Each of these candidates apparently has a lot to hide. So what can we learn from their actions during the campaign, that would apply to their presidency?
Neither will be open. They both will try to hide information that has been open by either tradition or law.
Each will do whatever they can, to cover their mistakes. Like a kid, they will deny, distract, blame others.
And, unfortunately, neither of them learns from their mistakes, but keeps repeating them. They both have record unfavorability, and voters question their honesty and integrity. But Trump sticks with his bombastic and divisive approach; he cannot manage a "sane" week. Clinton still claims that she "did everything right" with her server; wants the Foundation to continue accepting foreign donations--for two months--despite the obvious backlash against it; and continues to alienate voters she claims to want (Sanders supporters, 45% of the Democratic Party who were repeatedly dissed during the convention; and now, half of the Republicans she's been trying to attract.)
It's not realistic to expect these traits to change after the campaign. The scariest thing is that they're on their BEST behavior during the campaign, to try to woo us. This is the most disclosure we're likely to get.
Neither will be open. They both will try to hide information that has been open by either tradition or law.
Each will do whatever they can, to cover their mistakes. Like a kid, they will deny, distract, blame others.
And, unfortunately, neither of them learns from their mistakes, but keeps repeating them. They both have record unfavorability, and voters question their honesty and integrity. But Trump sticks with his bombastic and divisive approach; he cannot manage a "sane" week. Clinton still claims that she "did everything right" with her server; wants the Foundation to continue accepting foreign donations--for two months--despite the obvious backlash against it; and continues to alienate voters she claims to want (Sanders supporters, 45% of the Democratic Party who were repeatedly dissed during the convention; and now, half of the Republicans she's been trying to attract.)
It's not realistic to expect these traits to change after the campaign. The scariest thing is that they're on their BEST behavior during the campaign, to try to woo us. This is the most disclosure we're likely to get.
1
The CONservative "takeover" was about deception and manipulation of the system. It was not about the majority vote or the will of the people.
It's Almost Like Another Country Voted During The Midterm — One That Doesn't Really Look Like Us
http://www.upworthy.com/its-almost-like-another-country-voted-during-the...
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Voting (HBO) [YouTube]
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/dxhtvk/suppressing-the-vote?mode=jqm
The Great Gerrymander of 2012, NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-o...
Ohio Legislature Advances Controversial Bill That Could Deter Students From Voting
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/26/ohio-student-voters_n_6946844.h...
It's Almost Like Another Country Voted During The Midterm — One That Doesn't Really Look Like Us
http://www.upworthy.com/its-almost-like-another-country-voted-during-the...
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Voting (HBO) [YouTube]
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/dxhtvk/suppressing-the-vote?mode=jqm
The Great Gerrymander of 2012, NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-o...
Ohio Legislature Advances Controversial Bill That Could Deter Students From Voting
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/26/ohio-student-voters_n_6946844.h...
1
The difference between Trump and Clinton on 9/11
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-donald-trump-talked-about-9-1...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/9-11-tapes-reveal-raw-and-emotional-hil...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-donald-trump-talked-about-9-1...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/9-11-tapes-reveal-raw-and-emotional-hil...
1
Divide the country, attack our military, undermine our political system, embrace Communism (Putin), Fascism (Hitler & Mussolini), racism, misogyny, bigotry, playing on the fears of any that he can. Planning on moves that will lead to global war and economic disaster. Outright denial of global warming. Trump is the end-of-times.
Disclosure, the only way Donald Trump could disclose any more than he has is to become the statue of himself.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/18/12538672/nude-donald-trump-statues-uni...
Disclosure, the only way Donald Trump could disclose any more than he has is to become the statue of himself.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/18/12538672/nude-donald-trump-statues-uni...
1
The problem is that both candidates have a decades long record record of concealment, double dealing, and skirting the law for their own self interest. With a background like this, each candidate is their own worst enemy. They and their partisans claim that they have been under more scrutiny than anyone else. They are correct, and they brought it on themselves. Had they been honest and forthcoming about releasing their records then the press and public would have simply checked that box and moved on. Now by their own actions, they have an entire section of the press corps dedicated to digging up whatever they are concealing.
To quote Forrest Gump "Stupid is as stupid does."
To quote Forrest Gump "Stupid is as stupid does."
