Sep 15, 2024
Project 2025
A list of shitty things Trump plans to do if elected in 2024.
Most every drop of lunacy in this clip gets space in Project 2025, Agenda 47, been parroted by House Republicans & some have been on the Republican fantasy list since the Bush years.
— Scorched Earth Dem (@progavalanche) September 15, 2024
Crazy is who they are & what enables him.#DemCast #DemVoice1 #wtpBLUE pic.twitter.com/eG3C5YEWkb
Sep 14, 2024
50+ Years Ago
The suit against Trump University was settled for about $25,000,000.
Trump has a criminal pedigree that's pretty amazing, and don't forget:
In 1973, Trump and his daddy owned about 35,000 residential rental units.
Three-Five-Comma--Zero-Zero-Zero
8 of those 35,000 units were rented to black families.
Not eight thousand. Not eight hundred. Eight. As in 8.
0.023%
This case was settled a few years later for an unknown amount.
Case: United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc.
1:73-01529 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Filed Date: Oct. 15, 1973
Closed Date: June 10, 1977
Case Summary
Closed Date: June 10, 1977
Case Summary
This case was brought against Fred and Donald Trump, and their real estate company, in 1973 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
In October 1973, the Justice Department filed this civil rights case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (federal court in Brooklyn) against Fred Trump, Donald Trump, and their real estate company. The complaint alleged that the firm had committed systemic violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in their many complexes--39 buildings, between them containing over 14,000 apartments. The allegations included evidence from black and white "testers" who had sought to rent apartments; the white testers were told of vacancies; the black testers were not, or were steered to apartment complexes with a higher proportion of racial minorities. The complaint also alleged that Trump employees had placed codes next to housing applicant names to indicate if they were black.
The Trumps retained Roy Cohn, former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, to defend them; they counter-claimed against the government, seeking $100 million in damages for defamation.
The case was assigned to District Judge Edward R. Neaher. He dismissed the counterclaim and allowed the Fair Housing Act suit to proceed.
After two years, the matter settled with a consent decree, signed June 10, 1975. It included the ordinary disclaimer of liability (the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation), but prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling." In addition to a general injunction against discrimination, the decree prohibits specific discriminatory practices, such as lying about the availability of apartments or interfering with individuals' enjoyment of their housing rights through threats or coercion. Fred and Donald Trump were ordered to "thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis" with the Fair Housing Act. The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties. According to a contemporary article in the New York Times, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies, for two years; the League would get three days to provide qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.
The Justice Department called the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.” Newspaper headlines echoed that assessment. The New York Amsterdam News, for example, titled its article “Minorities win housing suit,” and told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”
In his autobiography, Donald Trump took a different view: “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt.”
For more information, see Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr. Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it (Washington Post, Jan. 23, 2016).
In 2017, the FBI released records of its investigation into the Trumps and their real estate company in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents included many pages of interviews with the company's then-current and former employees, interviews with residents of Trump properties, and people who had applied to Trump properties. The majority of interviewees were not aware of any discrimination occurring, but several contributed to the conclusion that the company was discriminating on the basis of race.
One interviewee, a black prospective tenant, noted that, in person, a leasing manager showed her several available apartments but later called her to tell her that she could not have an apartment in that complex "as they discriminated against blacks." He then asked her not to make any trouble as he needed the job.
Another interviewee, an employee of the company for two weeks, indicated that in his time at the company he fielded an inquiry from a black applicant who he judged to be an acceptable tenant but was told by another individual at the company that "they're blacks and that's that." He also indicated that he believed others working at the rental office used a code on the top of the front page of rental applications to "distinguish blacks from whites."
Also in the documents were records from the New York State Division of Human Rights and the NYC Human Rights Commission complaints and hearings about discrimination at Trump properties. The complaints were mooted when the company offered the complaining parties apartments in their properties. A 1968 hearing of the NYC Human Rights Commission, however, found that discrimination had occurred at a Trump property. The commission ordered the company to cease and desist from their discriminatory practices, pay damages to the complainant, and inform a fair housing organization whenever apartments at the property became available.
In October 1973, the Justice Department filed this civil rights case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (federal court in Brooklyn) against Fred Trump, Donald Trump, and their real estate company. The complaint alleged that the firm had committed systemic violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in their many complexes--39 buildings, between them containing over 14,000 apartments. The allegations included evidence from black and white "testers" who had sought to rent apartments; the white testers were told of vacancies; the black testers were not, or were steered to apartment complexes with a higher proportion of racial minorities. The complaint also alleged that Trump employees had placed codes next to housing applicant names to indicate if they were black.
