Tag: ISIS

Read: Hillary Clinton’s Comprehensive Platform

4c498a1fa3498d0d740dfb69e25bea87

Since launching her campaign in April 2015, Hillary Clinton has outlined a number of major platform points in a series of speeches. As we near the election, the campaign has heated up in the battle between Clinton and Republican Donald Trump. With a little over a month to go, it is important that Clinton continue to deliver substantive speeches and combat a Trump platform that offers no substance or foundation. Clinton’s platform is built on a career of public service and an understanding of domestic and foreign policies. While everyone may not agree with all of platform points, taken as a whole it is clear that she has put together a solid plan to more the country forward and ensure that everyone has an opportunity to live up to their full potential.

When Clinton has introduced a major platform topic, we add it to the Platform category of the website. Looking through Clinton’s speeches and policy proposals, a clear plan emerges. From Clinton’s kickoff rally in June 2015 to the announcement of her plans to protect the rights of disabled Americans earlier this month, a list of Clinton’s platform speech topics and announcement dates are below:

For all the latest, follow our Scheduled Events page and follow Clinton on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Also, be sure to subscribe to the campaign’s official Podcast, With Her.

HFA Release on Trump’s Policies

Hillary_for_America_2016_logo.svg

Leading up to tonight’s presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, Hillary for America released a series of responses to Trump’s proposals on the economy, taxes, child care, maternity leave, foreign policy, health care, immigration, trade, and the Veterans Administration. A copy of the release is below.

In a prebuttal to the first presidential debate, Hillary for America released a review of Donald Trump’s few policy proposals from experts and journalists, who have judged them variously as incoherent, unrealistic, excessively costly, and devastating for working families – where he has even bothered to address the issues at all. Whether it’s a dangerous immigration plan based on mass-deportation and a “great and beautiful wall,” a half-baked child care plan that would leave millions of middle-class families to fend for themselves, tax and economic proposals to benefit the rich and explode the national debt while leaving middle-class families holding the bag, or a broader economic agenda that would plunge our country into recession and cost us millions of jobs — Trump’s policy proposals have been panned by experts and critics across the political spectrum.

ECONOMIC PLAN

Donald Trump’s economic playbook has only one trick: to get ahead and stiff others. From a decades-long pattern of scamming small businesses and outsourcing jobs, to a proposal to cut taxes for billionaires like himself and his family at the expense of everyone else, Trump’s self-serving strategy is clear. According to a former economic advisor to John McCain, Trump’s policies would destroy nearly 3.5 million jobs. In fact, economists and business leaders across the political spectrum agree that his economic plan would plunge our country back into recession.

Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics: The economy will be significantly weaker if Mr. Trump’s economic proposals are adopted:

“Quantifying Mr. Trump’s economic policies is complicated by their lack of specificity…Mr. Trump’s economic proposals will also result in larger federal government deficits and a heavier debt load…. the economy will be significantly weaker if Mr. Trump’s economic proposals are adopted…four basic conclusions regarding the impact of Mr. Trump’s economic proposals can be reached: 1) they will result in a less global U.S. economy; 2) they will lead to larger government deficits and more debt; 3) they will largely benefit very high-income households; and 4) they will result in a weaker U.S. economy, with fewer jobs and higher unemployment.”

WSJ: Economists Who’ve Advised Presidents Are No Fans of Donald Trump:

“Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump…garners no support from any of the White House economists who have advised U.S. presidents for the past half-century. The Wall Street Journal this month reached out to all 45 surviving former members of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under the past eight presidents, going back to Richard Nixon, to get their views on this year’s presidential election. Among 17 Republican appointees who responded to Journal inquiries, none said they supported Mr. Trump.

National Association of Business Economics: Business Economists Say Hillary Clinton Is Best for the Economy . . . About 14% picked Mr. Trump:

“A majority of business economists in a new survey said Hillary Clinton is the best choice to oversee the U.S. economy as president. Her Republican rival, Donald Trump, didn’t even come in second.”

Politico: Economists savage Trump’s economic agenda:

“…if Trump’s policies were enacted it would be some form of disaster for the economy. If you force 11 million undocumented immigrants to leave in a year, you would be looking at a depression. It would not help the people he is talking to, they would be the first to go down.”

Washington Post Editorial: Trump’s economic plan goes from worse to bad:

“[Trump’s] prescriptions have progressed from preposterous to merely intellectually dishonest; their foreseeable impact on the U.S. economy, from destabilizing to merely dangerous.”

U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Does a recession sound ‘great’ to you?:

“For those keeping track, under Trump’s trade plans, we would see higher prices, reduced spending power, fewer jobs, and a weaker economy, both here at home and abroad, according to the analysis. Of course, that’s the last thing our country and the global economy need right now.”

TAXES

Donald Trump has put out so many different tax plans during this campaign that we’re losing count. But his latest effort is more of the same: doubling down on tax cuts that benefit billionaires like himself and his family, while maintaining his Trump Loophole — the massive backdoor tax cut that would let the wealthy pay less than half the current tax rate on a significant portion of their income. He has also proposed a tax cut that would save his own family $4 billion (that is, if Trump is worth as much as he says he is) – while doing nothing for 99.8% of Americans. And even as Trump is exploding the debt by more than $5 trillion with tax cuts weighted towards millionaires and billionaires, his plan includes a bait-and-switch that would result in millions of middle-class families, including half of all single parents, paying higher taxes.

Washington Post: A new study says Trump would raise taxes for millions:

“More than half of America’s single parents and one-fifth of its families with children could see their federal income taxes go up under Republican Donald Trump’s revamped tax plan…”

TPM: Trump’s Economic Plan Runs Afoul Of Deficit Hawks By Ballooning The Debt:

“The organization of deficit hawks projected that Trump’s plans would increase the deficit by $5.3 trillion over a decade.”

Vox: Donald Trump’s “new” tax plan: a giveaway to the rich that he pretends helps the middle class:

“ Long story short: This is big money, going from very successful businesses to their wealthy shareholders, that Trump is proposing to tax at a much lower rate.

Fundamentally, Trump is still offering voters the same approach to taxes he’s been offering all campaign: massive cuts for corporations of all kinds, big rate cuts for top earners, and benefits supposedly aimed at the middle class that offer less than they initially appear to.”

NPR: Analysis: Trump Tax Plan Would Cost Trillions, Boost Incomes For The Rich:

“The right-leaning Tax Foundation released an analysis Monday that said Trump’s campaign would shrink federal revenues by as much as $5.9 trillion over 10 years…In that top 1 percent, the income growth is particularly high — 10.2 to 16 percent.”

Trump claims his irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy would be paid for by economic growth – but, as we just made clear, his agenda plunges the economy back into recession.

CHILD CARE

Under Donald Trump’s child care plan, close to 80% of families might, at most, get only four cents on the dollar for child care costs—and millions of these families could very well get nothing or even face a tax increase under Trump’s overall plan. This, while Trump’s plan would provide around 40 cents on the dollar or more to taxpayers in the top bracket. It’s no surprise this regressive policy came from the man living in the penthouse of Trump Tower, who has relied on government his entire life to help pad his own pockets.

The Guardian: Trump’s child care plan is good for the rich. But what about the rest of us?:

“Trump’s plan completely fails to address the day-to-day realities of America’s working families, because it fails to address the underlying problem: it does nothing to make child care affordable. In the United States, the average cost of center-based child care for the typical working family with an infant and preschooler is about $18,000, a steep price for families to cover. If a family cannot afford child care, a tax deduction is irrelevant – a family can’t deduct something that they can’t pay for to begin with.”

Esquire: Why Donald Trump’s New Child-Care Plan Is a Joke:

“However, as reporter Jeremy Diamond clarified, the plan does not entail six weeks of full paid maternity leave. Instead, it offers six weeks of full unemployment benefits. Trump also announced a plan for parents to deduct child-care expenses from their income taxes, capped at the ‘average cost of care’ per state, and deductibles for stay-at-home parents.

All said, Trump’s plan is a big government idea very obviously meant to cater to female voters—and very obviously Ivanka’s brainchild.”

Salon: Trump’s child-care policy: A combination of the useless and the inadequate:

“As Trump hinted last month, the centerpiece of his plan is a provision letting parents deduct the costs of child care from their taxes. The problem here is that people who need the most help affording child care — poor and low-income families — frequently don’t have any federal income tax burden. If they’re already paying zero dollars in federal income tax, an extra deduction won’t do them any good; they’ll still be paying zero dollars.”

MATERNITY LEAVE

Trump’s “maternity leave” plan is demeaning and damaging–casting women as the sole caretaker for a child and undercutting women in the workplace. By only providing leave to married mothers who give birth, the plan tells us which parents Trump doesn’t believe count: single moms, women who can’t physically have a child, same-sex couples that use a surrogate, parents who adopt, and all fathers. It’s not only demeaning, it’s also harmful. Studies have shown that providing paid leave to new mothers, but not to new fathers, negatively affects women’s return to the workplace, can discourage employers from hiring or promoting female employees, and can increase the gender pay-gap.

Huffington Post: Trump’s Maternity Leave Plan Is His Biggest Insult To Women Yet:

“Let’s repeat that: Trump’s solution for struggling American families leaves out men. More than any other problem with the plan ― and there are lots ― omitting half the population is its profoundest and most revelatory flaw, confirming once again Trump’s antiquated, sexist and harmful worldview: Men work. Women do the child-raising. The end.”

Vox: Donald Trump’s plan to fund a paid family leave program is totally absurd:

“Since everything we know so far about Trump’s plan fits into two tweets, it’s hard to say for sure what he’s envisioning. But 88 percent of workers right now aren’t covered by family leave, so requiring businesses to pay for it on their own would be a very big burden. And if leave is really “guaranteed,” it’s going to require something more than a tax credit to make that happen.”

VICE: Donald Trump’s Maternity Leave Plan Is a Big Deal, Too Bad It Sucks:

“Another way Trump’s plan falls short of Clinton’s in scope is that it doesn’t do much for the poor. Most of the childcare benefits would come in the form of income tax breaks, which won’t benefit the poorest Americans, who don’t pay income taxes and would have to pony up for childcare up front.”

Washington Post: Why Trump’s maternity leave plan is unconstitutional:

“In sum, if Trump’s maternity leave plan were ever enacted into law, it would likely be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. Trump has demonstrated utter contempt for constitutional rights and limitations on government power on a shockingly wide range of issues. His discriminatory maternity leave plan is another addition to a troubling list.”

Washington Post: Donald Trump’s new paid maternity leave plan might exclude single mothers: “The plan is discriminating against fathers, fathers and mothers who adopt, LGBT parents and apparently some set of unmarried parents,” said Carmel Martin, executive vice president for policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.”

FOREIGN POLICY

Donald Trump hasn’t said much in terms of real plans to keep our country safe. But foreign policy experts agree, the ideas Trump has mentioned are dangerous, reckless, and wrongheaded. Yet Trump continues to spew fact-free rhetoric about global issues that would make us less secure, including consistent claims that he has a “secret” plan to defeat ISIS, threats to break up NATO along with accusations that NATO countries are “ripping off the United States”, and reckless comments on nuclear weapon.

Washington Post: It’s almost like Donald Trump’s secret plan to defeat ISIS never actually existed: “But on the list of things on which Trump have over-promised and under-delivered, this surely ranks toward the top. He promised he had a “foolproof” way of ending a foreign policy challenge of massive consequence, and now he’s punting to the generals.”

Time: Why ISIS Supports Donald Trump:

“The bottom line is this: Trump’s erratic and belligerent slogans are no substitute for policies based on facts and sound judgment.”

PoliticsUSA: The Reviews Are In: Trump ISIS Speech Was Full Of Lies And Gibberish That Made No Sense:

“The consensus among non-partisan observers is that the speech that Donald Trump gave about ISIS was so full of lies, inconsistencies, and gibberish that it made no sense.”

New York Times: Donald Trump Says NATO is ‘Obsolete,’ UN is ‘Political Game’

“President Obama on Friday rebuked Mr. Trump for his comments, saying he worried the real estate billionaire “doesn’t know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy or the Korean Peninsula or the world generally.”

CNN: The danger of Trump’s NATO comments

“The bottom line is this: Trump’s erratic and belligerent slogans are no substitute for policies based on facts and sound judgment.”

CNN: Japan and South Korea hit back at Trump’s nuclear comments

“Howls of inaccuracy came from the South Korean Foreign Ministry, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea, and even the White House.  Ambassador Mark Lippert said Seoul pays for 55% of all non-personnel costs. And former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Christopher Hill was more succinct. He told CNN, “I don’t know what he’s talking about but clearly neither does he.”

Business Insider: ‘Total catastrophe’: Experts say Donald Trump’s position on nuclear proliferation would be a disaster

“ But experts from two nonpartisan organizations opposed to the spread of nuclear weapons told Business Insider his position would be dangerous. Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, said Japan building nuclear weapons would be a “total catastrophe for Japan and US nuclear power programs.”

The Atlantic: With His Finger on the Trigger: The insane risks of Donald Trump’s stance on nuclear weapons:

“Stephen Walt, a prominent realist scholar, has written, “realists prefer to ‘speak softly and carry a big stick;’ Trump’s modus operandi consists of waving the big stick while running a big mouth.” His loose talk during the campaign has already damaged America’s alliances. And on the central question of nuclear weapons, he has clearly exposed himself to be weak-kneed in his acceptance of international proliferation.”

HEALTHCARE

Donald Trump has promised that he would immediately work to repeal Obamacare, taking health insurance away from 20 million people – and letting the insurance companies write the rules all over again. Trump’s suggested healthcare plan would cost hundreds of billions more, would nearly double the uninsured rate and does not address people with pre-existing conditions. Americans cannot afford that.

Newsmax‎: Trump’s Healthcare Plan Could Cost 25 Million Americans Their Coverage:

“Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan foundation that studies healthcare, released a study on Friday analyzing the two candidate’s plans. If Trump becomes president, up to 25 million people could lose their coverage, most of them low-income and already in poor health. Under Clinton, 9.6 million more people could gain access to healthcare.”

Chicago Tribune: Study finds 20M would lose health coverage under Trump plan:

“A new study that examines some major health care proposals from the presidential candidates finds that Donald Trump would cause about 20 million to lose coverage while Hillary Clinton would provide coverage for an additional 9 million people.”

CNBC: Obamacare repeal would lead to 24 million more people without health insurance:

“If the next president and Congress repeal Obamacare — as many Republican elected officials want to do — there could end up being more people without health insurance than before the law went into effect, a new study says. A total of 24 million more people would lose health coverage by 2021 if the Affordable Care Act was repealed, according to the study issued Monday by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute.”

IMMIGRATION

Donald Trump’s immigration plan remains the same as it’s always been: Send a deportation force into American communities to tear apart families and deport 16 million people from the United States—including every undocumented immigrant and American citizens born here to undocumented parents. Experts say Trump’s immigration policies would be detrimental to the economy. Oh, and he wants to ban all Muslims from entering the United States and falsely claims Mexico will pay for his giant concrete wall.

David Leopold: Deconstructing Donald Trump’s horrifying 10-step assault on immigration, due process and other cherished American values: “Rhetorical gymnastics aside, what’s crystal clear after Wednesday’s immigration speech is that Donald Trump’s ugly vision of America would rip American families apart, devastate communities, wreak havoc on our economy, and threaten our security at home and abroad.”

The Daily Pennsylvanian: Trump’s immigration plan would cost 4 million jobs, according to Wharton model:

“If Trump were to deport 10 percent of undocumented workers per year during two terms in office, based on the limitations of the model, the U.S. would have about 156 million jobs in 2030, compared to the 160 million jobs that the country would have with the its current immigration policies.”