1
Enough already of this incessant drumbeat about Hillary Clinton's emails. Here is what the voters really need to know: Donald Trump, what are you hiding in your unreleased tax returns? 1) How much you did NOT pay in taxes? 2) How much you did NOT give to charity? 3) Which Russian, Chinese, or other countries or oligarchs you are indebted to or in bed with? 4) How rich you really are NOT? 5) What business connections you have that are going to constitute a clear conflict or security risk if you become President? The American voters have a right to this information, and Donald Trump should not be allowed anywhere near the White House without disclosing it in full.
10
"has gone to unusual lengths to protect her privacy while holding public office"
I'm sure you mean't to say unusual lengths to destroy public records and systematically undermine the freedom of information act. Surely you weren't suggesting that the public records of the Secretary of State's activities are not in any way someone's personal privacy, because that would be massively disingenuous... almost fraudulent.
I'm sure you mean't to say unusual lengths to destroy public records and systematically undermine the freedom of information act. Surely you weren't suggesting that the public records of the Secretary of State's activities are not in any way someone's personal privacy, because that would be massively disingenuous... almost fraudulent.
6
I'd still like to see the Goldman Sachs speeches Clinton promised to release. I don't suppose there is a real smoking gun- along the lines of one of you will be Treasury Secretary and we'll get a bill through to meet your objective Y, but I'm surprised they are still worth keeping secret. I don't really care about tax returns or health records: any candidate will have gifted lawyers and tax accountants to hand to make their returns look 'normal' for someone so rich.
Medical records are something else. Only mental health issues matter here as physical illnesses barely affect administrative ability (Roosevelt, for example) but a stroke could affect the ability to do the job. They cannot be predicted well though, so the potential should not be a disqualification.
Medical records are something else. Only mental health issues matter here as physical illnesses barely affect administrative ability (Roosevelt, for example) but a stroke could affect the ability to do the job. They cannot be predicted well though, so the potential should not be a disqualification.
1
You don't care about Trump's tax returns? I'd like to know why American banks won't do business with him anymore. I'd like to know what his business interests are with Russia. I'd like to know what he has done with all his donors donations. I'd like to know why his famous multiple bankruptcies make him a good businessman. I'd like to know more about Trump University and Bondi. I'd like to know why important news venues like the NYT doesn't just finally refuse to give any more oxygen to the GOP witch hunts and Clinton's emails. I've been a NYT reader all my life, but I find myself preferring the Washington Post. NYT is on probation with me now until I see they realize what a dangerous game they play with these false equivalencies.
8
A major problem is not only Hillary's lack of disclosure, but that what she does disclose is either incomplete or false. You get the truth from her only after some else has uncovered it, and she has no other options - just happened with her emails.
Comparing her to Nixon is entirely appropriate - the is Richard Nixon in a pantsuit.
Comparing her to Nixon is entirely appropriate - the is Richard Nixon in a pantsuit.
9
Disclosure of personal information is less important to me than disclosure of plans and policies.
In this election, there is only one candidate who is disclosing both.
And, there is only one candidate who is disclosing neither.
In this election, there is only one candidate who is disclosing both.
And, there is only one candidate who is disclosing neither.
8
Plans and policies are only as good as the judgment and integrity used to apply them. You gotta have both, for those plans and policies to succeed.
1
Here we go again: another piece in the NYT in which Hillary Clinton's reluctance to give press conferences--an insubstantial defect of interest only to the press corps and its need to file some sort of copy--is stated to be the equivalent of Trump's disqualifying failure to release his tax returns (never mind his failure to disclose a legitimate health report or to disclose any detailed sense of what he plans to do when in office or how he plans to do it). And of course the piece is illustrated with a picture of Clinton, who happens to be the candidate who has given the public unprecedented access to her financial history, her emails as Secretary of State, her detailed policy plans. And of course there are the compulsory ominous innuendoes about Clinton "hiding something" and dark "subtext" of her "private connections"--all of which have been exhaustively investigated with zero results. And meanwhile Trump has not been even investigated by this newspaper for what appears to be a corrupt payment by his foundation to A-G Bondi of Florida that succeeded in getting her to drop her investigation of the Trump University scam, itself a glaring zone of non-disclosure by Donald Trump. If there were an anti-Pulitzer to be won for a complete failure to discharge the duties of the Fourth Estate, the NYT would win it handily for its coverage of this election campaign.