The Trumps retained Roy Cohn, former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, to defend them; they counter-claimed against the government, seeking $100 million in damages for defamation.
The case was assigned to District Judge Edward R. Neaher. He dismissed the counterclaim and allowed the Fair Housing Act suit to proceed.
After two years, the matter settled with a consent decree, signed June 10, 1975. It included the ordinary disclaimer of liability (the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a violation), but prohibited the Trumps from "discriminating against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling." In addition to a general injunction against discrimination, the decree prohibits specific discriminatory practices, such as lying about the availability of apartments or interfering with individuals' enjoyment of their housing rights through threats or coercion. Fred and Donald Trump were ordered to "thoroughly acquaint themselves personally on a detailed basis" with the Fair Housing Act. The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their properties. According to a contemporary article in the New York Times, Trump Management was required to furnish the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies, for two years; the League would get three days to provide qualified applicants for every fifth vacancy in Trump buildings where fewer than 10 percent of the tenants were black.
The Justice Department called the decree “one of the most far-reaching ever negotiated.” Newspaper headlines echoed that assessment. The New York Amsterdam News, for example, titled its article “Minorities win housing suit,” and told readers that “qualified Blacks and Puerto Ricans now have the opportunity to rent apartments owned by Trump Management.”
In his autobiography, Donald Trump took a different view: “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt.”
For more information, see Michael Kranish and Robert O'Harrow Jr. Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it (Washington Post, Jan. 23, 2016).
In 2017, the FBI released records of its investigation into the Trumps and their real estate company in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The documents included many pages of interviews with the company's then-current and former employees, interviews with residents of Trump properties, and people who had applied to Trump properties. The majority of interviewees were not aware of any discrimination occurring, but several contributed to the conclusion that the company was discriminating on the basis of race.
One interviewee, a black prospective tenant, noted that, in person, a leasing manager showed her several available apartments but later called her to tell her that she could not have an apartment in that complex "as they discriminated against blacks." He then asked her not to make any trouble as he needed the job.
Another interviewee, an employee of the company for two weeks, indicated that in his time at the company he fielded an inquiry from a black applicant who he judged to be an acceptable tenant but was told by another individual at the company that "they're blacks and that's that." He also indicated that he believed others working at the rental office used a code on the top of the front page of rental applications to "distinguish blacks from whites."
Also in the documents were records from the New York State Division of Human Rights and the NYC Human Rights Commission complaints and hearings about discrimination at Trump properties. The complaints were mooted when the company offered the complaining parties apartments in their properties. A 1968 hearing of the NYC Human Rights Commission, however, found that discrimination had occurred at a Trump property. The commission ordered the company to cease and desist from their discriminatory practices, pay damages to the complainant, and inform a fair housing organization whenever apartments at the property became available.
Overheard
When the guy offering you salvation
threatens you with unbearable suffering
if you decline his offer - that's not salvation.
That's extortion.
Sep 13, 2024
Even WaPo Gets It
Trump is very worried that Haitian immigrants are eating people's pets in Ohio, so I guess he'll be leaving Lindsey Graham at home on his next trip up there.
Fox News cleans up another Trump mess
After the debate, the network worked to keep the MAGA faithful in a state of blissful ignorance.
The reviews were almost universally savage after Donald Trump’s debate debacle, in which the former president ranted about migrants eating pets while getting his clock cleaned by an opponent he had insisted was “stupid.” Even the Wall Street Journal’s right-wing editorialists thought that Vice President Kamala Harris “won the debate because she came in with a strategy to taunt and goad Mr. Trump into diving down rabbit holes of personal grievance and vanity,” while Karl Rove added in a column that the night “was a train wreck for him, far worse than anything Team Trump could have imagined.”
And then, in a universe all its own, was Fox News.
“All the memorable lines were from Donald Trump,” host Jesse Watters proclaimed after the debate ended. (He specifically cited Trump’s “eating the pets” line.) “He just had some great knockouts,” Watters added. “And so this race just got tighter.”
“That’s probably true,” anchor Bret Baier agreed.
An ebullient Harris campaign immediately called for another debate. (Trump, who once called for debates “ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ANYPLACE,” eventually refused the challenge after much hemming and hawing.) But Harris’s gesture of confidence prompted Fox News’s Laura Ingraham to argue: “They don’t think she won. They don’t think she’s in a position to win this race.”
Sean Hannity interviewed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who claimed Trump notched “a big win.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Trump had “the best closing in presidential debate history.”
Trump himself joined Hannity in the spin room. “I think it was my best debate ever,” he said.