Washington Post: Donald Trump’s “Humane” 1950s Model for Deportation, ‘Operation Wetback,’ Was Anything But:   “

Like usual, [Trump] doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” Rodolfo Acuña, professor emeritus of Chicano Studies at California State University, Northridge, told The Huffington Post … Brownell said, ‘Just give them some live ammo, let them shoot a few people. Then everyone will be scared and they won’t come across the border,” he said. “Really humane.”

CityLab: The Price of Mass Deportation; Trump wants to deport 11 million immigrants. Here are the likely economic consequences of that:

California could lose $100 billion of its GDP, annually. Texas could lose $60 billion. New Jersey, $25 billion. All but 5 U.S. states would see at least 1 percent of their GDP disappear each year. The resulting nationwide losses would build up to about $4.7 trillion in ten years.

TRADE

Donald Trump may talk tough on trade, but his own record of outsourcing contradicts his message: Trump clothing in Mexico, Trump ties in China, Trump shirts in Bangladesh, Trump furniture in Turkey and Germany, Trump mirrors in India, Trump barware in Slovenia. Trump even used to defend outsourcing, saying it created jobs in the long run. Meanwhile, Trump’s statements on trade have been either erratic and irresponsible, full of lies, or (occasionally) taken straight from Hillary’s fact sheets and onto his teleprompter.

Throughout this campaign, Trump’s statements on trade have been erratic and irresponsible — full of bluster, empty promises, and recklessness that would put American jobs at risk. Trump repeatedly rejects the idea that Americans can compete and win in the global economy and does not offer a concrete plan to actually create good-paying jobs here in America.

New York Times: Why a President Trump Could Start a Trade War With Surprising Ease :

“Mr. Trump is proposing a reordering of the global economic system that would fundamentally reshape the structure of American industry. He could start a trade war that would threaten not only American exporters who need access to foreign markets, but also any business that relies on commodities or products made overseas.”

Vox: Study: Donald Trump’s trade policies could cost 4 million jobs:

“The study, from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, attempted to quantify the impact of Trump’s proposed trade policies. Its conclusion: If a President Trump did what Candidate Trump promised, the US economy would lose more than 4 million jobs and fall into a recession.”

The Daily Beast: Donald Trump’s Trade Talk Is Garbage—Literally:

“Two powerful groups, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce, moved swiftly to condemn Trump’s [trade policy] speech. Both groups often align themselves with pro-business GOP policy makers, and it is especially unusual for them to take on the Republican presidential nominee so directly.”

CNBC: Trump’s trade policies would send US into recession, study says:

“The study released on Monday by researchers at the non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics illustrates how, even as the New York businessman pledges to boost growth and create millions of jobs, most mainstream economists view his economic policies as dangerous quackery.”

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

The policy reforms Donald Trump has proposed would put us on a path toward the wholesale privatization of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Moving towards privatization as Trump’s plan does would gut the VA of the resources needed to provide high-quality, coordinated care. Fully privatizing the VA – the likely result of Trump’s proposals – is not a fix at all; it’s an ideological crusade that will only compound the problem. It would deprive our veterans of access to the specialized care they require and deserve and leave them at the mercy of a private healthcare market that’s ill-suited to handle their needs. And on top of it, Trump has proposed slashing funding for veterans’ health care by 29% within 10 years.

CBPP: Trump’s plans would cut veterans medical care by 29%:

“To help pay for his tax cut plan, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is proposing to cut total funding for non-defense programs funded through the annual appropriations process by 1 percent below the previous year’s total each year. While this may sound modest, the cumulative cut would be very substantial.  By the tenth year (2026), non-defense appropriations would be about 29 percent below current levels, after accounting for inflation.”

MSNBC: Donald Trump Is Serious About Privatizing Veterans’ Care:

“And what about the rest of Trump’s “10-point plan”? The entire list is online, but it’s woefully thin. It’s really just a series of shallow slogans that mean very little, including the first point: Trump intends to appoint a VA Secretary “whose sole purpose will be to serve veterans.”

NPR: Is Donald Trump Proposing Privatizing The VA?:

“The other issue with Trump’s broad proposal is the price tag. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Trump’s plan to reimburse vets for visits to any doctor they like would cost half a trillion dollars over 10 years.”

POLL: 64% of veterans oppose privatization — with 54% of them strongly opposing it — while only 29% support it.

NO POLICY

Donald Trump has run a campaign devoid of detailed plans – instead it’s been full of bluster, empty words, demagogic rhetoric. He has no real plans to improve the lives of the American people or make this country any better or safer.

National Journal: Trump Policy Shop Still Filling in Blanks:

“As debate looms, GOP nominee’s campaign can’t give clear answers to many basic policy questions.”

AP FACT CHECK: Trump says Clinton lacks policies. Seriously?

“THE FACTS: By any measure, Clinton has released far more specific plans on far more topics than her GOP rival. Trump’s website currently lays out eight policy positions, including spelling out his “economic vision,” his plans for child care and immigration reform and his plan to “pay for the wall.” Clinton’s offers position on 38 issues for potential voters to read.”

LA Times: Clinton has enough policy to fill a book, while Trump has said little about how he’d govern

“To only has Trump offered no plan to tackle mental healthcare, he’s presented the barest of outlines for most of his governing agenda, even as he now accuses Clinton of “running a policy-free campaign,” as he claimed at recent rally in Iowa. Trump’s vague tax, healthcare and national security proposals have baffled experts on both sides of the political aisle who have struggled to make sense of what Trump is offering. Even Trump’s immigration policy, perhaps the signature issue of his campaign, has proved difficult to decipher.”

Politico: Trump’s One Unbreakable Policy: Skip The Details

“He has boasted that his main policy adviser is himself and the advisers he does have say he doesn’t read briefing papers. He has mocked Hillary Clinton for surrounding herself with “eggheads” and churning out reams of wonky government reform proposals. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who will be speaking on Trump’s behalf at this week’s Republican convention in Cleveland, recently said “it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t know a lot about the issues.”

TIME: In an interview Trump admits he isn’t worried about creating policy as they are “a waste of paper”

“He [Trump] even mocks her focus on putting out so many policy proposals, a longtime tradition for major party nominees. “She’s got people that sit in cubicles writing policy all day. Nothing’s ever going to happen. It’s just a waste of paper.” (The Clinton campaign counts that paper as a point of pride: 73,645 words of policy and counting.)”

NPR: Donald Trump’s Policy Positions Lack Specifics … So Far

“Asked Tuesday morning by Savannah Guthrie on NBC’s Today show about his lack of specific proposals, Trump didn’t answer the question and simply pointed to the record ratings he drew for Fox News.”

For all the latest, follow our Scheduled Events page and follow Clinton on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Also, be sure to subscribe to the campaign’s official Podcast, With Her.

Career Ambassadors for Clinton-Kaine

Hillary_for_America_2016_logo.svg

In recent weeks, a growing number of Republican and Democrat public officials have come forward supporting Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. Earlier this month, 75 diplomats signed a letter of support for the Clinton-Kaine ticket, and that number has now grown to 149. Over 90 of the former ambassadors were appointed by Republican presidents. A copy of the letter and the list of the 149 are below:

  • STATEMENT BY FORMER CAREER AMBASSADORS AND SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS

    As of September 23, 2016

    The undersigned have each previously served the people of the United States as career diplomats in our nation’s Foreign and Civil Services.  We have each had the privilege of being nominated by the President, and confirmed by the United States Senate, to represent our nation abroad and at the highest levels of our foreign policy and security organizations.

  • Together, we have represented the United States as ambassadors in over 55 countries or international organizations. We have hundreds of years of combined service.
  • As career officers, we have served every President since Harry Truman, and have proudly represented every President since Richard Nixon as ambassadors or senior State Department officials in Senate-confirmed positions. We have served Republican and Democratic Presidents with pride and enthusiasm.
  • None of us will vote for Donald J. Trump.
  • Each of us endorses Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. Because the stakes in this election are so high, this is the first time many of us have publicly endorsed a candidate for President.

Very simply, this election is different from any election we can recall.  One of the candidates — Donald J. Trump — is entirely unqualified to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief.  He is ignorant of the complex nature of the challenges facing our country, from Russia to China to ISIS to nuclear proliferation to refugees to drugs, but he has expressed no interest in being educated.

Indeed he has recently demonstrated he entirely misunderstands and disrespects the role of the very officials who could educate him: the senior career officers of our intelligence services and of our military services (whom he has characterized as “rubble”).

In his frequent statements about foreign countries and their citizens, from our closest friends to our most problematic competitors, Mr. Trump has expressed the most ignorant stereotypes of those countries; has inflamed their people; and has insulted our allies and comforted our enemies.

Shockingly, he has even offered praise and admiration for Vladimir Putin, the leader of Russia whose international activities and reported intrusions into our democratic political process have been among the most damaging actions taken by any foreign leader since the end of World War Two.

We fear the damage that such ineptitude could cause in our closest relationships as well as the succor it might offer our enemies.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton’s handling of foreign affairs has consistently sought to advance fundamental US interests with a deep grounding in the work of the many tens of thousands of career officers on whom our national security depends.  Not every one of us has agreed with every decision she made (and the same would be true of every one of her predecessors), but we have profound respect for her skills, dedication, intelligence, and diplomacy.

In this election there is only one team to represent our nation and lead our career foreign policy and security professionals in a manner befitting our role as the world’s sole superpower.  Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine are the candidates we support.