31
It has become clear that the NYT is employing the double standard. I'm sorry to see it because I rely on the NYT a lot, but I'm a woman and I feel their discrimination.
3
Why shouldn't we expect honesty and disclosure?
While Hillary has released her tax records, she has destroyed records of the Clinton Foundation and her Secretary of State position. Her actions imply that she is hiding something, something or things that she does not want us to know.
The job of the presidency demands transparency of character, nothing less. If the candidate cannot provide that transparency, then he or she should not be seeking the office.
While Hillary has released her tax records, she has destroyed records of the Clinton Foundation and her Secretary of State position. Her actions imply that she is hiding something, something or things that she does not want us to know.
The job of the presidency demands transparency of character, nothing less. If the candidate cannot provide that transparency, then he or she should not be seeking the office.
7
So, then, you agree that Trump's failure to release his tax returns should be disqualifying?
14
Full and utter disclosure.
And as a country we should have standards that we apply to candidates eg full disclosure of tax records, full medical exams with public results, no family ties to foreign government money, etc., etc.
We have an extremely lax system for picking our candidates and hey guess what, we get HORRIBLE candidates. And soon, we'll have a horrible President.
And as a country we should have standards that we apply to candidates eg full disclosure of tax records, full medical exams with public results, no family ties to foreign government money, etc., etc.
We have an extremely lax system for picking our candidates and hey guess what, we get HORRIBLE candidates. And soon, we'll have a horrible President.
3
Once again, Clinton and Trump’s hypocrisy over each other’s transparency reveals an underlying problem in today’s political world: the failure for elected leaders or presidential nominee to release information that the general public should have access to. Both candidates believe that the other should release information, while not doing so themselves. Both candidates should release their respective forms; Hillary should release her emails, and Trump should release his tax returns. In order for both candidates to be completely trustworthy, they must be transparent. Hiding emails or tax returns is a sure way for the public to not trust a candidate. Whenever a candidate does hide information, like the article mentioned, the candidate is viewed as hiding something and, therefore, untrustworthy. Most Americans want to know who they are truly voting for and hiding information that the public should know.
As a result, more Americans are turning their vote towards different parties, such as the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. In the age of the internet, information should be shared rather than hidden away for some hackers to find and release to the public. In recent news, Hillary Clinton has failed to disclose that many donors to her foundation might possibly have influenced her as Secretary of State. Politicians like Hillary and Trump, although he really isn’t a politician, would much rather hide the truth for fear of actually letting the public know what they are hiding.
As a result, more Americans are turning their vote towards different parties, such as the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. In the age of the internet, information should be shared rather than hidden away for some hackers to find and release to the public. In recent news, Hillary Clinton has failed to disclose that many donors to her foundation might possibly have influenced her as Secretary of State. Politicians like Hillary and Trump, although he really isn’t a politician, would much rather hide the truth for fear of actually letting the public know what they are hiding.
5
The difference between Clinton and Trump (in terms of trust) is the difference between the appearance of impropriety and impropriety itself. People do not really have too many questions left regarding Trump's ethics. Every word out of his mouth just confirms a verdict that has already been rendered. He's not being given a pass. It's just that we expect nothing from him in the first place.
Clinton is a different story. Her resistance to straightforward answers is SO baffling that it invites suspicion. She's obviously a very intelligent and capable person, which makes her inability to recognize how feeble her prevarications sound a point of constant discussion. To be clear, she has no obligation to answer any questions to the general public, but it follows that the general public has no obligation to resolve all ambiguities in her favor. In a political campaign (unlike a court room), silence CAN be used against her. If, as she says, things are not as they appear and she has the knowledge to set the record straight, it's strange that she would dodge such simple questions all the time (whether about her servers, speeches or anything else). For someone who billed herself as the consummate pragmatist, it seems like she resists answering basic questions about her actions out of sheer spite. Would disclosure satisfy everyone? No. But it would satisfy a lot of reasonable people with doubts.