And that was just within the first 75 minutes after the debate. The next morning, Trump was back, on “Fox & Friends.” “I won the debate by a lot,” he said, and “every single poll last night had me winning like 90-10.” The hosts did not contradict him. At the same time, Trump argued that ABC News should lose its broadcasting license, because “they had a rigged show with somebody that maybe even had the answers.”
On Wednesday afternoon, Watters returned to the airwaves. “I found [Harris] evasive, found her unlikable, preachy and, instinctually, I don’t know that’s going to play with men,” he said. “The signature moments that you see on the internet after this, she didn’t have any. … Trump had them all.”
On Thursday afternoon, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt announced on Fox that Trump “is in the process of winning the debate” because “a debate isn’t over in a day” and “upon further review, the American public has decided that debate was rigged.”
It was a case study in how the dominant “news” organ of the right cleans up Trump’s messes. When President Joe Biden had his disastrous debate, liberal outlets and commentators panned the performance and ultimately helped to force him out of the race. But when Trump had what was, objectively, a bad night, Fox News led a movement to claim it didn’t happen.
Sixty-seven million viewers saw an out-of-control Trump claim he won the 2020 election, complain that those who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were “treated so badly,” argue about his crowd size, assert that he had read that Harris “was not Black” and that Biden “hates her,” admit that he still only has “concepts of a plan” on health care, make odd statements such as “I got involved with the Taliban” and “she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison,” and utter this ludicrous slander about Haitian migrants: “They’re eating the dogs, the people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”
Fox News then told its viewers (14 million people watched the simulcast on the network) that they had not seen what they just saw. Unless I missed it, viewers also weren’t told the other news of the night, that Taylor Swift had endorsed Harris after the debate.
Often, after my weekly cataloguing of Trump’s madness and mayhem, readers ask why his followers don’t see that he is off his rocker. This is why. Fox News sane-washes him — and it sets the tone for the entire MAGA social media ecosystem.
The main disagreement on the network seemed to be between those who believed the debate had been a triumph for Trump and those who believed the two ABC News moderators denied the GOP nominee his rightful triumph.
“Tonight’s debate was three on one,” proposed Hannity.
“Yes, it was a three-on-one debate,” chorused Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
“Three against one,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.).
“It was three on one,” said Lara Trump.
“We had three against one,” said Trump himself.
During a commercial break came, in at least certain markets, an ad from right-wing billionaire Richard Uihlein’s super-PAC blaming Harris for “murders, rapes, attacks on children” and for being “a complete failure.” It was difficult to distinguish the news coverage from the attack ad.
Fox News host Sean Hannity in the spin room before the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on Tuesday in Philadelphia. (Matt Rourke/AP)
If Fox News viewers were listening carefully, they could have heard snippets of reality. Brit Hume acknowledged that “Trump had a bad night” and that Harris was “a different person from the absolute dunderhead so many of us thought she was during her conduct as vice president.” And a token Democrat, former congressman Harold Ford, politely disagreed with the general tenor of things: “I just think she won.”
But after 15 minutes of this post-debate “analysis,” Hannity took over the anchor chair and ended all dissent. He said Harris had presented nothing but “pre-rehearsed, memorized platitudes” and “lots of kind of weird faces and expressions.” He then went after the “left-wing moderators. The biggest loser of the night, ABC, Disney, Bob Iger’s network. It was a disgrace.” Hannity was upset that the moderators had not brought up the vice president’s position on “banning plastic straws,” among other things.
“It’s an embarrassment to journalism,” said Rubio.
“The ABC moderators were complicit in her running a completely fact free debate performance,” submitted Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.).
Trump running mate JD Vance, also joining Hannity, agreed that the moderators “did a terrible job” while “President Trump did a good job.”
Hannity was upset that Harris “wasn’t fact-checked.” (Maybe this was because Harris hadn’t claimed migrants were eating people’s pets.)
Hannity decided to “dip in” to post-debate remarks by Harris to supporters but cut that off after 31 seconds, just as she was about to give her assessment of the debate. Then he tried to broadcast an unannounced appearance by Trump in the spin room. But this didn’t go well, either, because, while it was difficult to hear Trump, reporters’ questions were loud and clear:
Why didn’t you look at her?
Did she get under your skin?
Why not let the performance speak for itself?
Why not have a second debate?
Trump made his way over to Hannity for some gentler treatment. The former president informed his interviewer that he had “won the debate” and “we’re getting great reviews.” As evidence, he cited viewer surveys from right-wing sites. “We looked at one poll, it was 92 to 7,” he said. “We looked at another, 86 to 3.”