Signatories

  1. Morton Abramowitz – Ambassador to Turkey (1989-1991) Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (1985-1989), and Ambassador to Thailand (1978-1981)
  2. Frank Almaguer – Ambassador to Honduras (1999-2002)
  3. Diego Asencio – Ambassador to Brazil (1983-1986), Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs (1980-1983), Ambassador to Colombia (1977-1980)
  4. Robert L. Barry – Ambassador to Indonesia (1992-1995), and Bulgaria (1981-1984)
  5. Robert M. Beecroft – Ambassador and Head of Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina (2001-2004)
  6. Rand Beers – Secretary of Homeland Security (2013), Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security (2013), Under Secretary of Homeland Security for National Protection and Programs (2009-2014)
  7. Eric Benjaminson – Ambassador to Gabon and to Sao Tome & Principe (2010-2013)
  8. John R. Beyrle – Ambassador to Russia (2008-2012), and Bulgaria (2005-2008)
  9. James D. Bindenagel – Ambassador to Germany (1996-1997)
  10. Robert O. Blake – Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs (2009-2013), Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Republic of Maldives (2006-2009), Indonesia (2014-present)
  11. Richard Boucher – Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs (2006-2009), Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs (2001-2005), and Ambassador to Cyprus (1993-1996)
  12. Charles Richard Bowers – Ambassador to Bolivia (1991-1994)
  13. Robert A. Bradtke – Ambassador to Croatia (2006-2009)
  14. Aurelia E. Brazeal – Ambassador to Ethiopia (2002-2005), Kenya (1993-1996), Federated States of Micronesia (1990-1993)
  15. Peter Bridges – Ambassador to Somalia (1984-1986)
  16. Sue K. Brown – Ambassador to Montenegro (2011-2014)
  17. Susan Burk – Special Representative of the President for Nuclear Nonproliferation (2009-2012)
  18. Peter Burleigh – Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Republic of Maldives (1995-1997)
  19. Nicholas Burns – Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (2005-2008), Ambassador to NATO (2001-2005), and Greece (1997-2001)
  20. Prudence Bushnell – Ambassador to Guatemala (1999-2002), and Kenya (1996-1999)
  21. Patricia Butenis – Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Republic of Maldives (2009-2012) and Bangladesh (2006-2007)
  22. Johnnie Carson – Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (2009-2013), Ambassador to Kenya (1999-2003), Zimbabwe (1995-1997), Uganda (1991-1994)
  23. Phillip Carter III – Ambassador to Cote d’Ivoire (2010-2013), and Guinea (2007-2008)
  24. Carey Cavanaugh – Ambassador/Special Negotiator for Nagorno-Karabakh and New Independent States Regional Conflicts (2000-2001)
  25. Wendy Chamberlin – Ambassador to Pakistan (2001-2002) and Laos (1996-1999)
  26. Asif Chaudhry – Ambassador to Moldova (2008)
  27. Peter Chaveas – Ambassador to Sierra Leone (2001-2004), and Malawi (1994-1997)
  28. Elinor Greer Constable – Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, Environment, Science and Technology (1993-1995), and Ambassador to Kenya (1986-1989)
  29. Marion Creekmore, Jr. – Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Republic of Maldives (1989-1992)
  30. Ryan Crocker – Ambassador to Lebanon (1990-1993), Kuwait (1994-1997), Syria (1998-2001), Pakistan (2004-2007), Iraq (2007-2009), Afghanistan (2011-2012)
  31. James B. Cunningham – Ambassador to Afghanistan (2012-2014), Israel (2008-2011), United Nations (2001)
  32. Walter L. Cutler – Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (1984-1987, 1988-1989), Tunisia (1982-1984), Ambassador-Designate to the Islamic Republic of Iran (1979), and Ambassador to Zaire (1975-1979)
  33. Jeffrey Davidow – Ambassador to Mexico (1998-2002), Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs (1996-1998), Ambassador to Venezuela (1993-1996), Zambia (1988-1990)
  34. Scott H. DeLisi – Ambassador to Uganda (2012-2015), Nepal (2010-2012), and Eritrea (2004-2007)
  35. Robert S. Dillon – Ambassador to Lebanon (1981-1983)
  36. John R. Dinger – Ambassador to Mongolia (2000-2003)
  37. William A. Eaton – Ambassador to Panama (2005-2008), and Assistant Secretary of State for Administration (2001-2005)
  38. Wesley W. Egan – Ambassador to Jordan (1994-1998), and Guinea-Bissau (1983-1985)
  39. Robert J. Einhorn – Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation (1999-2001)
  40. Nancy Ely-Raphel – Ambassador to Slovenia (1998-2001)
  41. Gregory W. Engle – Ambassador to Togo (2003-2005)
  42. Kenneth J. Fairfax – Ambassador to Kazakhstan (2011-2013)
  43. Robert W. Farrand – Ambassador to Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, and the Solomon Islands (1990-1993)
  44. Judith R. Fergin – Ambassador to Timor-Leste (2010-2013)
  45. Robert P. Finn – Ambassador to Afghanistan (2002-2003), Tajikistan (1999-2001)
  46. David J. Fischer – Ambassador to the Republic of Seychelles (1982-1985)
  47. Robert Fitts – Ambassador to Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, and the Solomon Islands (2003- 2006)
  48. Robert S. Gelbard – Ambassador to Indonesia (1999-2001), Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics Matters (1993-1997), Ambassador to Bolivia (1988-1991)
  49. Edward “Skip” Gnehm – Ambassador to Jordan (2001-2004), Australia (2000-2001), Kuwait (1991-1994)
  50. Christopher E. Goldthwait – Ambassador to Chad (1999-2004)
  51. Gordon Gray – Ambassador to Tunisia (2009-2012)
  52. Marc Grossman – Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (2001-2005), Ambassador to Turkey (1995-1997), Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs (1997-2000)
  53. Michael E. Guest – Ambassador to Romania (2001-2004)
  54. John R. Hamilton – Ambassador to Guatemala (2003-2005), and Peru (1999-2002)
  55. Douglas A. Hartwick – Ambassador to Laos (2001-2004)
  56. Maura Harty – Ambassador to Paraguay (1997-1999), Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs (2002-2008)
  57. Patricia McMahon Hawkins – Ambassador to Togo (2008-2011)
  58. Christopher R. Hill – Ambassador to Iraq (2009-2010), Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (2005-2009), Ambassador to South Korea (2004-2005), Poland (2000-2004), and Macedonia (1996-1999)
  59. Karl W. Hofmann – Ambassador to Togo (2000-2002)
  60. Genta H. Holmes – Ambassador to Australia (1997-2000), Director General of the Foreign Service (1992-1995), and Ambassador to Namibia (1990-1992)
  61. Thomas C. Hubbard – Ambassador to the Republic of Korea (2001-2004) and the Philippines (1996-2000)
  62. Franklin Huddle – Ambassador to Tajikistan (2001-2003)
  63. Vicki J. Huddleston – Ambassador to Mali (2002-2005), and Madagascar (1995-1997)
  64. Edmund J. Hull – Ambassador to Yemen (2001-2004)
  65. Cameron R. Hume – Ambassador to Indonesia (2007-2010), Sudan (2005-2007), South Africa (2001-2004), Algeria (1997-2000)
  66. Ravic R. Huso – Ambassador to Laos (2007-2010)
  67. William H. Itoh – Ambassador to Thailand (1995-1999)
  68. Dennis Jett – Ambassador to Peru (1996-1999) and Mozambique (1993-1996)
  69. Linda Jewell – Ambassador to Ecuador (2005-2008)
  70. Elizabeth Jones – Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia (2001-2005), Ambassador to Kazakhstan (1995-1998)
  71. Richard D. Kauzlarich – Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina (1997-1999), and Azerbaijan (1994-1997)
  72. James Keith – Ambassador to Malaysia (2007-2010)
  73. Laura E. Kennedy – Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva (2010-2013), and Ambassador to Turkmenistan (2001-2003)
  74. Thomas C. Krajeski – Ambassador to the Republic of Yemen (2004-2007), Kingdom of Bahrain (2011-2014)
  75. Daniel C. Kurtzer – Ambassador to Israel (2001-2005), Egypt (1998-2001)
  76. Alphonse F. La Porta – Ambassador to Mongolia (1997-2000)
  77. Chris LaFleur – Ambassador to Malaysia (2005-2007)
  78. Edward Gibson Lanpher – Ambassador to Zimbabwe (1991-1995)
  79. Joyce E. Leader – Ambassador to Guinea (1999-2000)
  80. Michael Lemmon – Ambassador to Armenia (1998-2001)
  81. Winston Lord – Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (1993-1997), and Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China (1985-1989)
  82. James G. Lowenstein – Ambassador to Luxembourg (1977-1981)
  83. William H. Luers – Ambassador to Czechoslovakia (1983-1986), and Venezuela (1978-1982)
  84. John F. Maisto – Ambassador to the Organization of American States (2003-2006), Venezuela (1997-2000), and Nicaragua (1993-1996)
  85. Edward Marks – Ambassador to Cape Verde (1977-1980), and Guinea-Bissau (1977-1980)
  86. Niels Marquardt – Ambassador to Madagascar and Comoros (2007-2010), Equatorial Guinea (2004-2006), and Cameroon (2004-2007)
  87. Marshall McCallie – Ambassador to Namibia (1993-1996)
  88. Jackson McDonald – Ambassador to Guinea (2004-2007), The Gambia (2001-2004)
  89. Stephen G. McFarland – Ambassador to Guatemala (2008-2011)
  90. Christopher J. McMullen – Ambassador to Angola (2010-2013)
  91. Michael W. Michalak – Ambassador to Vietnam (2007-2011)
  92. William B. Milam – Ambassador to Bangladesh (1990-1993), and Pakistan (1998-2001)
  93. Richard M. Miles – Ambassador to Georgia (2002-2005), Bulgaria (1999-2002), and Azerbaijan (1992-1993)
  94. Thomas J. Miller – Ambassador to Greece (2001-2004), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1999-2001)
  95. William Green Miller – Ambassador to Ukraine (1993-1998)
  96. Mark C. Minton – Ambassador to Mongolia (2006-2009)
  97. William T. Monroe – Ambassador to Bahrain (2004-2007)
  98. Thomas M. T. Niles – Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs (1991-1993), Ambassador to Greece (1993-1997), European Union (1989-1991), and Canada (1985-1989)
  99. Maurice S. Parker – Ambassador to Swaziland (2007-2009)
  100. Mark Robert Parris – Ambassador to Turkey (1997-2000)
  101. Lynn Pascoe – Ambassador to Indonesia (2004-2007), and Malaysia (1998-2001)
  102. Robert Pearson – Ambassador to Turkey (2000-2003)
  103. Vernon D. Penner – Ambassador to the Republic of Cabo Verde (1986-1990)
  104. Rudolf V. Perina – Ambassador/Special Negotiator for Nagorno-Karabakh and Newly-Independent States Regional Conflicts (2001-2004), and Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova (1998-2001)
  105. June Carter Perry – Ambassador to Sierra Leone (2007-2010), and Lesotho (2004-2007)
  106. Donald K. Petterson – Ambassador to Sudan (1992-1995), Tanzania (1986-1989), and Somalia (1978-1982)
  107. Thomas R. Pickering – Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (1997-2000), Ambassador to Russia (1993-1996), India (1992-1993), United Nations (1989-1992), Israel (1985-1988), El Salvador (1983-1985), Nigeria (1981-1983), Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (1978-1981), Ambassador to Jordan (1974- 1978)
  108. Steven Pifer – Ambassador to Ukraine (1998-2000)
  109. Joan M. Plaisted – Ambassador to the Republic of the Marshall Islands and Kiribati (1995-2000)
  110. Nicholas Platt – Ambassador to Pakistan (1991-1992), Philippines (1987-1991), Zambia (1982- 1985)
  111. Nancy Powell – Ambassador to India (2012-2014), Nepal (2007-2010), Pakistan (2002-2004), Ghana (2001-2002), Uganda (1997-1999)
  112. Phyllis M. Powers – Ambassador to Nicaragua (2012-2015), and Panama (2010-2012)
  113. Charles L. “Jack” Pritchard – Ambassador/Special Envoy for Negotiations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (2001-2003)
  114. Jon R. Purnell – Ambassador to Uzbekistan (2004-2007)
  115. Robin L. Raphel – Ambassador to Tunisia (1997-2000), Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs (1993-1997)
  116. Elizabeth Raspolic – Ambassador to Gabon (1995-1998)
  117. Charles A. Ray – Ambassador to Zimbabwe (2009-2012), Cambodia (2002-2005)
  118. Robert G. Rich – Ambassador to Belize (1987-1990)
  119. Thomas B. Robertson – Ambassador to Slovenia (2004-2007)
  120. Peter F. Romero – Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs (2001), and Ambassador to Ecuador (1993-1996)
  121. William A. Rugh – Ambassador to the United Arab Emirate (1992-2995), and Yemen (1984-1987)
  122. Howard B. Schaffer – Ambassador to Bangladesh (1984-1987)
  123. Teresita C. Schaffer – Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Republic of Maldives (1992-1995)
  124. James F. Schumaker – OSCE Project Coordinator in Ukraine (2005-2008)
  125. Ints M. Silins – Ambassador to Latvia (1992-1995)
  126. Thomas W. Simons, Jr. – Ambassador to Pakistan (1996-1998) and Poland (1990-1993)
  127. Donald Steinberg – Ambassador to Angola (1995-1998)
  128. Kathleen Stephens – Ambassador to the Republic of Korea (2008-2011)
  129. John Todd Stewart – Ambassador to Moldova (1995-1998)
  130. Gordon L. Streeb – Ambassador to Zambia (1990-1993)
  131. Curtis Struble – Ambassador to Peru (2004-2007)
  132. Patrick Nickolas Theros – Ambassador to Qatar (1995-1998)
  133. Victor L. Tomseth – Ambassador to Laos (1993-1996)
  134. Nicholas Veliotes – Ambassador to Egypt (1984-1986), Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs (1981-1984), and Ambassador to Jordan (1978-1981)
  135. Edward S. Walker, Jr. – Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (2000-2001), Ambassador to Israel (1997-1999), Egypt (1994-1997), United Arab Emirates (1989-1992)
  136. Lannon Walker – Ambassador to Cote d’Ivoire (1995-1998), Nigeria (1989-1992), Senegal (1985-1988)
  137. James D. Walsh – Ambassador to Argentina (2000-2003)
  138. Alexander F. Watson – Ambassador to Peru (1986-1989), Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs (1993-1996)
  139. Linda E. Watt – Ambassador to Panama (2002-2005)
  140. Pamela A. White – Ambassador to Haiti (2012-2015), and The Gambia (2010-2012)
  141. Ashley Wills – Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Republic of Maldives (2000-2003)
  142. Joseph C. Wilson – Ambassador to Gabon and to Sao Tome and Principe (1992-1995)
  143. Andrew J. Winter – Ambassador to The Gambia (1993-1995)
  144. Frank G. Wisner – Ambassador to India (1994-1997), Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (1993-1994), Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs (1992-1993), Ambassador to the Philippines (1991-1992), Egypt (1986-1991), and Zambia (1979-1982)
  145. Kenneth Yalowitz – Ambassador to Georgia (1998-2001) and Belarus (1994-1997)
  146. John M. Yates – Ambassador to Republics of Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea (1998-2001), Republic of Benin (1995-1998), Republic of Cape Verde (1983-1986)
  147. Mary Carlin Yates – Ambassador to Ghana (2002-2005), and Burundi (1999-2002)
  148. Johnny Young – Ambassador to Slovenia (2001-2004), Kingdom of Bahrain (1997-2001), Togo (1994-1997), Sierra Leone (1989-1992)
  149. Stephen M. Young – Ambassador to Kyrgyz Republic (2003-2005)

For all the latest, follow our Scheduled Events page and follow Clinton on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Also, be sure to subscribe to the campaign’s official Podcast, With Her.

News Source: Ambassadors for Clinton

Hillary Clinton Statement on Apparent Terrorist Attacks

Hillary_for_America_2016_logo.svg

Following a series of apparent terrorist attacks in Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York yesterday, Hillary Clinton released the following statement:

“I strongly condemn the apparent terrorist attacks in Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. I pray for all of those who were wounded, and for their families. Once again, we saw the bravery of our first responders who run toward danger to help others. Their quick actions saved lives. Law enforcement officials are working to identify who was behind the attacks in New York and New Jersey and we should give them the support they need to finish the job and bring those responsible to justice – we will not rest until that happens. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack in Minnesota, and this should steel our resolve to protect our country and defeat ISIS and other terrorist groups. I have laid out a comprehensive plan to do that. This includes launching an intelligence surge to help identify and thwart attacks before they can be carried out, and to spot lone wolf attackers. We also need to work with Silicon Valley to counter propaganda and recruitment efforts online. Americans have faced threats before, and our resilience in the face of them only makes us stronger. I am confident we will once again choose resolve over fear.”

For all the latest, follow our Scheduled Events page and follow Clinton on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Also, be sure to subscribe to the campaign’s official Podcast, With Her.

News Source: USA Today, The Washington Post, The New York Times

Hillary Clinton Meets with Bipartisan Group of National Security Officials

636090415853890504-afp-afp-g08f0

On Friday, Hillary Clinton convened a group of bipartisan National Security experts to discuss a number of global issues. The key focus of the group’s discussion was defeating ISIS and combating terrorism. Following the meeting, Clinton held a press briefing during which she spoke about the importance of Republicans and Democrats working together on issues of national security. She also criticized Donald Trump saying that the experts she has spoken with are “chilled” by what Trump has said and proposed. A video of Clinton’s remarks is below as is a release from Hillary for America about the meeting, including list of those who attended.

Hillary Clinton today brought together a bipartisan group of distinguished national security officials to discuss the challenges our next commander-in-chief will face. Today’s conversation, which focused largely on defeating ISIS and the global network of terrorism, gave Clinton the opportunity to discuss these crucial issues with a wide range of experts with different background and diverse perspectives – something she has always been deeply committed to and will continue to seek as president.

Clinton said, “We won’t always see eye to eye, but when it comes to questions of war, peace and the safety of our country, we can’t let party affiliations stand between us. We need to put partisanship aside and work together for the good of all of us. I know we can do it. I have seen it happen under both Republican and Democratic presidents. That will be my goal if I am elected this fall.”

…

Clinton added, “National security experts on both sides of the aisle are chilled by what they’re hearing from the Republican nominee. That may be the number one reason why this election is the most important in our lifetime. So I’m not waiting until November, I’m bringing Democrats and Republicans together now because I plan to get right down to work on Day One. The stakes are too high, and the issues too serious for anything less than that level of preparedness. Americans should be able to count on their president and Commander-in-Chief to provide rational, confident and even keeled leadership, especially in tumultuous times like these so I’m very grateful to the men and women that I met with today — experts with a broad range of understanding and willingness to share their insights– and I look forward to receiving their advice in the days and weeks ahead.”

Today’s conversation included a wide range of experts, including nonpartisan military leaders as well as top national security officials who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Working Session Participants:

  • General John Allen, USMC (ret.), former Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS, former Commander of the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan (via videoconference)
  • Rand Beers, former Deputy Homeland Security Advisor and former Acting Secretary of Homeland Security
  • Daniel Benjamin, Former Ambassador-at-large and Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the U.S. Department of State
  • Ambassador Reuben Brigety, Former U.S. Ambassador to the AU, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs
  • Secretary Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security
  • Richard Fontaine, former foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain
  • Chris Fussell, former Aide-de-Camp to then-Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal at the Joint Special Operations Command, former Navy Seal
  • Kathleen Hicks, former Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Forces
  • Juliette Kayyem, former Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security
  • Michael Morell, former Acting Director and Deputy Director of the CIA
  • Secretary Janet Napolitano, former Secretary of Homeland Security (via videoconference)
  • Matt Olsen, former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)
  • General David Petraeus, USA (ret.), former Director of the CIA, former Commander of the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan (via videoconference)
  • Admiral James Stavridis, USN (ret.), former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (via videoconference)
  • Vikram Singh, Former Deputy Assistant secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia
  • Michael Vickers, former Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

This morning, the campaign also rolled out an updated list of 110 retired generals and admirals who have endorsed Hillary Clinton as the only candidate in this race prepared to be commander-in-chief, 15 of whom came out in the 48 hours after the Commander-In-Chief Forum.

Clinton is honored by the overwhelming support of those who have served our country and looks forward to continuing these important national security discussions with bipartisan leaders in the coming months. In a new Hillary for America television ad released today, Hillary Clinton makes the case that the “Only Way” we solve problems is bringing people together like she did today.

For all the latest, follow our Scheduled Events page and follow Clinton on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Also, be sure to subscribe to the campaign’s official Podcast, With Her.

News Source: The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNN

Clinton Shows Foreign Policy Strength at Forum

08fd-forumweb1sub-master768-v2

During NBC’s Commander-in-Chief forum on Wednesday night, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump faced off for the first time. While they were interviewed separately, that did not stop them from attacking each others proposals during their conversation with moderator Matt Lauer. Clinton was interviewed first by Lauer, and she spoke about her qualifications saying that she believes that a strong commander-in-chief is “an absolute rock steadiness and mixed with strength to be able to make the hard decisions. I’ve had the unique experience of watching and working with several presidents, and these are not easy decisions.”

Clinton was asked about a wide variety of topics including her support of the Iraq war, the decision to intervene in Libya, the Iran nuclear agreement, her proposal to end the Veterans Affairs backlog, and her plan to defeat ISIS. She demonstrated her strength as a policy wonk by being able to clearly outline her policy proposals. However, Clinton was defensive as she fielded questions from the audience about her judgement and faced questions from Lauer about her emails and her handling of classified materials. Audience members asked some tough questions and some of Clinton’s answers were indirect.

