Trump has had a good June raising campaign money. According to the Washington Post, he has raised $51 million altogether with $26M going to his own campaign. Hillary Clinton, By comparison, presumptive Democratic contender Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party collected $68.5 million in June, which included $40.5 million she raised directly for her campaign.
ONLINE VIDEO ATTACKS
Both Trump and Clinton got into the online video slams, today. Hillary's focused upon an issue that has appeared to wound Trump for the beginnings of his campaign, racism and bigotry:
Q: "Will you condemn David Duke and say that you don't want...white supremacists' [votes]?"— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 5, 2016
Trump: "I don't know."https://t.co/PD8bNwMsUK
Trump's attack slapped at her deep vulnerability, credibility:
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 6, 2016
FBI Yesterday, I wrote a column that focused upon Clinton getting slammed by FBI Director James P. Comey, yet, surviving a criminal investigation. At the time, I said that in my opinion, intent was a critical component to the ultimate decision. In fact, based upon Comey's comments focused upon intent.
COMEY COMES TO CONGRESS
Since Comey's announcement yesterday, there have been an spate of online attacks against Comey, some calling him a traitor, others insisting he is in the pocket of the Clinton's.
Early this morning, I wrote on social media:
"Last night, I heard experts claim that gross negligence is sufficient to prosecute. I have also heard the opposite. On the issue of intent, no matter how severe or harmful an act might be, with some laws, you need specific intent, some, you need general intent and others, gross negligence would be sufficient. Again, the examples that "if i speed, the DA must need to prove my intent"--that is not the case. In most of those cases intent is not needed, it is the act itself that implicates the crime or the unlawfulness. What I am discovering the past 24 hours is this--the scholars in this area are divided all over the board. What I suggest and hope for would be that the Director appear before Congress and testify under oath as to why he acted in the way he did. I think that would clear up much speculation, removing the curse of conspiracy theories indicting him and the FBI or the hearing might confirm them. It is in the public interest to hear more from the Director as there are way to many uncertainties. Putting politics aside, I hope you all agree.Thank you again"
Shortly afterwards, i was informed that he is scheduled to testify tomorrow. I think this is great.
I likewise wrote that I believe all information should come out about the candidates. I have repeatedly urged this, whether those records be Clinton foundation or Trump business records. I then said:
"I think Trump should release his taxes as they likewise are in the public interest at this point. He has been accused of some very unsavory business practices and in the interest of transparency, it would be very useful to know whether he has paid taxes, how much, the rate of taxes paid. It is not fair for all of us to pay taxes and this multi-billionaire use the laws of the nation to get preferential treatment and rigging the system because he can".
In response to a comment promoting that he keep his taxes private, I wrote:
"He first said he would when they are ready. Then be said he is being audited and his attorneys won't let him. The irs debunked that. I think he was not telling the truth because I know that attorneys cannot tell clients what to do. Even if he were to keep the most recent return out of view which I disagree, what about the other 28 years? I think this is pure and total bs protectionism by trumpers. Let us get to truth on all of this.."