Clinton is a different story. Her resistance to straightforward answers is SO baffling that it invites suspicion. She's obviously a very intelligent and capable person, which makes her inability to recognize how feeble her prevarications sound a point of constant discussion. To be clear, she has no obligation to answer any questions to the general public, but it follows that the general public has no obligation to resolve all ambiguities in her favor. In a political campaign (unlike a court room), silence CAN be used against her. If, as she says, things are not as they appear and she has the knowledge to set the record straight, it's strange that she would dodge such simple questions all the time (whether about her servers, speeches or anything else). For someone who billed herself as the consummate pragmatist, it seems like she resists answering basic questions about her actions out of sheer spite. Would disclosure satisfy everyone? No. But it would satisfy a lot of reasonable people with doubts.
5
Hillary's responses are not baffling at all. Look at her emails. She lied repeatedly - then had 'memory loss' when interviewed by the FBI. You get the truth out of her only after she has run out of lies and evasions.
5
Not withstanding Bazelon's valid arguements regarding decreased transparency in presidential candidates...the subtext of the Hillary Clinton graphic speaks volumes. Of all the presdential candidates this election year, she has endured ruthless and at times overt sexist investigations, that no other male presidential candidate has been subjected to, including Trump. The disparity is an insult to any reasoned analysis concerning the qualifications and experience of presidential candidates. As a female voter I find these tiresome arguments disingenuous at best and fully support Clinton's cautious approach in press releases and press access. Smart move, but equally frustrating, in that gender limits how female politicians engage in public policy, law and discourse.
19
No male presidential candidate has been under federal investigation because none of them have done what Clinton has done: broken agreements with the administration in which they served; broken agreements made to Congress during their appointment hearing; broken departmental rules while serving as secretary; employed top aides accepting simultaneous salaries from corporations and other entities. Federal investigations are not made on a whim, and most of these have not yet been completed.
Also, no male presidential candidate has made personal millions from speeches paid by lobbyists and corporations, just before the election. No male presidential candidate had set up a Victory Fund to channel over-limit donations into their campaign. Yes, until the media spoke up, 92% of the funds supposedly supporting state candidates and the national party, went to Clinton. (No surprise: Clinton staff was in charge of delegating funds.) Sanders rejected the idea. Trump has followed Clinton's example.
I don't say that Trump is better--he has his own set of huge problems. But in looking at Clinton alone, her problems are real, and result from her own decisions. Her gender has nothing to do with it.
Also, no male presidential candidate has made personal millions from speeches paid by lobbyists and corporations, just before the election. No male presidential candidate had set up a Victory Fund to channel over-limit donations into their campaign. Yes, until the media spoke up, 92% of the funds supposedly supporting state candidates and the national party, went to Clinton. (No surprise: Clinton staff was in charge of delegating funds.) Sanders rejected the idea. Trump has followed Clinton's example.
I don't say that Trump is better--he has his own set of huge problems. But in looking at Clinton alone, her problems are real, and result from her own decisions. Her gender has nothing to do with it.
1
It’s not that there isn’t plenty of negative coverage of Trump, because of course there is, but it’s focused mostly on the crazy things he says on any given day.
But the truth is that you’d have to work incredibly hard to find a politician who has the kind of history of corruption, double-dealing, and fraud that Donald Trump has. The number of stories which could potentially deserve hundreds and hundreds of articles is absolutely staggering.
To a great extent, for all the controversy Trump has caused and all the unflattering stories in the press about him, Trump is still being let off the hook!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But the truth is that you’d have to work incredibly hard to find a politician who has the kind of history of corruption, double-dealing, and fraud that Donald Trump has. The number of stories which could potentially deserve hundreds and hundreds of articles is absolutely staggering.
To a great extent, for all the controversy Trump has caused and all the unflattering stories in the press about him, Trump is still being let off the hook!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
17
Hillary is not someone new to the political arena. It's not just a matter of her releasing tax returns so that we can judge the rich person by how much tax they pay, or don't. She has Been in government for many decades and we have numerous reasons to suspect she is dishonest and sells access to the highest bidder. Disclosure of her past government experience and actions aren't just nice to know items, they are crucial to selecting an honest and effective president.
8
The most obvious disclosure we know about it that Donald Trump has absolutely no experience in government, zero (0). He never served in any elected or appointed position, even at the local level. I think this fact should be repeated by the Clinton campaign, over and over, again. But unfortunately, they don't get it.
What really matters in the presidency is experience, not embarrassments from the past.
Clinton should be boxing Trump in on his total lack of experience, with buzz words like, zero, stupid, clueless, crazy. scary. Instead, she rambles on and on as Trump is gaining on her...