Overall, the forum was a preview of what is come later this month and  Clinton and Trump face off in their first debate on September 26. While the forum has received mixed reviews, Clinton clearly demonstrated her knowledge of the issues, but she needs to work on convincing the American public that she is trustworthy. During Trump’s portion of the forum, he made a number of claims that prompted several responses from Clinton’s campaign. Each of Hillary for America’s releases can be read HERE, and a replay of the forum is below.

Update (9/9/2016): Hillary for America has released the following video featuring some of Trump’s comments from the forum.

For all the latest, follow our Scheduled Events page and follow Clinton on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Also, be sure to subscribe to the campaign’s official Podcast, With Her.

News Source: The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, NBC News, CBS News

HFA Response to Commander-in-Chief Forum

Hillary_for_America_2016_logo.svgFollowing Wednesday night’s Commander-in-Chief Forum on NBC, Hillary for America released several responses to criticisms levels against Hillary Clinton and proposals made by Donald Trump. All of HFA’s releases are presented below (Note: each release is separated by the bold title headers).

HFA Response to Commander-in-Chief Forum

In response to tonight’s forum, Hillary for America Chair John Podesta released the following statement:

“The difference tonight could not have been more clear. Hillary Clinton showed a firm command of the issues and the qualifications, experience and judgment to be commander in chief. In contrast, the nominee of the party of Ronald Reagan just attacked America’s generals and showered praise on Russia’s president. Trump sputtered his way through the forum, making clear his secret ISIS plan is no plan at all, doubling down on the idea that the military should have known better than to have men and women serve together and lying yet again about his early support for the war in Iraq.”

Hillary Clinton Has a Record of Supporting Our Veterans

Hillary Clinton has fought throughout her career to ensure that all veterans have access to the opportunities and tools they need to succeed upon returning home:

  • Expanded health care coverage for Reservists and National Guard members. Hillary worked across the aisle with Senator Lindsey Graham to expand access to military health insurance, ensuring that members of the Reserves and National Guard—and their families—had access to military health benefits even when they’re not deployed.
  • Protected family members caring for wounded warriors. Hillary collaborated closely with Senator Chris Dodd to author and introduce new legislation that aimed to broaden protections afforded by the Family and Medical Leave Act to the family members of wounded service members. She is proud that the legislation was enacted as part of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act.
  • Supported survivors of fallen service members. Working with Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Hillary introduced legislation to expand benefits afforded to surviving spouses. She joined with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to introduce a bill to increase the gratuity paid to family members of fallen veterans from $12,000 to $100,000, a proposal that was enacted as part of the 2005 supplemental appropriations act. Hillary also served as an honorary chairman for the non-profit Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, which provides resources and support to family members of those who have died in military service.
  • Fought for a GI Bill for the 21st century: Hillary was a proud cosponsor of the bipartisan and historic Post-9/11 GI Bill signed into law in 2008.  She also introduced a GI Bill of Rights to expand educational, housing and entrepreneurial opportunities for soldiers, veterans and their families.
  • Joined efforts to build veterans rehabilitation center. Hillary joined with Republican Senator John McCain to personally raise money for the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund. Their efforts were critical to building the Center for the Intrepid, a new $50 million state-of-the-art physical rehabilitation facility in San Antonio, Texas, designed specifically to help seriously wounded service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • Fought to recognize Gulf War Syndrome and ensure Gulf War Veterans got the treatment they needed.  She met with sick veterans and researched Gulf War Syndrome before President Clinton announced the formation of a committee to study the issue and was a point person for the administration on the issue.

On this campaign, Clinton has laid out comprehensive plans not only to support our veterans and troops, but also to specifically improve the lives of military families:

  • Military Times: Clinton unveils plan for veterans, military personnel: “[T]he former secretary of state’s plan refutes Republican proposals to outsource much of VA’s operations, labeling such a move as “privatization” of the department that could leave veterans ‘vulnerable to a health care market poorly suited to their needs’ Instead, Clinton proposes revamping the Veterans Health Administration, offering better coordination with military health care, private physicians and other existing resources while still leaving VA in the lead role…. Clinton also vows to place stronger oversight on VA operations, to include regular meetings in the Oval Office with the department secretary, and promises a fully interoperable health records system between VA and the Defense Department…. On the issue of veterans suicide, Clinton promises increased funding for VA mental health staffing and training, expansion of department counseling programs and promotion of ‘better prescriber and treatment practices’ that offer more alternatives than medication. Clinton says she also will create a standing President’s Council on Veterans to coordinate services across government agencies, convene a White House summit inviting key service organizations and state leaders, and continue work with Obama’s Joining Forces initiative.”
  • Military.com/Virginian-Pilot: Clinton Offers Plans to Assist Military Families: “Arguing that the Pentagon has to be more sensitive to military families, Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton rolled out plans Tuesday to give service members more career flexibility and demand closer scrutiny of public schools teaching their children…. The former secretary of state proposes that members of military be able to more easily switch between active-duty, National Guard and reserve service ‘to make decisions good for their family and maintain a career with the military.’ She also would make permanent the Career Intermission Program that allows some military members to temporarily leave active duty for an extended period to pursue more education, care for children or tend to an ailing family member. Given the greater number of married couples who both are in uniform, Clinton wants the duty assignment process overhauled so that more spouses can serve near each other with neither losing ground in their career.”
  • Bustle: 6 Feminist Points In Hillary Clinton’s Veterans Plan That Are Awesomely Inclusive: “This plan includes numerous points that are geared toward women, culminating in an inclusive proposal that, thankfully, addresses specific issues that women veterans face.
  • TIME: Clinton: Stop For-Profit Colleges From Targeting Veterans: “Speaking before a roundtable with veterans in Reno, Nevada, Clinton focused her remarks on the so-called 90-10 rule. The rule requires for-profit colleges to accept at least 10% of their money from private dollars rather than federal financial aid and loans, with the idea of holding the schools more accountable to the open market. But an unintended loophole in the 90-10 rule means that federal military benefits like the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill can count toward schools’ 10%. That leads for-profit schools to aggressively target veterans in search of federal dollars, often deceptively. Proponents of a new bill say that veterans at many for-profit schools have high dropout rates and leave badly in debt. Clinton would plan to close the loophole.”
  • WMUR: Clinton rolls out vets plan, promises to fight full-fledged privatization of VA
  • Washington Post: Clinton promises better health care, other services, for female veterans
  • ThinkProgress: As Republicans Call For Its Elimination, Clinton Releases Plan To Strengthen The VA
  • Boston Herald: Hillary Clinton Vows ‘Zero Tolerance’ For VA Delays

Hillary Clinton op-ed in Military Times: Taking care of vets is ‘sacred responsibility’

Hillary Clinton’s Comprehensive Plan to Defeat ISIS and the Threat of Radical Jihadism

The threat we face from terrorism is real, urgent, and knows no boundaries. Hillary Clinton knows that ISIS cannot be contained, it must be defeated.  Doing so takes more than empty talk and a handful of slogans. It takes a real plan, real experience, and real leadership. Donald Trump lacks all three. He won’t even say what his plan to defeat ISIS is.

Hillary Clinton has laid out a comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS and keep American safe at home.  She understands that it’s not enough just to take out specific groups or leaders – we must have a comprehensive strategy to win the long game against the global terrorist network and its ideology.

First, we need to take out ISIS’s strongholds in the Middle East by intensifying the coalition air campaign, supporting our partners on the ground, and pursuing diplomacy to end Syria’s civil war and close Iraq’s sectarian divide, because those conflicts are keeping ISIS alive.

Second, we need to lash up with our allies to dismantle the global network that supplies money, arms, propaganda and fighters to the terrorists.  This means targeted efforts to root out ISIS hubs and affiliates and preventing terrorist organizations from establishing hubs elsewhere, choking off the networks that facilitate their growth and expansion.

And third, we need to harden our defenses at home, including by launching an intelligence surge to ensure law enforcement has the information they need to detect and disrupt plots, working with Silicon Valley to shut down terrorist propaganda online, and keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists.  Hillary has also proposed establishing a “lone wolf” task force to identify and stop radicalized individuals who may or may not have contact and direction from any formal organization.

As we do all of this, we cannot allow terrorists to intimidate us into abandoning our values or allowing us to be driven by fear to embrace policies that would actually make us less safe.  Hillary knows that all communities need to be engaged in the fight against ISIS.  As the Director of the FBI told Congress recently, anything that erodes trust with Muslim-Americans makes the job of law enforcement more difficult.  American Muslims are on the front lines of efforts to combat radicalization, and we need to increase trust and cooperation with law enforcement.  Since 9/11, law enforcement agencies have worked hard to build relationships with Muslim-American communities. They are the most likely to recognize the insidious effects of radicalization before it’s too late, and the best positioned to help us block it. Hillary knows we should be intensifying contacts in those communities, not scapegoating or isolating them. And as we engage in this fight, we will be stronger with our allies and partners standing with us, particularly in the Muslim world, as we cannot win this fight alone.

Praise for Hillary’s Plan

  • New York Times’ David Brooks: “This week we had a chance to watch Hillary Clinton respond in real time to a complex foreign policy challenge. On Thursday, six days after the Paris attacks, she gave a comprehensive antiterrorism speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. The speech was very impressive. While other candidates are content to issue vague calls to get tough on terror, Clinton offered a multilayered but coherent framework, not only dealing with ISIS but also putting that threat within the crosscutting conflicts that are inflaming the Middle East.… [Clinton] is thoughtful and instructive on both the big picture and the right way forward.”
  • CNN: “Michael Desch, an expert in international security at Notre Dame University, said that Clinton’s speech was polished and showed her to be ‘head and shoulders’ above Republican candidates on framing an anti-ISIS strategy.”
  • US News & World Report’s Dave Catanese: “A strong performance delivered with the poise of an incumbent president”
  • Politico’s Roger Simon: “Hillary gives one of her best speeches ever on world terror. So presidential, they practically played ‘Hail to the Chief.’”
  • Defense One’s Kevin Baron: “[Clinton’s speech is the] Most comprehensive and detailed Mideast/Isis plans I’ve heard from any US leader so far, of late”
  • Quartz: “…talking about how to actually tackle Islamist extremism is complicated and politically fraught. It’s easier to play to fears about outsiders than to develop a substantive program. At least one US politician has given some thought to an idea about what to do: Presidential contender and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton delivered a speech today (Nov. 19) outlining her plan to battle the nexus of Islamist ideology that ISIL has created in the Middle East’s failed states… It’s a cohesive approach…”
  • New York Times’ David Brooks: “This week we had a chance to watch Hillary Clinton respond in real time to a complex foreign policy challenge. On Thursday, six days after the Paris attacks, she gave a comprehensive antiterrorism speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. The speech was very impressive. While other candidates are content to issue vague calls to get tough on terror, Clinton offered a multilayered but coherent framework, not only dealing with ISIS but also putting that threat within the crosscutting conflicts that are inflaming the Middle East.… [Clinton] is thoughtful and instructive on both the big picture and the right way forward.”
  • CNN: “Michael Desch, an expert in international security at Notre Dame University, said that Clinton’s speech was polished and showed her to be ‘head and shoulders’ above Republican candidates on framing an anti-ISIS strategy.”
  • US News & World Report’s Dave Catanese: “A strong performance delivered with the poise of an incumbent president”
  • Politico’s Roger Simon: “Hillary gives one of her best speeches ever on world terror. So presidential, they practically played ‘Hail to the Chief.’”
  • Defense One’s Kevin Baron: “[Clinton’s speech is the] Most comprehensive and detailed Mideast/Isis plans I’ve heard from any US leader so far, of late”
  • Quartz: “…talking about how to actually tackle Islamist extremism is complicated and politically fraught. It’s easier to play to fears about outsiders than to develop a substantive program. At least one US politician has given some thought to an idea about what to do: Presidential contender and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton delivered a speech today (Nov. 19) outlining her plan to battle the nexus of Islamist ideology that ISIL has created in the Middle East’s failed states… It’s a cohesive approach…”
Donald Trump: Not Fit to Serve as Commander-in-Chief

Donald Trump seeks our nation’s highest office, but he so utterly lacks the temperament required of the United States’ Commander-in-Chief it would be laughable if it weren’t so frightening. As Hillary Clinton reminded us in June, some of the comments he has made about world affairs are so ignorant, incoherent, and/or outrageous, it is hard to believe they actually came out of the mouth of a presidential nominee. As Hillary Clinton has said, Donald Trump is a loose cannon, and loose cannons tend to misfire.

Here are five reasons why Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit to serve as president:

  1. He wants more countries to have nuclear weapons:

COOPER:  So you have no problem with Japan and South Korea having nuclear weapons 
TRUMP:  At some point we have to say, you know what, we’re better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea, we’re better off, frankly, if South Korea is going to start to protect itself

  1. He has said he would order our military to carry out torture:

TRUMP: “Don’t tell me it doesn’t work — torture works… Waterboarding is fine, but it’s not nearly tough enough, ok?”

  1. He has threatened to abandon our NATO allies:

TRUMP: “We don’t really need NATO in its current form. NATO is obsolete… if we have to walk, we walk.”

TRUMP, on whether he’d defend NATO allies from a Russian invasion: “Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.”

  1. He won’t have to listen to our generals or ambassadors because of his “very good brain,” but he counts running the Miss Universe pageant as experience with Russia and he doesn’t understand Iran or its nuclear program:

TRUMP: “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things…my primary consultant is myself”

TRUMP: “I know Russia well. I had a major event in Russia two or three years ago, Miss Universe contest, which was a big, big, incredible event.”

TRUMP: “When those restrictions expire, Iran will have an industrial-size military nuclear capability ready to go.” (Politifact: False.)

TRUMP: “I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.”

  1. He praises dictators….

Vladimir Putin

TRUMP: “I will tell you, in terms of leadership, he’s getting an ‘A,’ and our president is not doing so well.”

Saddam Hussein

TRUMP: “You know what, he did well. He killed terrorists. He did that so good.”

Kim Jong Un

TRUMP: “And you’ve got to give him credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals…. It’s incredible. He wiped out the uncle. He wiped out this one, that one. I mean, this guy doesn’t play games.”

…and picks fights with our allies:

Then-British Prime Minister David Cameron

TRUMP: “It looks like we are not going to have a very good relationship. Who knows?”

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan

TRUMP: “Let’s take an I.Q. test… I think they’re very rude statements and frankly, tell him, I will remember those statements.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel

TRUMP: “What Merkel has done is incredible, it’s actually mind boggling. Everyone thought she was a really great leader and now she’s turned out to be this catastrophic leader. And she’ll be out if they don’t have a revolution.”

President of Mexico Enrique Peña Nieto

TRUMP: “I don’t know about the Hitler comparison [President Nieto made]. I hadn’t heard that, but it’s a terrible comparison. I’m not happy about that certainly. I don’t want that comparison, but we have to be strong and we have to be vigilant”

Pope Francis

TRUMP: “I don’t think [the Pope] understands the danger of the open border that we have with Mexico. I think Mexico got him to [criticize the wall] it because they want to keep the border just the way it is. They’re making a fortune, and we’re losing.

Trump’s Real History With Veterans

Despite Donald Trump’s occasional  lip service on the trail, Trump has been disrespecting our veterans for decades, continually proving he’s unqualified and temperamentally unfit to be commander-in-chief.

From planning to put the VA on a path to privatization, to firing reservists for their continued service to the nation, to lying about donations to veterans’ charities, to scamming veterans and their families through Trump University, to opposing the post-9/11 GI Bill, to insulting prisoners of war and our military, it’s clear veterans deserve better than Trump as their leader.

