Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (8 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

Back in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States. Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations. These corporate behemoths control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day. They own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites. Sadly, most Americans don’t even stop to think about who is feeding them the endless hours of news and entertainment that they constantly ingest. Most Americans don’t really seem to care about who owns the media. But they should. The truth is that each of us is deeply influenced by the messages that are constantly being pounded into our heads by the mainstream media. The average American watches 153 hours of television a month. In fact, most Americans begin to feel physically uncomfortable if they go too long without watching or listening to something. Sadly, most Americans have become absolutely addicted to news and entertainment and the ownership of all that news and entertainment that we crave is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands each year.

The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal. Together, the “big six” absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States. But even those areas of the media that the “big six” do not completely control are becoming increasingly concentrated. For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are increasingly dominating the Internet.

But it is the “big six” that are the biggest concerns. When you control what Americans watch, hear and read you gain a great deal of control over what they think. They don’t call it “programming” for nothing.

Back in 1983 it was bad enough that about 50 corporations dominated U.S. media. But since that time, power over the media has rapidly become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people…

One of the interesting and unanswered questions about the 2016 campaign is this: How is it possible that the race seems close, even though large majorities of Americans consistently tell pollsters that they don’t think Donald Trump is qualified or temperamentally fit for the presidency?

This week’s Post poll, for instance, found that 62 percent of Americans say they don’t think Trump “is qualified to serve as president,” while only 36 percent say he is qualified. By contrast, they say by 60-39 that Hillary Clinton is qualified. Meanwhile, they also say by 61-30 that Clinton has the “better personality and temperament to effectively serve as president.” Previous Post polls have shown similar findings.

Meanwhile, a CNN poll from July found that 67 percent said Trump does not have “the right experience to be president,” while 64 percent said that Clinton does have the right experience.

Is there any precedent in the modern polling era for a major party nominee to be regarded as unqualified for the job or fundamentally unfit for it by such large majorities?
(more)

"Trump is a national disgrace and an international pariah," Powell wrote in June.

"He appeals to the worst angels of the GOP nature and poor white folks," Powell wrote in another email.
(more)

~~
~~

Cummings also issued the following statement:

[blockquote style="border: solid #000000 1px;padding:10px;"]“This email exchange shows that Secretary Powell advised Secretary Clinton with a detailed blueprint on how to skirt security rules and bypass requirements to preserve federal records, although Secretary Clinton has made clear that she did not rely on this advice. This email exchange also illustrates the longstanding problem that no Secretary of State ever used an official unclassified email account until the current Secretary of State. The Republican obsession with Secretary Clinton has reached a fever pitch, and they have been using taxpayer resources to single her out in a desperate and abusive attempt to hurt her presidential campaign. If Republicans were truly concerned with transparency, strengthening FOIA, and preserving federal records, they would be attempting to recover Secretary Powell’s emails from AOL, but they have taken no steps to do so despite the fact that this period—including the run-up to the Iraq War—was critical to our nation’s history.”

In 2014, the State Department sent a letter asking Secretary Powell to provide all records—including emails from his personal email account—that were not in the State Department’s recordkeeping system.

On March 8, 2015, Secretary Powell said during an appearance on ABC’s This Week that he no longer had emails from his personal account: “I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files.”

On October 21, 2015, the State Department sent another letter to Secretary Powell, this time asking him to contact his service provider, AOL, to determine whether any of his emails are still on their unclassified system.

As of November 6, 2015, Secretary Powell had not responded to this request, according to a letter from the State Department to the National Archives and Records Administration.

[font size="+1" color="red"]On February 3, 2016, the State Department Inspector General issued a memo identifying emails from Secretary Powell’s personal email account that contained classified information.[/font]

On July 7, 2016, the Inspector General testified before the Oversight Committee that Secretary Powell still had not responded to the request to contact AOL to recover his emails, including those that were classified.

Cummings obtained the email exchange between Secretary Powell and Secretary Clinton through a unique statutory provision known as the “Seven Member Rule” in which any seven members of the Oversight Committee may obtain federal records from federal agencies.

Click here to read the full email exchange.

