elkpark

... Except for the reporting that there is likely to be an economic downturn/recession.

That negative image of the Clinton Foundation is owed to a plan run by none other than Steve Bannon | Salon.com

But wait, there's more! Eric (Qusay :)) might be in trouble all on his own: Trump agrees to shutter charity amid scrutiny — but probe into Eric Trump Foundation continues | Salon.com

Trump Foundation agrees to dissolve with judge to oversee dispersal to other charities It does not stop the lawsuit by AG's office has filed against the foundation, which was formed in 1987 and that action will continue. "Our petition detailed a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation - including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more," Underwood said in a statement. "This amounted to the Trump Foundation functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump's business and political interests." ... "This is an important victory for the rule of law, making clear that there is one set of rules for everyone. We'll continue to move our suit forward to ensure that the Trump Foundation and its directors are held to account for their clear and repeated violations of state and federal law."

Hence the "if."

Here's a different point of view, from a different Republican former FEC chair and expert on election law: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/14/trumps-claim-that-he-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-law-is-weak-dangerous/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7d194963b4eb

It's not "he said/he said" if, as Cohen said in an interview over the weekend, the SCO has additional corroborating evidence to support his statements. The feds don't just take someone's word for something, esp. someone with a track record like Cohen's.

This afternoon, there's this: Trump’s Inauguration Paid Trump’s Company — With… — ProPublica Is there no limit to the corruption, self-dealing, and grifting? Is there no low to which they will not stoop? There's also this: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

From your mouth to God's ears! :)

More news: Education Secretary Betsy DeVos cancels student loan debt of $15

Because they only care about law and order (or credentials and qualifications) when it comes to other people, not themselves.

Apparently so. This afternoon, there's this: Trump Inauguration Spending Under Criminal Investigation by Federal Prosecutors - WSJ

Of course van Spakovsky says that; he's another far-right pundit who would defend Trump if he were strangling puppies on the steps of the White House. Trump appointed him to the infamous "voter fraud panel." He's making a career off terrifying people about the hordes of illegal voters throwing our elections. Not everyone, even on the right, agrees with him: Fox News' Judge Napolitano: We Now Know Trump 'Committed a Felony'

The statement you quote is by the right-wing website writer talking about the study. The quotes from the actual researchers who produced the study, farther down in the body of the article, are much more tentative and nuanced (e.g., "Even if it's ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing." (emphasis mine)). Also, what does this article have to do with DJT??

Just a reminder about Trump's frame of reference when he makes these comments -- it has been pointed out numerous times by numerous commentators that, when Trump talks about "the people," he means his supporters, not the general American public. When he says "people will revolt," he mean his supporters will revolt. He has no concept of the larger public (and, yes, the rest of us will be dancing in the streets :)).