Trump Would Put the VA on a Path to Privatization:

  • WSJ: “Donald Trump Says He Would Make VA System More Privatized”
  • MSNBC: “Donald Trump Is Serious About Privatizing Veterans’ Care”

Trump Repeatedly Attacked A Gold Star Family

  • NYT: “Donald Trump Criticizes Muslim Family of Slain U.S. Soldier, Drawing Ire”
  • NYDN: “Gold Star families demand apology from Trump as he continues to blast parents of slain Muslim-American U.S. Army captain”
  • Washington Post: “Republicans denounce Trump as confrontation with Muslim parents escalates”

Trump Businesses Have Fired Reservists For Their Continued Service to the Nation

  • HuffPo: “Trump Institute Fired Veteran For ‘Absences’ After He Was Deployed To Afghanistan”
  • CNN: “Iraq war veteran claims Trump University fired her for serving in the Army Reserve”
  • HuffPo: “Third Veteran Dumped By Trump Because Of Military Service”

Trump Repeatedly Lied About Donations To Veterans Charities

  • Washington Post: “Here’s how we found out about Donald Trump’s phantom $1 million donation to vets”
  • Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum: “If character is supposed to be important in our presidents, this is evidence of the most contemptible kind of character imaginable. He tried to cheat a bunch of veterans!”
  • CNN: Trump’s website boasted that he gave $1 million to the 1995 Nation’s Day Parade, but the event’s organizer said that’s about three times more than he actually gave.
  • CNN: “After signing a deal to launch his brand of vodka, Trump went on CNN’s ‘Larry King Live’ in 2006 and described the venture, saying, ‘I’m giving the money to charity.’ … [T]he vodka company sent multiple press releases stating it would donate sales proceeds to the Walter Reed Society, a charity supporting programs at Walter Reed Hospital. The charity’s administrator tells CNN the donations amounted to about ’a few hundred dollars.’”

Trump Scammed Veterans Through Trump University

  • CNN [VIDEO]: 40-year Navy veteran scammed out of more than $26,000 by Trump University
  • Ex-Marine: “[Trump University] was a con. I’m 25-years-old, barely making $3,000 a month and they told me to increase my credit limit. I just maxed out three credit cards and I’m supposed to be able to qualify for loans to buy real estate? Those stupid principles have led me to borrow $700,000 of other people’s money and lose it all. I’m still paying off some of that debt to this day.”
  • TIME: “The records indicate, for example, that Trump University collected approximately $40 million from its students–who included veterans, retired police officers and teachers–and that Trump personally received approximately $5 million of it”

Trump Attempted To Kick Disabled Veterans Who Were Vendors Off The Street Across Two Decades

  • 1991: Trump Letter to State Assemblyman John Dearie: “While disabled veterans should be given every opportunity to earn a living, is it fair to do so to the detriment of the city as a whole or its tax paying citizens and businesses?… Do we allow Fifth Ave., one of the world’s finest and most luxurious shopping districts, to be turned into an outdoor flea market, clogging and seriously downgrading the area?”
  • 2004: Trump Letter to Mayor Bloomberg: “Whether they are veterans or not, they should not be allowed to sell on this most important and prestigious shopping street… I hope you can stop this very deplorable situation before it is too late.”

Trump Insults Our Military

  • Trump: “Our military is a disaster.”
  • NYT: “Donald J. Trump, who received draft deferments through much of the Vietnam War, told the author of a coming biography that he nevertheless ‘always felt that I was in the military’ because of his education at a military-themed boarding school.”

Trump on Armored Humvees: “If a bomb goes off our wounded warriors–instead of losing their legs, their arms, worse, they’re okay. They go for a little ride upward and they come down.”

Foreign Policy Experts, Allies, Republicans, Voters Share Concern Over Trump’s Pro-Putin Leanings

Donald Trump’s bizarre admiration for Vladimir Putin, his embrace of pro-Kremlin policies that undercut American interests and threaten our allies, and his campaign’s deep ties to Russia have been a cause for great alarm across the board.

Foreign Policy Experts and Analysts:

Op-ed by Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul: Why Putin wants a Trump victory (so much he might even be trying to help him): “Putin has rational motives for wanting Trump to win: Trump champions many foreign policies that Putin supports. Trump’s most shocking, pro-Kremlin proposal is to “look into” recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia…. Trump has demanded that other NATO members essentially pay us for protection… Trump has also disparaged our allies in Asia, creating new opportunities for Russian influence…. On the whole, Trump advocates isolationist policies and an abdication of U.S. leadership in the world. He cares little about promoting democracy and human rights. A U.S. retreat from global affairs fits precisely with Putin’s international interests.”

Reuters: Senior ex-CIA official: Putin made Trump ‘an unwitting agent’ of Russia: “A former top CIA official attacked Donald Trump on Friday as a danger to national security, saying President Vladimir Putin had made the Republican presidential candidate an ‘unwitting agent’ of Russia. Putin had flattered Trump into supporting positions favorable to Russia, Michael Morell, a longtime CIA officer and former deputy director of the agency, said in an opinion piece in The New York Times. ‘In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation,’ Morell said”

Politico: Is Putin playing Trump like he did Berlusconi?: “[T]he Berlusconi-Putin bromance has acquired a new resonance, as foreign policy analysts and even some U.S. officials see unsettling echoes in the recent long-distance kinship between the Russian leader and Donald J. Trump. It may even suggest that Putin is applying a specific method to the GOP nominee. In recent years Putin has befriended several major Western European politicians, including former leaders of France and Germany, who openly challenge U.S. and European policies toward Russia, including NATO’s buildup in Eastern Europe and economic sanctions punishing Putin’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.”

Slate’s Franklin Foer: Putin’s Puppet: If the Russian president could design a candidate to undermine American interests—and advance his own—he’d look a lot like Donald Trump.: “Donald Trump is like the Kremlin’s favored candidates, only more so. He celebrated the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU. He denounces NATO with feeling. He is also a great admirer of Vladimir Putin.”

United States Allies:

NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg on Trump’s NATO comments: “I will not interfere in the U.S. election campaign, but what I can do is say what matters for NATO. Solidarity among Allies is a key value for NATO. Two world wars have shown that peace in Europe is also important for the security of the United States.”

Estonian Foreign Ministry on Trump’s NATO comments: “Estonia’s commitment to our NATO obligations is beyond doubt and so should be the commitments by others.”

Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics on Trump’s NATO comments: “We take our commitments seriously. We hope and expect that all our allies, big and small, take their commitments the same.”

Foreign Policy: Ukrainian Officials to Donald Trump: Please Stop Talking About Our Country: “Ukrainian Ambassador Valeriy Chaly to Washington told CNN on Monday that ‘everybody was surprised’ by Trump’s comments, which are ‘in contradiction with [the] official position of [the] White House, of the United States, and of Republicans before.’ … Chaly’s remarks came after former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk also condemned Trump’s comments on Ukraine, saying in a Facebook post on Sunday that the presidential candidate had violated ‘the very values of the free world, civilized world order, and international law.’ … Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov also lashed out at Trump, saying in a separate Facebook post that his “shameless statement…on possible recognition of Crimea as Russia is a diagnosis of a dangerous fringe politician.’”

AP: Trump’s Russia reset ideas alarming allies, many in US:  “Donald Trump’s flurry of offhand remarks and abrupt zingers on Russia — praising Vladimir Putin, dismissing NATO — have jolted the world, not to mention the U.S. presidential campaign. With Russia’s behavior rattling nerves in the U.S. and abroad, the Republican presidential nominee is accused of cozying up to a ‘dictator.’ Of threatening the very underpinnings of America’s relationship with Europe. And of naivete.”

Bloomberg: Trump’s NATO Skepticism Raises Alarm for Allies Near Russia: “Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sent alarm rippling through Eastern Europe after he said the U.S. would only defend NATO states attacked by Russia if those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us,” his strongest comments to date on the military alliance’s future if he enters the White House.”

Republicans:

Washington Post: Republicans are among a new list of foreign policy experts denouncing Trump: “Several Republicans are among a group of former cabinet officers, senior officials and career military officers who denounced Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Thursday, calling his recent remarks on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Russia ‘disgraceful.’”

New York Times: 50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk’: “Many of those signing it had declined to add their names to the letter released in March. But a number said in recent interviews that they changed their minds once they heard Mr. Trump invite Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton’s email server — a sarcastic remark, he said later — and say that he would check to see how much NATO members contributed to the alliance before sending forces to help stave off a Russian attack. They viewed Mr. Trump’s comments on NATO as an abandonment of America’s most significant alliance relationship.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham on Trump’s NATO comments: “Statements like these make the world more dangerous and the United States less safe. If Mr. Trump is serious about wanting to be commander-in-chief he needs to better understand the job which is to provide leadership for the United States and the free world…. I’m 100 percent certain how Russian President Putin feels — he’s a very happy man.”

Sen. Tom Cotton: “Vladimir Putin was a KGB spy and he never got over that. He does not have America’s best interests at heart and he does not have any American interests at heart. I suspect, after this week, when Donald Trump is the nominee and he begins to receive classified briefings, similar briefings to what I receive as a member of the Intelligence Committee, he may have a different perspective on Vladimir Putin and what Russia is doing to America’s interests and allies in Europe and the Middle East and Asia.”

BuzzFeed: “Earlier this month, [Rep. Adam] Kinzinger said he could not vote for Trump after the GOP nominee said that the US did not need to come to the defense of NATO members if attacked. This week, he called for an investigation into Trump and his campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, for alleged ties to Russia. ‘There’s been this affection in this campaign for Russia and Vladimir Putin, so in my thought, I have concerns for the chief advisor of Donald Trump having done work for a pro-Russian government in Ukraine,’ Kinzinger said on CNN this week.

TIME: GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan and other Republicans on Wednesday denounced Russia’s potential involvement in the U.S. presidential election without specifically criticizing GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who earlier called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. ‘Russia is a global menace led by a devious thug. Putin should stay out of this election,’ said Brendan Buck, spokesman for Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, in an email.”

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Trump’s NATO comments: “I think he’s wrong on that.”

Politico: Trump’s competitors don’t want Putin’s approval: “Republican presidential candidates trailing Donald Trump are making it clear they don’t want the same endorsement the billionaire businessman and entertainer got from Russian President Vladimir Putin…. No thanks, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said in so many words on the Sunday political talk shows. Even Rick Perry, the former Texas governor and GOP presidential candidate, weighed in.”

Huffington Post: GOP Figures Disgusted By Trump Urging Russian Cyberattack: “[I]f any of his various statements at the press conference really stood out, it was probably the part where he called for state-sponsored Russian hackers to conduct cyber espionage on the United States for his electoral benefit… Inboden was hardly alone in registering his disgust with Trump. GOP strategist Stuart Stevens, who advised Mitt Romney, the party’s nominee in 2012, suggested that Trump’s remarks would have merited an immediate court-martial if they’d been made by anyone answering to the commander in chief”

American Voters:

Washington Post: Russian meddling in U.S. election backfiring on Putin, hurting Trump: “Those voters [of Eastern European descent] for whom McCain fought so hard in 2008 are still out there. They normally would be very inclined to vote for someone like Trump — on paper, they look just like his core supporters — but Putin’s clear preference for him over Clinton (combined with Trump’s naiveté on all things Russia) gives them great pause.”

New York Times: Ukrainian-Americans, Long Fond of the G.O.P., Greet Donald Trump With Despair: “Ukrainian-Americans have felt at home in the Republican Party since Franklin D. Roosevelt and Stalin divided control of Europe at Yalta. But across the United States — and especially in swing state Ohio, where Mr. Trump became the party’s nominee — they are watching the 2016 presidential race with a mix of confusion and fear. ‘The party’s dead as far as I’m concerned,’ Mr. Szmagala declared.”

Former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen: Trump’s Putin bromance is driving away Eastern European-American voters: “In July, during the Republican convention, I pointed out here that Donald Trump’s questioning whether he would come to the defense of Central and Eastern European countries if Russia attacked them – and Trump’s changing the GOP platform to strip out the provision of defensive weapons to Ukraine – could cost him millions of once-solid Republican votes in key swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida.”

Donald Trump Supported the Iraq War, No Matter How Many Times He Claims Otherwise

This completely bogus Trump claim has been fact checked so many times it’s hard to believe we still need to say this, but one more time can’t hurt: Donald Trump supported the Iraq War before it started. In fact, in 2002, Trump said he supported invading Iraq. While Hillary Clinton has clearly stated that her vote was a mistake, Donald Trump continues to lie about his own stance on the war nearly every time he opens his mouth.

Here’s what Trump himself has said on the matter:

Donald Trump, 2000: “I’m no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion.”

BuzzFeed: In 2002, Donald Trump Said He Supported Invading Iraq

In a 2002 interview with Howard Stern, Donald Trump said he supported an Iraq invasion. In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq. “Yeah, I guess so,” Trump responded. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

The Hill: Trump day after Iraq invasion: It’s ‘a tremendous success’: “Republican primary front-runner Donald Trump claimed on the second day of Operation Iraqi Freedom that it appeared to be “a tremendous success from a military standpoint.” Speaking to Fox News’ Neil Cavuto on March 21, 2003, Trump predicted the war would continue to bolster Wall Street.

Bill O’Reilly: “All right, let’s stay in Iraq for a minute. You’re given this intelligence from five different agencies. You don’t move against this guy?”

Trump, 2004: “Perhaps, if I was given that… if that intelligence was actually given, perhaps.”

BuzzFeed: Trump In 2006: Clinton Should Be Forgiven For Iraq Vote “Based On Lies Given To Her”

Donald Trump is already going after Hillary Clinton for her vote to authorize the Iraq War in 2002, but in an interview in 2006, he said she should be forgiven because her vote was based on misinformation.

Maureen Dowd, New York Times: [Trump] thinks John McCain has lost the 2008 election by pushing to send more troops to Iraq but that Hillary should be forgiven for her “horrendous” vote to authorize the war. “Don’t forget that decision was based on lies given to her,” he says. “She’s very smart and has a major chance to be our next president.”

And here’s what reporters and fact checkers have to say:

BuzzFeed: There’s No Record Of Donald Trump Being Against The Iraq War Before It Started

An extensive BuzzFeed News review was unable to find any Trump statements on the Iraq War before the invasion in March 2003, but did find two statements he made the week the war started, one calling it “a mess” and one saying it would have a positive impact on the stock market.

PolitiFact: Donald Trump was not ‘loud and clear’ in Iraq War opposition

Trump often repeats this line, and we’ve rated a similar Trump claim Mostly False, because he didn’t appear to take any public position on the war until after the March 2003 invasion. In this more recent version of the statement, he also said he stated his opposition to the war “loud and clear.” But the public record of his positions is thin.

FactCheck.org: Donald Trump and the Iraq War

There is no evidence that we could find, however, that he spoke against the war before it started, although we did find he expressed early concerns about the cost and direction of the war a few months after it started.

New York Times: In Fact | Donald Trump Opposed Iraq War — but After It Started

Donald J. Trump took a moment to separate himself from his rivals by declaring that he had gone on the record with his opposition of the Iraq war some 11 years ago — in July 2004. The claim, however, left out the reality that his opposition came well after the war was already underway. The war began in March 2003.

FLASHBACK: Support For Libyan Intervention Was Widespread, Included Trump and Pence

Donald Trump and his allies love to attack Hillary Clinton over the Libyan intervention. Curiously, they never seem to mention that Trump himself supported it. Repeatedly. And on his own video blog. And his running mate, Mike Pence backed the intervention as well, publicly thanking then-Secretary Clinton for her efforts on Libya.

