, although when you con­sid­er how close Trump is to Kush­n­er it’s hard to way where Trump’s con­flicts of inter­est end and Kush­n­er’s begin.

    And while the busi­ness rela­tion­ship with George Soros cer­tain­ly isn’t going to help tamp down on all the ‘Alt-Right’ fears that Trump’s White House is get­ting ‘cucked’ by a bunch of Wall Street Jews, per­haps the most notable char­ac­ter­is­tic of Trump’s and Kush­n­er’s con­flicts of inter­est is just how wide­spread and non-homo­ge­neous they are. At this point one of the big ques­tions about Trump should­n’t be who’s pock­et is he in? The ques­tion should be who’s pock­et isn’t he in?

    And per­haps that’s going to be the Trump clan’s final defense against cor­rup­tion charges: they have so many dif­fer­ent con­flicts of inter­est their con­flicts of inter­est are con­flict­ed. The Trump’s can’t help one group of pri­vate inter­est they either have busi­ness ties to or loans from with­out piss­ing off anoth­er pri­vate inter­est they have busi­ness ties to or loans from. Of course, there are plen­ty of things that could please all of Trump’s con­flict­ed inter­ests: tax cuts for the super-rich, gut­ting reg­u­la­tions, and just gen­er­al­ly act­ing at the behest of his fel­low glob­al bil­lion­aire class (i.e. the Trump/GOP agen­da). But from a pub­lic rela­tions per­spec­tive you have to won­der if we’ll ever see the Trump clan try to push a “we have so con­flicts of inter­est that the con­flicts can­cel out” argu­ment. Or maybe they’ll just stick with the “the pres­i­dent can’t have a con­flict of inter­est” argu­ment and try to extend it to Jared.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 3, 2017, 3:15 pm

Post a comment