“Wow,” Hannity replied.
At one point, Trump started to veer into repeating his claims that migrants are eating pets — and Hannity cut him off.
“Your people are calling for you to roll,” he said.
The next morning on Fox News, Trump was still maintaining that “every single poll had us winning by a lot, despite the fact that it was an unfair debate obviously.”
And the Fox coverage continued to support that view. “It was a disaster for her last night. … Donald Trump did far better. … Who the hell do they think they are fact-checking?” House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), on Fox Business Network, cited the same “polls” that Trump did, saying, “he clearly prevailed.”
Vance, in another interview with Fox, said voters “are not going to be influenced by a billionaire celebrity who I think is fundamentally disconnected from the interests and the problems of most Americans.” (He was talking not about his boss but about Taylor Swift.)
In one lonely corner of Fox, host Neil Cavuto tried to preserve an island of sanity: “He says … he won the debate and all the polls show that he won the debate. I haven’t seen a single one show that,” he remarked to Trump surrogate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
“They’re polls that you see on the internet and a lot of them probably have statistical problems with them,” Kennedy acknowledged. “I would suspect that the polling over the next week is going to show probably a slight drop in his support, particularly among independents.”
Trump responded as though Cavuto had just eaten his pet. “Neil Cavuto, Fox’s Lowest Rated Anchor, is one of the WORST on Television,” he posted on social media.
Of course, Trump doesn’t have a real pet. Fox News is his pet. And if he’s to keep the MAGA faithful in a state of blissful ignorance, he’s going to need Fox to roll over — again and again.
After the debate, the network worked to keep the MAGA faithful in a state of blissful ignorance.
The reviews were almost universally savage after Donald Trump’s debate debacle, in which the former president ranted about migrants eating pets while getting his clock cleaned by an opponent he had insisted was “stupid.” Even the Wall Street Journal’s right-wing editorialists thought that Vice President Kamala Harris “won the debate because she came in with a strategy to taunt and goad Mr. Trump into diving down rabbit holes of personal grievance and vanity,” while Karl Rove added in a column that the night “was a train wreck for him, far worse than anything Team Trump could have imagined.”
And then, in a universe all its own, was Fox News.
“All the memorable lines were from Donald Trump,” host Jesse Watters proclaimed after the debate ended. (He specifically cited Trump’s “eating the pets” line.) “He just had some great knockouts,” Watters added. “And so this race just got tighter.”
“That’s probably true,” anchor Bret Baier agreed.
An ebullient Harris campaign immediately called for another debate. (Trump, who once called for debates “ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ANYPLACE,” eventually refused the challenge after much hemming and hawing.) But Harris’s gesture of confidence prompted Fox News’s Laura Ingraham to argue: “They don’t think she won. They don’t think she’s in a position to win this race.”
Sean Hannity interviewed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who claimed Trump notched “a big win.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Trump had “the best closing in presidential debate history.”
Trump himself joined Hannity in the spin room. “I think it was my best debate ever,” he said.
And that was just within the first 75 minutes after the debate. The next morning, Trump was back, on “Fox & Friends.” “I won the debate by a lot,” he said, and “every single poll last night had me winning like 90-10.” The hosts did not contradict him. At the same time, Trump argued that ABC News should lose its broadcasting license, because “they had a rigged show with somebody that maybe even had the answers.”
On Wednesday afternoon, Watters returned to the airwaves. “I found [Harris] evasive, found her unlikable, preachy and, instinctually, I don’t know that’s going to play with men,” he said. “The signature moments that you see on the internet after this, she didn’t have any. … Trump had them all.”
On Thursday afternoon, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt announced on Fox that Trump “is in the process of winning the debate” because “a debate isn’t over in a day” and “upon further review, the American public has decided that debate was rigged.”
It was a case study in how the dominant “news” organ of the right cleans up Trump’s messes. When President Joe Biden had his disastrous debate, liberal outlets and commentators panned the performance and ultimately helped to force him out of the race. But when Trump had what was, objectively, a bad night, Fox News led a movement to claim it didn’t happen.
Sixty-seven million viewers saw an out-of-control Trump claim he won the 2020 election, complain that those who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were “treated so badly,” argue about his crowd size, assert that he had read that Harris “was not Black” and that Biden “hates her,” admit that he still only has “concepts of a plan” on health care, make odd statements such as “I got involved with the Taliban” and “she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison,” and utter this ludicrous slander about Haitian migrants: “They’re eating the dogs, the people that came in. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”
Fox News then told its viewers (14 million people watched the simulcast on the network) that they had not seen what they just saw. Unless I missed it, viewers also weren’t told the other news of the night, that Taylor Swift had endorsed Harris after the debate.