  • BuzzFeed: Trump Claims He Didn’t Support Libya Intervention — But He Did, On Video
  • Trump, 2011: “I can’t believe what our country is doing. Qaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people…. But we have go in to save these lives; these people are being slaughtered like animals. It’s horrible what’s going on; it has to be stopped. We should do on a humanitarian basis, immediately go into Libya, knock this guy out very quickly, very surgically, very effectively, and save the lives.”
  • Trump, 2011: “[At] this point, if you don’t get rid of Gadhafi, it’s a major, major black eye for this country.”
  • BuzzFeed: Mike Pence Publicly Thanked Hillary Clinton In 2011 For Her Efforts On Libya. Pence: “I also want to thank you, specifically, for the efforts by the administration and your offices to further isolate Libya during a time of extraordinary tragedy in the streets, tragedy of which I think we’re probably only partially aware.

Donald Trump’s lies and hypocrisy aside, the reality is that in 2011, support for the Libyan intervention was widespread, at home and abroad. There was strong bipartisan support from U.S. leaders at home for the administration’s effort to impede Qadhafi’s brutality, and our closest NATO allies, partners in the region, and Libyan people were all making urgent calls for U.S. action.

Top Republicans were making calls for bold American leadership in this international crisis:

Feb. 22, 2011 – John McCain and Joe Lieberman: “The horrific situation in Libya demands more than just public condemnation; it requires strong international action. … Some Libyan diplomats have bravely called for a no-fly zone to stop the Qaddafi regime’s use of airpower to attack Libyan civilians.  We support this course of action.”

Feb. 24, 2011 – Marco Rubio: “We should immediately engage willing partners to limit the regime’s ability to wage war against its own citizens.  These measures could include (but are not limited to) pressing bordering nations to stop the flow of mercenaries into Libya, finding ways to restore severed communications, imposing a no-fly zone to protect civilians against aircraft attacks, and mobilizing a humanitarian relief effort.”

Feb. 28, 2011 – Lindsey Graham: “What I would suggest is that we really keep implementing U.N. sanctions on the economic side, on the travel side, go after assets. And a no fly zone would make a lot of sense to me.”

Feb. 28, 2011 – Susan Collins: “I do believe our allies may be able to join together with us to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya to help protect the people from Gadhafi,” she said. “Any actions that we take I believe should be in concert with our allies.”

March 1, 2011 – By unanimous consent, the Senate adopts a resolution urging the UN Security Council to take “further action to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.”

March 7, 2011 – Newt Gingrich: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone … All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force…”

March 13, 2011 – John McCain: “First, the president [Barack Obama] should recognize Libya’s transitional national council, which is based in Benghazi but representative of communities across the country, as the sole legitimate governing authority of Libya, just as France has done.  Second, the president should take immediate steps to implement a no-fly zone in Libya with international support.”

March 30, 2011 – Marco Rubio, to Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid: “I am writing to seek your support for bringing a bi-partisan resolution to the Senate floor authorizing the President’s decision to participate in allied military action in Libya. Furthermore, this resolution should also state that removing Muammar Qaddafi from power is in our national interest and therefore should authorize the President to accomplish this goal. To that end, the resolution should urge the President to immediately recognize the Interim Transitional National Council as the legitimate government in Libya.”

NATO Allies and Regional Partners were ramping up their efforts to defend the Libyan people:

Feb. 23, 2011 – France– The Guardian: “Nicolas Sarkozy is leading the calls for a NATO-imposed no-fly zone to be enforced over Libya to ‘prevent the use of that country’s warplanes against [its] population.’ Sarkozy, the current president of the G8 and G20 economic forums, has also called for the European Union to impose sanctions against Libya and suggested that the assets of the family of the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, should be frozen.”

Feb. 27, 2011 – Italy– Associated Press: “Italy has effectively suspended a treaty with Libya that includes a nonaggression clause, amid turmoil in the North African nation, the foreign minister said Sunday. The suspension removes a possible obstacle to Rome taking part in any peacekeeping operations in its former colony, or allowing the use of its military bases.”

Feb 28, 2011 – Britain– PM David Cameron: “We must not tolerate this regime using military force against its own people. In that context I have asked the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff to work with our allies on plans for a military no-fly zone. Mr Speaker, it is clear that this is an illegitimate regime that has lost the consent of its people. My message to Colonel Qadhafi is simple: Go now.”

March 10, 2011 – Libyan Rebels – CNN: “The head of the interim government in eastern Libya pleaded Wednesday for the international community to move quickly to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, declaring that any delay would result in more casualties. ‘It has to be immediate action,’ Mustafa Abdul-Jalil told CNN in an exclusive interview in this eastern opposition stronghold. ‘The longer the situation carries on, the more blood is shed. That’s the message that we want to send to the international community. They have to live up to their responsibility with regards to this.’”

March 12, 2011 – Arab States – New York Times: “The Arab League asked the United Nations Security Council on Saturday to impose a no-flight zone over Libya in hopes of halting Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s attacks on his own people, providing the rebels a tincture of hope even as they were driven back from a long stretch of road and towns they had captured in the three-week war. The extraordinary move by the 22-nation bloc — an extremely rare invitation for Western military forces on Arab territory — increases the pressure on the Obama administration…”

Trump: Generals Have Been ‘Reduced to Rubble’

Donald Trump wants to be Commander-in-Chief, but he continuously insults and disrespects our United States’ military on the campaign trail – and even before. Just now, he said our generals have been “reduced to rubble.”

At a rally in Urbandale, IA he said, “so our military is weak.” [Urbandale IA, 1/15/16]

At a rally in Harrington, DE he said, “the military is in shambles.” [Harrington DE, 4/22/16]

At a rally in Westfield, IN he said, “we don’t win with our military.” [Westfield, IN, 7/12/16]

At a rally in Wilmington, NC he said, “our military is depleted… we can’t beat ISIS.” [Wilmington, NC 8/9/16]

Trump has called the United States’ military a disaster, said “the generals aren’t doing so well” and proclaimed he knew more about ISIS than the generals do.

Trump’s alarming rhetoric goes all the way back to the Reagan Administration, when Trump took out ads saying, “the world is laughing at America’s politicians as we protect ships we don’t own, carrying oil we don’t need, destined for allies who won’t help.”

This type of denigration of our our military has been called out left and right, from political leaders to those who serve and worry about what a Donald Trump presidency would mean for the military:

Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “At no time in my career have I been more confident than this instant in saying we have the most powerful military on the face of the planet.”

Sen. Tim Kaine: “Trump has been going around saying repeatedly the American military is a disaster. That’s a direct quote…[T]here’s 1.6 million people who serve in the military of this country voluntarily during a time of war, and one of them is one of my kids When I hear Donald Trump say the American military is a disaster, I want to go through the screen and shake the guy…We do not need a commander in chief who is going to talk about our troops with disrespect and contempt. We ought to have a commander in chief who talks about our troops with respect and gratitude. That’s why Secretary Clinton is down in Hampton today meeting with veterans and military families.”

An Open Letter On Donald Trump From GOP National Security Leaders: “Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly: His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence. His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world. His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.”

Reuters: Trump’s ‘America first’ speech alarms U.S. allies

Slate: Current, Former Soldiers Say Trump Would Be an Epic Disaster as Commander in Chief

It is understandable that Trump is confused about all of this. After all, it doesn’t sounds like he’s consulting with many experts about the state of our military, he just has the TV on.

For all the latest, follow our Scheduled Events page and follow Clinton on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Also, be sure to subscribe to the campaign’s official Podcast, With Her.

Clinton, Kaine Release New Book, “Stronger Together”

stronger-together-9781501161735.in17

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine released a new book titled Stronger Together. Hillary for America released the following description of the book. Buy the book from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-a-Million, Walmart, or your favorite book retailer.

Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine today released their official campaign book, “Stronger Together” today, a 256-page blueprint for America’s future. The book synthesizes more than fifty detailed policy ideas that Clinton and Kaine have advanced throughout the campaign, including specific and practical solutions to address some of the biggest challenges facing American families and our country.

“We have an old-fashioned idea about politics: People who are running to lead the United States of America should tell you what they’re going to do, why they’re going to do it, and how they’re going to get it done,” Clinton and Kaine write in the book’s preface. “That’s what this book is all about. Over the course of this campaign, we have laid out a comprehensive vision for our country: building an economy that works for everyone, not just those that the top; working with our allies and each other to keep our people safe and our country strong; and forging a strong sense of American unity to tackle the problems and seize the opportunities before us. To that end, we have released more than fifty detailed policy ideas, on everything from apprenticeships to the Zika virus.”

The detailed, specific policy solutions covered in the book stand in stark contrast to the Trump campaign’s soundbites and slogans. According to a recent Associated Press story, “Trump’s campaign has posted just seven policy proposals on his website, totaling just over 9,000 words. There are 38 on Clinton’s ‘issues’ page, ranging from efforts to cure Alzheimer’s disease to Wall Street and criminal justice reform, and her campaign boasts that it has now released 65 policy fact sheets, totaling 112,735 words.”

The book, which includes new introductions from each candidate, is broken into four sections focused on:

  • The economy: How we can build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top, by: making the boldest investment in good-paying jobs since World War II; making college debt-free for all Americans; rewriting the rules so companies share profits with employees instead of shipping jobs and profits overseas; ensuring that Wall Street, corporations and the super-wealthy pay their fair share; and putting families first with policies that match how people work and live.
  • Foreign policy: How we can secure American leadership and keep America safe by: defeating ISIS and global terrorism; continuing to strengthen our alliances and partnerships — and stick with them; being firm but wise with our rivals; keeping our military strong and supporting our veterans and military families; shaping the global rules that will keep us safe and make us more prosperous; and staying true to the values that have always made America great.
  • Domestic policy: How we can stand together and build bridges, not walls by providing every child the opportunity to live up to his or her potential; fixing our broken immigration system and keeping families together; reforming our criminal justice system; ending the epidemic of gun violence; breaking down the barriers that stand in the way of equal rights; and protecting our environment and natural resources.
  • Getting results: How we can break through the gridlock to get results by reforming our campaign finance system, protecting voter rights and expanding access to the ballot box.

In her introduction, titled Love and Kindness—And Action, Clinton tells the story of her upbringing, the lessons she learned from her mother’s difficult childhood, and her work as an advocate for children. She writes, “To drive real progress, you have to change both hearts and laws. You need both understanding and action. It’s unusual to hear a candidate for President say we need more love and kindness in our country — but that’s exactly what we need. Each of us stumbles at one time or another. I know I’ve made my share of mistakes and missteps. But life is about how we stand back up — and how we lift each other up, too.”

In his introduction, titled Fighting for Right, Kaine describes his service in Honduras and the inspiration he drew from his father-in law, former Virginia Governor Linwood Holton, who integrated the state’s public schools. He writes, “Lin’s example helped inspire me to work as a civil rights lawyer representing people who had been turned away from housing either because of the color of their skin or because they were an American with a disability … All these years later, I am still striving to do what I did then — to fight for right.”

The book was published by Simon & Schuster and is available in paperback, digital and audio formats.

For all the latest, follow our Scheduled Events page and follow Clinton on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Also, be sure to subscribe to the campaign’s official Podcast, With Her.

Hillary for America Statement on Trump’s Misleading Ad

Hillary_for_America_2016_logo.svg

Hillary for America responded to Donald Trump’s latest ad with a point-by-point memo. A copy of the release is below.

Hillary for America Statement on Trump’s Misleading Ad

Today, in response to Donald Trump’s new divisive and misleading campaign ad, HFA Deputy Communications Director Christina Reynolds offered the following statement:

“From his divisive rhetoric to his erratic efforts to alienate our allies to his dangerous plans, Donald Trump has made our country less safe already. He is temperamentally unfit and unqualified to be commander in chief. No misleading ad can change the fact that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with the experience and judgment to lead the country and keep our families safe.”

Transcript

Record
V/O: In Hillary Clinton’s America, the system stays rigged against Americans.

 

 

 

 POLITIFACT FOUND TRUMP’S CLAIM THAT THE ELECTION WAS “RIGGED” TO BE “PANTS ON FIRE”

Politifact: Voter Fraud Is Extremely Rare, And Experts Say Attempts To “Buy” An Election Cannot Be Replicated On A National Scale. “Trump has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. election system is rigged. He has cited examples of voter fraud, which is extremely rare, often unintentional and not on a scale large enough to affect a national election. While there are isolated examples of bought local elections, experts say it cannot be replicated on a national scale. While it is possible to tamper with electronic voting machines, there is no evidence deliberate malfeasance has altered any election. We rate Trump’s claim Pants on Fire.” [Politifact, 8/15/16]

Politifact: “You’re More Likely To Get Struck By Lightning Than To Find Voter Fraud.” “News 21 found just 150 alleged cases of double voting, 56 cases of noncitizens voting, and 10 cases of voter impersonation across all elections from 2000 to 2011. Many of these never led to charges, while others were acquitted or dismissed. Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and an expert on voter fraud, found an even smaller number: 31 credible incidents out of more than 1 billion votes cast from 2000 to 2014. Put it in another way: You’re more likely to get struck by lightning than to find voter fraud. When voter fraud does occur, it’s not always intentional. Multiple studies have traced known cases not to willful deception but to clerical errors or confusion.” [Politifact, 8/15/16]

TRUMP HAS BEEN EXCORIATED BY LEGAL EXPERTS AND EDITORIAL BOARDS FOR HIS FALSE SUGGESTIONS THAT THE ELECTION WILL BE “RIGGED”

HEADLINE: “Trump’s Accusation Of Voter Fraud In PA Is Offensive” [Editorial, Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/19/16]

HEADLINE: “Trump ‘Rigging’ Claim Is Reckless” [Editorial, Columbus Dispatch, 8/7/16]

HEADLINE: “The Election Isn’t Rigged Against Trump; It’s Rigged In His Favor”[Editorial, Newark Star-Ledger, 8/8/16]

HEADLINE: “If You’re Worried About Rigged Elections, Look At Trump’s Tactics First” [Richard Hasen, Los Angeles Times, 8/16/16]

Election Law Expert Richard Hasen: “If Anyone Is Trying To Rig The Vote, It’s Trump.” “Maybe Trump is bluffing too, but his words are dangerous and his actions are irresponsible. By claiming the vote is rigged, he undermines the public’s confidence in the election results. And by exhorting his supporters to show up at the polls to look for rigging in “certain sections” of battleground states, he is encouraging behavior that could prevent eligible voters from casting their ballots. If anyone is trying to rig the vote, it’s Trump.” [Richard Hasen, Los Angeles Times, 8/16/16]

•    Election Law Expert Richard Hasen: “But If There’s A Threat To The Integrity Of The Election, It’s Coming From Trump Himself.” [Richard Hasen, Los Angeles Times, 8/16/16]

TRUMP HAS REPEATEDLY CLAIMED A RIGGED SYSTEM WHERE NONE EXISTED

Politifact: Trump Complained About Caucus Rules Put In Place When The Race Had 17 Candidates, And “There Is No Evidence The Rules Were Designed To Favor A Specific Candidate, Nor That The Context Was Fixed Or “Rigged.”” “After Ted Cruz swept all 34 delegates at the Colorado Republican convention, Trump branded the state GOP’s caucus system “rigged” and “crooked.” […] The delegate selection process is dominated by party activists and insiders, and this year’s caucuses were hampered — at best — by confusion and technical glitches. But Trump is complaining about rules that were put in place in August, when the Republican presidential race was clogged with 17 candidates. There is no evidence the rules were designed to favor a specific candidate, nor that the context was fixed or “rigged.” Trump chose to skip the convention and focus on New York instead. We rated his claim False.” [Politifact, 4/20/16]

Politifact: Trump Said Clinton Was Trying To “Rig The Debates,” But “Neither Clinton Nor Her Party Were Involved In Setting Up The Dates For The General-Election Debates.” “Trump said that Clinton and her party “are trying to rig the debates” so that NFL games drain away viewers. However, neither Clinton nor her party were involved in setting up the dates for the general-election debates, as they were during the primary debates. Instead, that task falls to a bipartisan commission that has no connection to either the campaigns or the parties. In fact, the debate dates were chosen seven months before the NFL schedule was even released, making scheduling conflicts almost unavoidable — not the work of one campaign or party. We rate Trump’s statement Pants on Fire.” [Politifact, 8/1/16]
V/O: Syrian refugees flood in