What really matters in the presidency is experience, not embarrassments from the past.
Clinton should be boxing Trump in on his total lack of experience, with buzz words like, zero, stupid, clueless, crazy. scary. Instead, she rambles on and on as Trump is gaining on her...
2
Until Trump is actually elected he is still a private person, to some extent, in regard to his personal finances. Hillary is not. She has been on the public payroll for decades.
5
Trump is no longer a private person, if he seeks the highest office in the land (world).
It is preposterous to assert that the public would not be offered the information necessary to make an informed choice when voting, only to find out after the fact that the winning candidate did indeed have "problems" the voters should have known about that would have been revealed through a public review of the necessary documents (in this case, tax returns).
America is built on the ideal - if not it's corresponding reality - that there exists, or at least should exist, a "level playing field" and the notion that in any campaign for any political job one candidate should open his or her life to public scrutiny while the other shouldn't be required to is offensive.
It is preposterous to assert that the public would not be offered the information necessary to make an informed choice when voting, only to find out after the fact that the winning candidate did indeed have "problems" the voters should have known about that would have been revealed through a public review of the necessary documents (in this case, tax returns).
America is built on the ideal - if not it's corresponding reality - that there exists, or at least should exist, a "level playing field" and the notion that in any campaign for any political job one candidate should open his or her life to public scrutiny while the other shouldn't be required to is offensive.
Lets see, Trump could release his tax returns that could indicate all sorts of shenanigans or Clinton could hold news conferences with the cool kids. One is definitely not like the other. It would be nice if the cool kids of the press would actually acknowledge that being a reporter does not mean creating a level playing field when it is obvious it can only be done and at the cost of journalistic ethics.
5
False equivalence again! Do reporters like Bazelon truly not understand that it is unfair, untruthful, and unhelpful to our democracy to make statements like:
"resolute nondisclosures of Clinton and Trump" and "Trump he refuses to make the most standard disclosure for a presidential candidate (those tax returns). Clinton, conversely, hasn’t held a news conference"
Clinton talks to reporters all the time, in settings more conducive to thoughtful, informed discourse. Trump, even if he has a press conference, simply doesn't answer the questions. He's hiding his health record, his taxes, his fraudulent business record, and Clinton is hiding... nothing that we know of. The foundation emails don't show her office did "pay for play", they show she DIDN'T. But she must have something to hide, because all the reporters are saying it!
When is the Times going to stop ginning up the "something to hide" trope and point out the FACT that everything that's come out in response to the right wing hit groups' FOIA demands has actually confirmed the gist of Clinton's responsible comportment in office? The fact that a candidate meets with small groups of reporters instead of in a grandstanding, egotistical scrum, does NOT permit you to intimate that she's hiding something, or go on and on about her lack of transparency. Releasing every email she wrote over 4 years of a complex job is extremely transparent... and once again, not one thing is shown in them that she did wrong.
"resolute nondisclosures of Clinton and Trump" and "Trump he refuses to make the most standard disclosure for a presidential candidate (those tax returns). Clinton, conversely, hasn’t held a news conference"
Clinton talks to reporters all the time, in settings more conducive to thoughtful, informed discourse. Trump, even if he has a press conference, simply doesn't answer the questions. He's hiding his health record, his taxes, his fraudulent business record, and Clinton is hiding... nothing that we know of. The foundation emails don't show her office did "pay for play", they show she DIDN'T. But she must have something to hide, because all the reporters are saying it!
When is the Times going to stop ginning up the "something to hide" trope and point out the FACT that everything that's come out in response to the right wing hit groups' FOIA demands has actually confirmed the gist of Clinton's responsible comportment in office? The fact that a candidate meets with small groups of reporters instead of in a grandstanding, egotistical scrum, does NOT permit you to intimate that she's hiding something, or go on and on about her lack of transparency. Releasing every email she wrote over 4 years of a complex job is extremely transparent... and once again, not one thing is shown in them that she did wrong.
29
There's been a great deal of scrutiny of Hillary Clinton. She has been held to a much higher standard than Trump as she should be, as the likely next president of the United States.
It is important to make sure she can be trusted with classified information and to know for sure whether she used her position and her foundation to do special favors, and she has only brought this upon herself with her bad judgment.
