Hillary for America Statement on Trump’s Misleading Ad

NEW YORK–(ENEWSPF)–August 19, 2016.  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: 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]




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]



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




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] 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.”  [, 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]




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



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]




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]



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 


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, 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]




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



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.” [, 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


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.





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]




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.





Summer and Fall at Prairie State College

Final 2023 Mayoral Forum with Joe Woods

Final Village Trustee Forum – March 19, 2023