Often, after my weekly cataloguing of Trump’s madness and mayhem, readers ask why his followers don’t see that he is off his rocker. This is why. Fox News sane-washes him — and it sets the tone for the entire MAGA social media ecosystem.
The main disagreement on the network seemed to be between those who believed the debate had been a triumph for Trump and those who believed the two ABC News moderators denied the GOP nominee his rightful triumph.
“Tonight’s debate was three on one,” proposed Hannity.
“Yes, it was a three-on-one debate,” chorused Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
“Three against one,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.).
“It was three on one,” said Lara Trump.
“We had three against one,” said Trump himself.
During a commercial break came, in at least certain markets, an ad from right-wing billionaire Richard Uihlein’s super-PAC blaming Harris for “murders, rapes, attacks on children” and for being “a complete failure.” It was difficult to distinguish the news coverage from the attack ad.
Fox News host Sean Hannity in the spin room before the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on Tuesday in Philadelphia. (Matt Rourke/AP)
If Fox News viewers were listening carefully, they could have heard snippets of reality. Brit Hume acknowledged that “Trump had a bad night” and that Harris was “a different person from the absolute dunderhead so many of us thought she was during her conduct as vice president.” And a token Democrat, former congressman Harold Ford, politely disagreed with the general tenor of things: “I just think she won.”
But after 15 minutes of this post-debate “analysis,” Hannity took over the anchor chair and ended all dissent. He said Harris had presented nothing but “pre-rehearsed, memorized platitudes” and “lots of kind of weird faces and expressions.” He then went after the “left-wing moderators. The biggest loser of the night, ABC, Disney, Bob Iger’s network. It was a disgrace.” Hannity was upset that the moderators had not brought up the vice president’s position on “banning plastic straws,” among other things.
“It’s an embarrassment to journalism,” said Rubio.
“The ABC moderators were complicit in her running a completely fact free debate performance,” submitted Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.).
Trump running mate JD Vance, also joining Hannity, agreed that the moderators “did a terrible job” while “President Trump did a good job.”
Hannity was upset that Harris “wasn’t fact-checked.” (Maybe this was because Harris hadn’t claimed migrants were eating people’s pets.)
Hannity decided to “dip in” to post-debate remarks by Harris to supporters but cut that off after 31 seconds, just as she was about to give her assessment of the debate. Then he tried to broadcast an unannounced appearance by Trump in the spin room. But this didn’t go well, either, because, while it was difficult to hear Trump, reporters’ questions were loud and clear:
Why didn’t you look at her?
Did she get under your skin?
Why not let the performance speak for itself?
Why not have a second debate?
Trump made his way over to Hannity for some gentler treatment. The former president informed his interviewer that he had “won the debate” and “we’re getting great reviews.” As evidence, he cited viewer surveys from right-wing sites. “We looked at one poll, it was 92 to 7,” he said. “We looked at another, 86 to 3.”
“Wow,” Hannity replied.
At one point, Trump started to veer into repeating his claims that migrants are eating pets — and Hannity cut him off.
“Your people are calling for you to roll,” he said.
The next morning on Fox News, Trump was still maintaining that “every single poll had us winning by a lot, despite the fact that it was an unfair debate obviously.”
And the Fox coverage continued to support that view. “It was a disaster for her last night. … Donald Trump did far better. … Who the hell do they think they are fact-checking?” House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), on Fox Business Network, cited the same “polls” that Trump did, saying, “he clearly prevailed.”
Vance, in another interview with Fox, said voters “are not going to be influenced by a billionaire celebrity who I think is fundamentally disconnected from the interests and the problems of most Americans.” (He was talking not about his boss but about Taylor Swift.)
In one lonely corner of Fox, host Neil Cavuto tried to preserve an island of sanity: “He says … he won the debate and all the polls show that he won the debate. I haven’t seen a single one show that,” he remarked to Trump surrogate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
“They’re polls that you see on the internet and a lot of them probably have statistical problems with them,” Kennedy acknowledged. “I would suspect that the polling over the next week is going to show probably a slight drop in his support, particularly among independents.”
Trump responded as though Cavuto had just eaten his pet. “Neil Cavuto, Fox’s Lowest Rated Anchor, is one of the WORST on Television,” he posted on social media.
Of course, Trump doesn’t have a real pet. Fox News is his pet. And if he’s to keep the MAGA faithful in a state of blissful ignorance, he’s going to need Fox to roll over — again and again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)