We know Trump is a bigot, a liar, and is mostly making a mockery of the election. Hillary however, as the serious and experienced candidate, needs to prove the naysayers wrong and give them confidence that she's the right one, and if that means more disclosure on her part, so be it.
It is important to make sure she can be trusted with classified information and to know for sure whether she used her position and her foundation to do special favors, and she has only brought this upon herself with her bad judgment.
We know Trump is a bigot, a liar, and is mostly making a mockery of the election. Hillary however, as the serious and experienced candidate, needs to prove the naysayers wrong and give them confidence that she's the right one, and if that means more disclosure on her part, so be it.
6
What else is she going to disclose? it is the narrative set by the far right, the republican party that Hillary has been saddled with.
Jon, what favors? please tell us, based on factual information, your reading of the released documents, not what Breibart is telling you or other biased, mean spirited groups. Don't you think it is time for those like you that tells us of favors done etc. to tell us what those are? FACTS please! A list wanted, needed for the sake of the country!!! and then tell me why isn't Trump releasing his tax records, about his campaign e-mails, now there's an idea!!!
Jon, what favors? please tell us, based on factual information, your reading of the released documents, not what Breibart is telling you or other biased, mean spirited groups. Don't you think it is time for those like you that tells us of favors done etc. to tell us what those are? FACTS please! A list wanted, needed for the sake of the country!!! and then tell me why isn't Trump releasing his tax records, about his campaign e-mails, now there's an idea!!!
7
No candidate should be held to a higher standard than the other - the job is the same, regardless of who wins - and many of us see that "it's not over til it's over."
It's ridiculous and insulting to say that one candidate - because she actually has qualifications, brains, and experience - should be made to produce MORE than the candidate who's an uninformed lout with the emotional intelligence of a spoiled four-year-old, no political experience, questionable allegiances, and a lifetime of bankruptcies, adulteries, divorces, discriminatory business practices, racist opinions, and the compassion of bacteria.
That amounts to punishing the person you clearly identify as the only qualified candidate, because the other - unqualified - candidate is approaching the entire enterprise as a joke.
Ridiculous!
It's ridiculous and insulting to say that one candidate - because she actually has qualifications, brains, and experience - should be made to produce MORE than the candidate who's an uninformed lout with the emotional intelligence of a spoiled four-year-old, no political experience, questionable allegiances, and a lifetime of bankruptcies, adulteries, divorces, discriminatory business practices, racist opinions, and the compassion of bacteria.
That amounts to punishing the person you clearly identify as the only qualified candidate, because the other - unqualified - candidate is approaching the entire enterprise as a joke.
Ridiculous!
1
It has been demonstrated that the more information you release, the more ammunition you give your attackers. A full medical release would not silence Clinton's trolls, they would stoke a new issue about blood pressure, or the calcium content of her bones.
7
I don't particularly care about full disclosure of candidates' health
However, as a neurologist, I would like to know why Hillary Clinton is on long term anti-coagulations (blood thinners): a patient who has suffered an uncomplicated cerebralvenous occlusion usually is treated for three to six months top
However, as a neurologist, I would like to know why Hillary Clinton is on long term anti-coagulations (blood thinners): a patient who has suffered an uncomplicated cerebralvenous occlusion usually is treated for three to six months top
2
Why has the NYT chosen a photo of Hilary Clinton to illustrate this article? The article chastises both Clinton and Trump for a lack of openness in the author's attempt to adhere to the false equivalence meme prevalent in the MSM's coverage of the election. Hilary Clinton's "sins" pale in comparison to Trump's nondisclosure of tax returns and health records, use of campaign funds to shore up his businesses, pay-to-play to stop investigations into Trump U, etc. I'm forced to assume this article is another example of the NYT's effort to take Clinton down.
13
YES!
Without even reading this article anybody can walk away with the impression that there's something "bad" going on with Hillary Clinton.
And yet, because the NYT covers both candidates, it can "claim" to provide equal coverage to "support" the notion of journalistic integrity...but the damage has been done.
Shameful.
Without even reading this article anybody can walk away with the impression that there's something "bad" going on with Hillary Clinton.
And yet, because the NYT covers both candidates, it can "claim" to provide equal coverage to "support" the notion of journalistic integrity...but the damage has been done.
Shameful.