 

 TRUMP’S CLAIM THERE WAS NO SYSTEM TO VET REFUGEES FROM SYRIA WAS FALSE

PolitiFact: Donald Trump’s Claim There Was “No System” To Vet Middle Eastern Refugees Was False. “Trump said there is ‘no system to vet’ refugees from the Middle East. While there are concerns about information gaps, a system does exist and has existed since 1980. It involves multiple federal intelligence and security agencies as well as the United Nations. Refugee vetting typically takes one to two years and includes numerous rounds of security checks. We rate Trump’s claim False.” [PolitiFact, 6/13/16]

CNN Fact Check: “There Is A Vetting System In Place” To Screen Refugees.“However, Trump continued saying that there is no way to screen those immigrants. There is a vetting system in place, which begins with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, according to the White House. This group collects identification documents, performs an initial assessment, and interviews applicants to confirm refugee status and the need for resettlement. They then refer strong candidates for resettlement to the United States.” [CNN Fact Check, 6/22/16]

FactCheck.org Rated Donald Trump’s Claim That “There’s No Way To Screen Syrian Refugees” As False.  “While criticizing Hillary Clinton’s support for admitting more Syrian refugees to the U.S., Trump said that “there’s no way to screen” those refugees to determine “who they are or where they come from.” That’s false. All refugees admitted to the U.S. go through an extensive vetting process that involves multiple federal agencies and can take up to 24 months to complete. The current process for admitting a refugee to the U.S. is very lengthy. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or sometimes a U.S. embassy, refers a qualified refugee for resettlement in the U.S. After that, there’s an initial multistep security clearance, including the collection of the refugee’s personal data and background information. That is followed by an in-person interview abroad with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which has to approve the application. The security clearance involves checking the refugee’s name and fingerprints against several government databases. That’s followed by a medical screening and a pairing with one of the voluntary agencies in the U.S. that sponsors refugees. And, finally, there’s another security clearance to check for any new information. That completes the process.”  [Factcheck.org, 7/22/16]

Vox Rated Donald Trump’s Claim That “There’s No Way To Screen These Refugees” As False. “Trump says: ‘There’s no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from.’ In fact: It takes approximately two years to approve a refugee to settle in the US. Most of that time is spent screening the refugee. The process for screening Syrian refugees is so stringent (for example, a refugee who’d once given “a sandwich or a cigarette” to a Syrian rebel soldier would have been banned until last year) that the government rarely let in any before fall 2015. And it’s still not on pace to meet its goal of admitting 10,000 refugees this year because it’s being so careful with the screening process. Ruling: False” [Vox, 7/22/16]

AP Fact Checker: “Trump Persists In Making The Bogus Claim That The U.S. Doesn’t Screen Refugees.” “TRUMP: ‘My opponent has called for a radical 550 percent increase in Syrian (refugees). … She proposes this despite the fact that there’s no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from. I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people.’ THE FACTS: Trump persists in making the bogus claim that the U.S. doesn’t screen refugees. The administration both screens them and knows where they are from. The Department of Homeland Security leads the process, which involves rigorous background checks. Processing of a refugee can take 18 months to two years, and usually longer for those coming from Syria. Refugees are also subject to in-person interviews and fingerprint and other biometric screening.” [AP Fact Check, 7/22/16]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Trump Falsely Claimed  “There’s ‘No Way To Screen’  Refugees.” Donald Trump Claim: “My opponent, in Syria — think of this, think of this, this is not believable but this is what’s happening. A 550 percentage increase in Syrian refugees on top of the existing massive refugee flows coming into our country already under the leadership of President Obama. She proposes this despite the fact that there’s no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from.” “Trump gets it right on the “550” percentage, but falsely claims there’s “no way to screen” refugees. […] The process of vetting refugees starts with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and then continues with checks by U.S. intelligence and security agencies. It takes one to two years, or longer in some cases.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, 7/22/16]

CNN Fact Check Rated Trump’s Claim That There “‘No Way To Screen These Refugees” As “False.” “Where he goes awry is in the second half, when Trump says there’s ‘no way to screen these refugees.’ Several government and law enforcement agencies are engaged in the process of screening refugees. Refugees that come to the U.S. undergo several screenings, such as biographic checks, in-person interviews, fingerprinting and medical screenings — all of which involve multiple federal intelligence and security agencies. Syrian refugees in particular go through additional screening, called the Syria Enhanced Review process, which uses information collected from the UN refugee agency to determine whether an applicant needs to go through a fraud or national security unit. […] The effectiveness of these procedures may be a matter of debate, but to say that there is “no way to screen” refugees is false.” [CNN, 7/22/16]

NPR Fact Check: The Claim That There’s “No Way” To Screen Syrian Refugees Has Been Rated False. “‘She proposes this despite the fact that there’s no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from.’ PolitiFact ranked the claim about the lack of a vetting system false.” [NPR, 7/21/16]

THE U.S. HAS AN EXTENSIVE SCREENING PROCESS FOR REFUGEES

CNN Fact Check: Refugees Are Screened Through Process That Includes The National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, DHS, And The State Department Before Entering The United States, Then They Must Apply For Green Card. “The Resettlement Support Center compiles a file on each refugee and then the security checks begin. The National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, Department of Homeland Security and the State Department are all involved in these security checks. Before arrival in the United States, refugees are interviewed, fingerprinted and given medical screenings, among other security checks.  Finally, they arrive in the United States, go through U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s National Targeting Center and then must apply for a green card within a year of arrival, which triggers another set of security procedures.” [CNN Fact Check, 6/22/16]

Jeff Stein: Contrary To Trump’s False Claim That U.S.-Bound Refugees Were Not Screened, U.S. Citizenship And Immigration Services Conducted An “Extensive” And “Onerous” Screening Process. “Trump: ‘There’s no screening for refugees coming to the US We’re not screening people. So why don’t we have an effective screening system? We don’t. We’re being laughed at all over the world. The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why we should admit anyone into our country who supports violence of any kind against gay and lesbian Americans.’ The truth: Trump is wrong: There is an extensive, onerous screening process for refugees who come to America. You can see so yourself here.” Vox’s Jeff Stein linked to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Refugee Processing and Security Screening website. [Jeff Stein, Vox, 6/13/16]

NBC News: Hillary Clinton Supported Accepting Syrian Refugees But There Were “Significant Screening Measures” In Place. “Trump claim: ‘In fact, Hillary Clinton supports a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees coming into the United States, and that’s an increase over President Obama’s already very high number. Under her plan, we would admit hundreds of thousands of refugees from the most dangerous countries on Earth – with no way to screen who they are or what they believe.’ The facts: Clinton does support a 550% increase over the existing number of Syrian refugees she’d allow — that much is true — but there are significant screening measures. Refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any visitors to the U.S., and the process historically takes up to 16-24 months. It involves the United Nations, National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and State Department. ‘It would be a cruel irony indeed if ISIS can force families from their homes and then also prevent them from finding new ones,’ she said in a December speech. ‘So after rigorous screening, we should welcome families fleeing Syria.’” [NBC News, 6/22/16]

PolitiFact: U.S. Screening Process For Refugees Has Been In Place For Over 30 Years. “Blaming the Orlando massacre on the country’s ‘failed immigration system,’ Donald Trump equated refugee admission to a ‘better, bigger, more horrible version of the legendary Trojan horse.’ […] This is an exaggeration, and one we’ve heard before. While Trump has a point that the system isn’t foolproof, there is a system. It has been in place for over three decades and was retooled after 9/11…The vetting begins with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee, which determines who counts as a refugee, who should be resettled (about 1 percent) and which countries would take them. This alone can take four to 10 months. If the UNHCR refers refugees to the United States, they then face scrutiny from federal intelligence and security agencies.” [PolitiFact, 6/13/16]

Vanity Fair: Hillary Clinton Plan Had “Extremely Strict Security Measures In Place To Vet Refugees Looking To Resettle In The US.” “Trump leaned heavily into post-Orlando anxiety when he slammed Clinton’s plan to increase the number of Syrian refugees by 550 percent. ‘Under her plan, we would admit hundreds of thousands of refugees from the most dangerous countries on Earth—with no way to screen who they are or what they believe,’ he said. While he’s correct about the percentage increase, at least, NBC points out that there would, in fact, be extremely strict security measures in place to vet refugees looking to re-settle in the U.S. The process takes anywhere between 16 to 24 months, involves no less than five governmental agencies cross-checking several databases, and can be halted or reset for numerous reasons. In short, this is definitely a way to screen refugees, as opposed to ‘no way.’” [Vanity Fair, 6/22/16]

ABC News: The Claim That “There Is No Way To Screen Syrian Refugees” Is “False,” As The U.S. “Employs A Thorough, Multi-Stage Vetting Process.” “Claim: There is no way to screen Syrian refugees. Rating: False. While intelligence gaps abroad means there’s a degree of risk in resettling refugees from Syria and elsewhere, the U.S. employs a thorough, multi-stage vetting process. […] As flagged in an earlier fact check, the typical vetting process for resettling refugees in the U.S. comprises a series of hurdles, the first of which is to meet the legal definition of a ‘refugee’ (roughly 1 percent of applicants is deemed eligible), which can take up to 10 months.” [ABC News,7/22/16]
V/O: Illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes get to stay

 

 

 CLINTON WOULD MAKE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT “HUMANE, TARGETED, AND EFFECTIVE” AND DEPORT THOSE “INDIVIDUALS WHO POSE A VIOLENT THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY”

As President, Clinton Would Make Immigration Enforcement “Humane, Targeted, And Effective” And Deport Those “Individuals Who Pose A Violent Threat To Public Safety.” “As President, Hillary will: Enforce immigration laws humanely. Immigration enforcement must be humane, targeted, and effective. Hillary will focus resources on detaining and deporting those individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety, and ensure refugees who seek asylum in the U.S. have a fair chance to tell their stories.” [Hillary for America, accessed 8/15/16]

TRUMP’S CLAIMS ON IMMIGRANTS COMMITTING CRIMES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE

ABC News: There Was “No Law Enforcement Data To Support” Trump’s Claim That Hundreds Of Recent Immigrants And Their Children Were Convicted Of Terrorism. “Although he was right about Clinton’s desire to bring in more Syrian refugees, Trump quickly strayed from the truth by arguing that many of them are convicted terrorists. ‘Already hundreds of recent immigrants and their children have been convicted of terrorist activity inside the United States. The father of the Orlando shooter was a Taliban supporter from Afghanistan, one of the most repressive anti-gay and anti-woman regimes on earth,’ Trump said today. There is no law enforcement data to support the claim that “hundreds of recent immigrants have been convicted of terrorist” activities.” [ABC News, 6/22/16]

Washington Post Fact Checker: “We’re Not Sure Exactly Where Trump Is Getting This Information” That Hundreds Of Migrants And Their Children Had Been Convicted Of Terrorist Activity, “But He Is Still Not Accurate.” “‘Already hundreds of recent immigrants and their children have been convicted of terrorist activity inside the United States.’ This is a revised Trump talking point on migrants convicted of terrorist activity, to include migrants ‘and their children.’ (We previously awarded him Four Pinocchios for claiming that ‘scores’ of ‘recent migrants’ were charged with terrorism.) We’re not sure exactly where Trump is getting this information, but he is still not accurate.” [Fact Checker, Washington Post, 6/23/16]
V/O: Collecting Social Security benefits, skipping the line

 

 UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIAL SECURITY

Undocumented Immigrants Have Contributed $12 Billion To Social Security. “Thus, our projections suggest that the presence of unauthorized workers in the United States has, on average, a positive effect on the financial status of the Social Security program. For the year 2010,1 we estimate that the excess of tax revenue paid to the Trust Funds over benefits paid from these funds based on earnings of unauthorized workers is about $12 billion.” [Social Security Administration, April 2013]

Politifact: “It’s Important To Note That Illegal Immigrants Pay An Estimated $12 Billion In Payroll Taxes To Social Security And Don’t Receive Benefits.” “Trump said, “The annual cost of free tax credits alone paid to illegal immigrants quadrupled to $4.2 billion in 2011.” Based on an audit by the Treasury Inspector General, the claim leaves out some context. Trump conflates “illegal immigrants” with “unauthorized workers,” a group composed largely of undocumented immigrants but also legal immigrants and others. The $4.2 billion refers to the amount given in tax credit refunds for children, the large majority of whom are U.S. citizens. And the actual year is 2009, not 2011 (that was the year the report was published). Also, it’s important to note that illegal immigrants pay an estimated $12 billion in payroll taxes to Social Security and don’t receive benefits. So Trump is leaving out a significant part of the picture when it comes to taxes and undocumented workers.” [Politifact, 8/18/15]

CLINTON SUPPORTS A PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP

As President, Clinton Would Introduce Comprehensive Immigration Reform With A Pathway To Full And Equal Citizenship. “Introduce comprehensive immigration reform. Hillary will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in office. It will treat every person with dignity, fix the family visa backlog, uphold the rule of law, protect our borders and national security, and bring millions of hardworking people into the formal economy.” [Hillary for America, accessed 8/19/16]

Clinton On Immigration: “I Believe They Do Have to Meet Certain Standards…To Be On A Path To Citizenship.” “I think we have to look at all of these issues. Comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship would deal with a lot of these concerns, not just the 11 million people here: how we would regularize them, what kind of steps they’d have to go through. Because I believe they do have to meet certain standards if they’re going to be on a path to citizenship.” [Vox, 6/22/16]

TRUMP AD CITES CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES

TRUMP HAS BEEN ADVISED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES

Donald Trump Met With Mark Krikorian And His Campaign Referred To Him As One Of The Top Foreign Policy And National Security Experts In The Country.“‘Today, Mr. Trump convened a meeting of some of the top foreign policy and national security experts in the country to discuss how to win the war against Radical Islamic Terrorism. The participants talked about improving immigration screening and standards to keep out radicals, working with moderate Muslims to foster reforms, and partnering with friendly regimes in the Middle East to stamp out ISIS. This is a stark contrast to Hillary Clinton who wants to bring in 620,000 refugees with no way to screen them, who refuses to say radical Islam, and who bears direct responsibility for the rise of ISIS with her disastrous interventions overseas.’ – Stephen Miller, National Policy DirectorPlease view the list of particpants of the Roundtable on Defeating Radical Islamic Terrorism below: […] 13) Mark Krikorian” [Donald Trump Press Release, 8/17/16]

MARK KRIKORIAN HAS SERVED AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES SINCE 1995

Mark Krikorian Has Served As The Executive Director Of The Center For Immigration Studies Since 1995. “Mark Krikorian, a nationally recognized expert on immigration issues, has served as Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) since 1995. The Center, an independent, non-partisan research organization in Washington, D.C., examines and critiques the impact of immigration on the United States. Animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted, the Center was established in 1985 to respond to the need for reliable, fact-based research in the immigration area.” [Center for Immigration Studies, accessed 8/17/16]

THE CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES “HAS BEEN EXPLICITLY TIED TO WHITE NATIONALISM”

HEADLINE: “Anti-Immigrant Center For Immigration Studies Continues To Associate With White Nationalists” [Southern Poverty Law Center, 10/9/15]