[div style="float:right;"]8 July 2002

The Donald J. Trump Foundation is coming under increasing media pressure for misreporting a number of donations and using its money in a questionable fashion.

Schneiderman told CNN’s “The Lead” on Tuesday that his interest in Trump's foundation connects with his role "as regulator of nonprofits in New York state."

"We have been concerned that the Trump Foundation may have engaged in some impropriety from that point of view,” Schneiderman said.

“We’ve inquired into it and we’ve had correspondence with them. I didn’t make a big deal out of it or hold a press conference," he added. "We have been looking into the Trump Foundation to make sure it's complying with the laws governing charities in New York.”
(more)

The plot has thickened in the Donald Trump-Pam Bondi scandal. The New York Times reported that the $25,000 donation from his Foundation to support Bondi’s reelection (in violation of federal law) isn’t even Trump’s first brush with campaign donation violations. The Huffington Post reported that Bondi got not only the $25K from Trump–she got a deal on the Mar-a-Lago as the site for a campaign fundraiser. Cheaper than The Donald charges his campaign!

As The New York Times editorialized, “there’s little doubt they abused the public trust” and if the pay-to-play happened on their phone call, “it could be a crime.” What is coming next?

New York Times: Donald Trump’s Donation Is His Latest Brush With Campaign Fund Limits

By Steven Eder and Megan Twohey
September 6, 2016

Donald J. Trump, who has repeatedly denounced pay-to-play politics during his insurgent campaign, is now defending himself against claims that he donated $25,000 to a group supporting the Florida attorney general, Pam Bondi, to sway her office’s review of fraud allegations at Trump University.

Mr. Trump’s payment of a $2,500 penalty to the Internal Revenue Service over that 2013 campaign gift amounted to only the latest slap of his wrist in a decades-long record of shattering political donation limits and circumventing the rules governing contributions and lobbying.

In the 1980s, Mr. Trump was compelled to testify under oath before New York State officials after he directed tens of thousands of dollars to the president of the New York City Council through a myriad subsidiary companies to evade contribution limits. In the 1990s, the Federal Election Commission fined Mr. Trump for exceeding the annual limit on campaign contributions by $47,050, the largest violation in a single year. And in 2000, the New York State lobbying commission imposed a $250,000 fine for Mr. Trump’s failing to disclose the full extent of his lobbying of state legislators.

For the most part, Mr. Trump has seemed unrepentant. Testifying in 1988 about a $50,000 bank loan he had first guaranteed, and then repaid, on behalf of Andrew J. Stein’s successful campaign for New York City Council president, Mr. Trump made no bones about the move.

(more)

More Than Any Recent Democratic Nominee for President

Hillary for America announced that 95 retired Generals and Admirals, including a number of 4-Star Generals, have officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and Commander-in-Chief. Clinton is getting the backing of more senior military service members and former officials with command and management experience than any non-incumbent Democrat due to her proven record of diplomacy and steady leadership on the world stage. She will make her case tonight at the Commander-in-Chief Forum presented by NBC and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, lacks the knowledge, stability and values to be Commander-in-Chief. According to yesterday’s media reports, Trump has received more than 400 fewer endorsements than Mitt Romney received - 88 to Romney’s 500.

Today, General Lloyd “Fig” Newton, a 4-Star General and America’s first African-American Thunderbird pilot, joined his fellow military service members and released a statement endorsing Hillary Clinton for President: “I was privileged to serve my country for 34 plus years — my entire adult life — in the United States Air Force. Growing up in South Carolina, respect for individual liberties and the right for every person to vote was taught to me at an early age and it is of the utmost importance to me today. These fundamental rights are why I served and care so deeply about our great nation. Given the challenges we face around the world today, and the rhetoric we are hearing from some at home, I feel I have a moral imperative to come forth and endorse Secretary Hillary Clinton for President. This is not about Democrat or Republican, this is about who is best qualified to lead the country in this complex world we live in. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that has the experience, temperament, critical thinking and level-headed leadership to keep America safe and our partnerships strong. She has my vote in November.”

Hillary for America released the following list of service members who have officially endorsed: (see list in article)
(more)