Before I start seeing that image on t-shirts, would it be too much to ask for a photo of Donald Trump with the mute icon over his mouth, as well?
9
the far-better question/analysis is:
how much do we actually 'need' ...
as questions of all types and forms
have-no-naturally-occurring-ending...
1
These two candidates, in particular, are probably best served by nondisclosure. The more I know about them, the less I like them.
6
trholland, you've got a point...."These two candidates, in particular, are probably best served by nondisclosure."
A sad commentary, that.
A sad commentary, that.
1
What! Hillary Clinton as the prototype for non-disclosure? Where did the decision to feature Hilary Clinton's picture come from? Always a good plan to start the article with a nice visual smear.
11
So if it were a picture of Trump with the same symbol on his lips, would that be considered "visual smear"?
1
Why don't the media, starting with the New York Times, devote the same kind of long-term effort to investigating and discussing Donald Trump's negatives that they do with Hillary Clinton's? They can start with Trump's "pay for play" actions regarding Trump University in Florida and Texas and go from there. They can also stop talking so much about "optics" and "perception" and focus on facts. Is that too hard for journalists to do?
12
Curious NYT would publish this article today when in fact Hillary Clinton provided 40 members of the press with transportation to Ohio and Iowa on her new airplane (which they will be using for next two months) and answered questions, including photos, yesterday?
Even though Hillary Clinton provides extensive information of her policies and how she intends to pay for each proposal, media continues to write about ........
Even though Hillary Clinton provides extensive information of her policies and how she intends to pay for each proposal, media continues to write about ........
14
Well, yes, after much effort, she and her Monica-enticing husband have disclosed the tens of millions that Arab and Asia emperors have paid them for "speeches."
And frankly, it stinks to high heaven. Ike and Truman would have been ashamed. It makes Nixon, LBJ, and Harry Reid look honest.
Worst presidential election in modern history. The world is laughing at the USA.
And frankly, it stinks to high heaven. Ike and Truman would have been ashamed. It makes Nixon, LBJ, and Harry Reid look honest.
Worst presidential election in modern history. The world is laughing at the USA.
7
Well written as usual. But I must point out that I am surprise that this author, a well respected legal/political journalist, would descend to one of current journalism's worst failures- false equivalency. On virtually every issue, Clinton has disclosed much much more. This is particularly true on important issues- taxes, Heath records, contributions. Use of a private email server is something most public officials do( although it is stupid because it has the opposite effect of having intermingled personal email subject to disclosure ), and the failure to have "press conferences", an artificial construct if there ever was one, pales in comparison to the non disclosures of Trump. When will the press stop bowing to the concept of "fairness requires finding fault with both sides"; it muddles the fact that one side can be wrong .
11
" .. Clinton has disclosed much much more .."
.. with 25 FBI agents, watching .. and on a repeated basis ..
This gets tiring, after 40 years ..
.. with 25 FBI agents, watching .. and on a repeated basis ..
This gets tiring, after 40 years ..
4
The standards for "disclosure" are well-known -- anything that could be considered significant (e.g., impacting 1% of total govt budget).
Which, of course, the Clintons, in 40 years on the public dime, have broken on several occasions (e.g., evading FOIA with a personal server). Which, IMHO, disqualifies them both from public office, now.
As for Trump's tax return -- annoying. And the IRS should be doing its job, and letting its bosses know how their work is progressing. An independent counsel would help.
The two worst candidates in U.S. history, in 2016. Sad and depressing.
Which, of course, the Clintons, in 40 years on the public dime, have broken on several occasions (e.g., evading FOIA with a personal server). Which, IMHO, disqualifies them both from public office, now.
As for Trump's tax return -- annoying. And the IRS should be doing its job, and letting its bosses know how their work is progressing. An independent counsel would help.
The two worst candidates in U.S. history, in 2016. Sad and depressing.
6
The description of Clinton's email server as used for "privacy" contradicts statements on record it was used for convenience. It was commonly thought many government agency email systems were antiquated, unreliable, and slow. The way around these roadblocks was to use a private email account. Sec. Clinton extended this to a private server.
The question to ask is how far are some willing to normalize Trump - smooth over his extremes - so he can remain a private person when others are held to higher standards. Trump, however, has made his wealth, success, and his contributions to charity a point in his campaign. The public should be able to verify his statements through traditional, normal means.