Southern Poverty Law Center: “Since Its Founding In 1985, CIS Has Been Explicitly Tied To White Nationalism.” “Since its founding in 1985, CIS has been explicitly tied to white nationalism. Its founder, white nationalist John Tanton was responsible for establishing the organized anti-immigrant movement, and, over the past 20 years, the group has been unable to cut these racist ties. [Southern Poverty Law Center, 10/9/15]
V/O: Our border open

 

 MANY INDEPENDENT FACT CHECKS HAVE FOUND CLINTON’S PLAN WOULD NOT CREATE OPEN BORDERS

AP Fact Check: “It’s Not True That Clinton’s Plan Would Create Open Borders.”“TRUMP: “She has pledged to grant mass amnesty and in her first 100 days, end virtually all immigration enforcement, and thus create totally open borders in the United States.” THE FACTS: It’s not true that Clinton’s plan would create open borders. Her plan does call for a pathway to citizenship that would allow people currently in the country illegally to stay, but only after going through a series of steps to become a citizen. On enforcement, Clinton has called for focusing on “detaining and deporting those individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety,” but not ending enforcement outright.” [Associated Press, 6/23/16]

Politifact: Trump’s Claim That Clinton Supported Totally Open Borders Was “False” And “A Huge Distortion Of Clinton’s Proposals.” “Trump said Clinton’s immigration platform would “create totally open borders.” This is a huge distortion of Clinton’s proposals. Clinton has praised work already done to secure the border, and she said she supported a 2013 bill that would have invested billions more in border security while creating a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants. Her plan calls for protecting the border and targeting deportation to criminals and security threats. Her plan would make it easier for many undocumented immigrants to avoid deportation, but that’s not the same as ending all enforcement. We rate this claim False.” [Politifact, 6/23/16]

Factcheck.Org: Clinton’s Immigration Policies Were “Far Short Of Advocating For Open Borders.” “At a campaign stop in November, Clinton was even more explicit. “We need to secure our borders, I’m for it, I voted for it, I believe in it, and we also need to deal with the families, the workers who are here, who have made contributions, and their children,” Clinton said in New Hampshire in November. “We can do more to secure our border and we should do more to deal with the 11 or 12 million people who are here, get them out of the shadows.” That’s far short of advocating for open borders.” [FactCheck.org, 7/19/16]

Politifact: “Rudy Giuliani Wrongly Says Hillary Clinton Is For Open Borders”[Politifact, 7/18/16]

Washington Post Fact Check: Giuliani Repeating Trump’s Claim That Clinton Supported Open Borders “Doesn’t Make It Any More Correct.” “Trump has made the same claim about Clinton recently, but Giuliani repeating it doesn’t make it any more correct. Giuliani exaggerates Clinton’s stance on border security and immigration enforcement. Clinton has said she would expand Obama’s executive actions on immigration, and has advocated comprehensive immigration reform including a pathway to citizenship. But she also has supported enhanced border security. And her immigration proposal includes “humane, targeted and effective” enforcement and focusing immigration resources on detaining and deporting those “who pose a threat to public safety.”” [Washington Post, 7/19/16]
V/O: It’s more of the same, but worse

 

 

 CLINTON HAS SAID SHE WOULD DEFEND OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ACTIONS TO KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER

As President, Clinton Will Defend DACA And DAPA And “Do Everything Possible Under The Law To Protect Families.” “As president, Hillary will… Defend President Obama’s executive actions—known as DACA and DAPA—against partisan attacks. The Supreme Court’s deadlocked decision on DAPA was a heartbreaking reminder of how high the stakes are in this election. Hillary believes DAPA is squarely within the president’s authority and won’t stop fighting until we see it through. … Do everything possible under the law to protect families. If Congress keeps failing to act on comprehensive immigration reform, Hillary will enact a simple system for those with sympathetic cases—such as parents of DREAMers, those with a history of service and contribution to their communities, or those who experience extreme labor violations—to make their case and be eligible for deferred action.” [Hillary for America, accessed 8/15/16]
V/O: Donald Trump’s America is secure.

 

 

 NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERTS SAY TRUMP WOULD MAKE AMERICA LESS SAFE, AND HAS ALREADY

Former CIA Director Hayden Agreed Trump Had Become A “Recruiting Sergeant” For ISIS And Al Qaeda And His Comments “Have Already Made Americans Less Safe.” “Former CIA chief Michael Hayden said in a new interview that he agrees that Donald Trump has become a ‘recruiting sergeant’ for terrorists groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al Qaeda. ‘When Mr. Trump says some of the things that he has said — ‘they all hate us,’ ‘we shouldn’t let any of those people in our country’ — what he does is underscore and underpin the fundamentals of [the ISIS] narrative of undying enmity,’ Hayden told Al Jazeera English’s ‘Upfront.’ Trump’s statements ‘have already made Americans less safe,’ Hayden said in the interview, which will air April 1.” [The Hill, 3/29/16]

Graham: “Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Is Isolationism. It Will Lead To Another 9/11.” GRAHAM: “But there’s a civil war going on in the Republican Party, obviously. John and I are very close friends, but he’s embracing Donald Trump, and I am not. Why? Because I believe Donald Trump’s foreign policy is isolationism. It will lead to another 9/11.” [CBS, Face The Nation, 5/1/16]

Bob Gates On Trump: “I Have No Idea What His Policy Would Be In Terms Of Dealing With ISIS. I Worry A Little Bit About His Admiration For Vladimir Putin.”JOHN DICKERSON: We began by asking him for his thoughts on Donald Trump. FMR. SEC. BOB GATES: Well, I have some real issues with things he’s said about national security policy. And some concerns. I think there are some contradictions. You can’t have a trade war with China and then turn around and ask them to help you on North Korea. I have no idea what his policy would be in terms of dealing with ISIS. I worry a little bit about his admiration for Vladimir Putin. […] I guess one of the things that makes it challenging for me is that he seems to think that he has all the answers. And that he doesn’t need any advice from staff or anybody else. And that he knows more about these things than anybody else. And doesn’t really feel the need to surround himself with informed advisors. You know, I worked for some very different presidents of those eight. People would say, ‘How could you work for both Barack Obama and George W. Bush.’ I remind them, ‘Well, I worked for Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.’ The difference is, each one of those presidents, as strong minded as each of them was, understood he did not have all the answers and surrounded himself with experienced, thoughtful people who would give good advice and they were willing to listen. [CBS, Face The Nation, 5/15/16]

HEADLINE: “50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘At Risk’” [New York Times, 8/8/16]

•    Fifty Senior Republican National Security Officials Signed A Letter Declaring Trump “Would Be The Most Reckless President In American History.” “Fifty of the nation’s most senior Republican national security officials, many of them former top aides or cabinet members for President George W. Bush, have signed a letter declaring that Donald J. Trump ‘lacks the character, values and experience’ to be president and ‘would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.’ Mr. Trump, the officials warn, ‘would be the most reckless president in American history.’” [New York Times, 8/8/16]

•    The Experts Wrote That Trump “Lacks The Temperament To Be President” And Has “Dangerous Qualities” For Someone Who Would Command The Nuclear Arsenal. “In the new letter, the group warns Trump ‘lacks the temperament to be President.’ ‘He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior,’ the letter claims. ‘All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.’” [CNN, 8/8/16]

121 Republican National Security Experts Wrote An Open Letter Saying They Would Not Support Trump For President. “We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on America’s role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly: His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence. His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world. […] He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation. […] Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office.” [War On The Rocks, 3/2/16]

UNDER TRUMP’S PLANS, THE ECONOMY WOULD LOSE NEARLY 3.5 MILLION JOBS AND FALL INTO A “LENGTHY RECESSION”

Moody’s Analytics: Under Trump’s Policies, The Economy Would Lose Nearly 3.5 Million Jobs And Fall Into A “Lengthy Recession.” “This paper assesses the macroeconomic consequences of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposed economic policies. These include his policies on taxes and government spending, immigration, and international trade. […] The U.S. economy will weaken significantly if Mr. Trump’s economic policies are fully implemented as he has proposed. The economy will suffer a recession that begins in early 2018 and extends into 2020 (see Table 1). During this downturn, real GDP will decline peak to trough by close to 2.4%. This would be an unusually lengthy recession—even longer than the Great Recession—although the severity of the decline in economic activity would be more consistent with a typical recession suffered since World War II. Employment will continue to decline and unemployment will rise into the next presidential term, with the unemployment rate peaking at 7.4% in summer 2021. […] By the end of his presidency, there are close to 3.5 million fewer jobs and the unemployment rate rises to as high as 7%, compared with below 5% today. During Mr. Trump’s presidency, the average American household’s after-inflation income will stagnate, and stock prices and real house values will decline.” [Moody’s Analytics, 6/17/16]
V/O: Terrorists and dangerous criminals kept out, the border secure, our families safe. TRUMP’S BORDER WALL PROPOSAL WAS RIDICULED AS IMPRACTICAL, UNNECESSARY, AND INEFFECTIVE

Rick Perry Agreed Trump’s Proposed Border Wall Could Not Be Built: “It’s A Technological Wall, It’s A Digital Wall… There Are Some That Hear This Is Going To Be 1,200 Miles From Brownsville To El Paso, 30-Foot High, And Listen, I Know You Can’t Do That.” “Donald Trump’s proposal to build a wall along the expanse of the United States’ border with Mexico is not going to happen, as far as former Texas Gov. Rick Perry is concerned. At least not in the physical sense. ‘I’m for Donald Trump, and he says we’re going to build a wall, the Mexicans are gonna pay for it,’ Perry told Snapchat’s Peter Hamby on ‘Good Luck America.’   Hamby remarked, ‘It’s not going to happen.’ ‘Well, it’s not,’ Perry said, explaining, ‘It’s a wall, but it’s a technological wall, it’s a digital wall.’ Perry, who is supporting Trump, commented, ‘There are some that hear this is going to be 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso, 30-foot high, and listen, I know you can’t do that.’” [Politico, 7/11/16]

Politico: “Almost No One In The Rio Grande Valley—Including The Border Patrol Itself—Thinks ‘The Wall’ Is A Good Idea. The Wall, From Their Viewpoint, Is An Expensive, Pointless Boondoggle.” “Given the union’s strong support for Trump, you might be surprised to discover that many Border Patrol agents have one small policy difference with the candidate: Almost no one in the Rio Grande Valley—including the Border Patrol itself—thinks ‘The Wall’ is a good idea. The Wall, from their viewpoint, is an expensive, pointless boondoggle, and wouldn’t solve the main problems with border security.” [Politico Magazine, 7/18/16]

Security Experts Were More Concerned With The United States’ Northern Border From A Terrorism Perspective Than The Southern Border That Would Be Addressed By Trump’s Border Wall. “Trump’s Wall also belies another complicated reality: Security experts and CBP officials say that from a terrorism perspective, they’re more concerned about the northern border, which is much more loosely patrolled and has virtually no fencing, even as Canada struggles with its own homegrown radicalization problems. While there’s plenty of human and narcotics smuggling across the U.S.-Mexico border, and nearly 90 percent of the Border Patrol is focused on the southern border, no terrorist has ever used it to enter the United States illegally. For all the heated political rhetoric about ISIL sneaking over from Mexico, all domestic terror attacks have been carried out by people who flew into the United States on commercial airliners or by terrorists who were legally in the country—and would-be terrorists have been stopped sneaking across only one of the U.S. land borders: the northern one.” [Politico Magazine, 7/18/16]
V/O: Change that makes America safe again. Donald Trump for president.

 

DONALD TRUMP: I’m Donald Trump, and I approve this message.

 

  

For all the latest, follow our Scheduled Events page and follow Clinton on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Also, be sure to subscribe to the campaign’s official Podcast, With Her.

Clinton Campaign Reinforces Clinton’s Good Health

Hillary_for_America_2016_logo.svg

Today, Hillary for America released a fact sheet combating conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health. The release references the official physicians report released by Clinton’s doctor in 2015 and denies all allegations that Clinton’s health is failing. The full release is below.

Trump Pushes Deranged Conspiracy About Clinton’s Health To Distract From Tax Return Questions

Facing withering criticism from national media outlets, state editorial boards and even some Republican allies over his refusal to release his tax returns, Donald Trump is once again peddling deranged conspiracy theories in a desperate attempt to change the subject – this time with absurd and debunked claims about Hillary Clinton’s health.

This is hardly the first time Trump and his allies have donned tin foil hats when things weren’t going his way.  When his back was previously up against the wall, he’s suggested President Obama was a Muslim with ISIS sympathies, that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered and that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Now, with the help of his well-oiled network of conspiracy peddlers – from Roger Stone to Sean Hannity – Trump is desperately trying to give life to already busted myths about the health of a woman whose stamina and focus was publicly lauded following an 11 hours long hearing about the tragedy in Benghazi.

Per his long pattern, Trump will clearly say or do anything to avoid the barrage of questions only his tax returns can answer: Whether he’s worth as much as he dubiously claims?  Whether his pro-Kremlin policies stem from financial conflicts of interest with Russian oligarchs?  Or whether he actually gives as much as he says to charity?

“While it is dismaying to see the Republican nominee for president push deranged conspiracy theories in a foreign policy speech, it’s no longer surprising,” said Jennifer Palmieri. “Donald Trump is simply parroting lies based on fabricated documents promoted by Roger Stone and his right wing allies. Hillary Clinton has released a detailed medical record showing her to be in excellent health plus her personal tax returns since 1977, while Trump has failed to provide the public with the most basic financial information disclosed by every major candidate in the last 40 years. It’s time for him to stop using shameful distractions to hide his own record.”

Two Deranged, Debunked Conspiracies About Clinton’s Health

The Doctors’ Letters

Trump confidant and discredited conspiracy peddler Roger Stone and his right-wing allies have been pushing fake medical documents supposedly leaked from Hillary Clinton’s physician that purport to show grave health problems.

However, here’s a statement from the actual Dr. Lisa Bardack, Hillary Clinton’s real internist and Chairman of the Department of Medicine at CareMount Medical, debunking the veracity of these false documents:

“As Secretary Clinton’s long time physician, I released a medical statement during the campaign indicating that she is in excellent health.  I have recently been made aware of allegedly ‘leaked’ medical documents regarding Secretary Clinton with my name on them. These documents are false, were not written by me and are not based on any medical facts. To reiterate what I said in my previous statement, Secretary Clinton is in excellent health and fit to serve as President of the United States.”

Here’s a link to the actual medical records about Hillary Clinton released by Dr. Bardack (written on actual letterhead) with the concluding summary directly below:

20160816 Release Photo 1-1

 Now compare that to the medical records released from Donald Trump’s gastroenterologist – not internist — that makes several peculiar claims that Kurt Eichenwald, senior writer at Newsweek, dissected in a must watch segment on CNN this morning:

  1. Eichenwald: “This is not a real letter because what you have, number one, it’s not from an internist. It’s from a doctor who treats digestive problems.”

20160816 Release Picture #2

  1. Eichenwald: “He says that all of Mr. Trump’s medical tests are positive. That means that everything he was tested for, he has. No competent or real doctor would write this.”

Only Positive Results

  1. Eichenwald: “It also says such things as ‘Donald Trump will be the healthiest president in the history of the United States.’ That sounds a lot like Donald Trump.”

20160816 Release Picture #3

  1. Eichenwald: “It doesn’t have a real letter letterhead. The letterhead was written on Microsoft Word.”

20160816 Release Picture #4

Hannity Drafts Urologist To Diagnose Potential Head Trauma Via Video Tape

To push the baseless narrative about lingering head trauma, Trump surrogate Sean Hannity drafted a urologist – not a neurologist – wearing a white physician’s coat to help diagnose whether a video tape was evidence of repercussions from previous head trauma.

For all the latest, follow our Scheduled Events page and follow Clinton on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. Also, be sure to subscribe to the campaign’s official Podcast, With Her.