(Trump.news) Despite earning a multimillion dollar income from speeches to big banks (that she says she’ll ‘rein in’), presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has lost confidence of investors, perhaps because they sense she is really a big government liberal posing as a pragmatic centrist. Whom do they trust more? Likely GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump. As reported by Bloomberg News:
More voters with a stake in the stock market say Donald Trump would be better as president for their portfolios than Hillary Clinton, with about one in four saying they’ll alter their asset mix if the Republican is elected and a similar share saying they’d do so if the Democrat wins.
A Bloomberg/Morning Consult national poll on investment, tax and economic issues shows voters with money in the market pick Trump over Clinton, 50 percent to 33 percent, as the person they think will be better for their portfolio. Those with more than $50,000 invested answer the question almost identically as smaller investors.
Partisanship is a driving force for their choices. Nearly eight in 10 Republicans say Trump would be better for their holdings, while about six in 10 Democrats say Clinton would. Independent voters are twice as likely to pick Trump as better for their portfolios.
Why? His business acumen, of course – the same acumen Clinton has criticized but does not have since she’s never run a business in her life. Read the full Bloomberg report here.
Fundraising is coming along: The latest “issue” GOP elites have with Trump is his lack of campaign money in the bank – which he has said is not a problem. But no matter; since Tuesday the Trump campaign has managed to rake in $11 million – not bad for a two-day haul – as reported by CNN:
Donald Trump and his joint fundraising committee have raised at least $11 million since Tuesday morning, Republicans said Wednesday, a tremendously quick haul that comes amid concerns about his fundraising ability.
Trump Victory, the joint fundraising account with the Republican National Committee, and Trump’s official campaign raised $5 million online since Tuesday morning, when it sent one of its first fundraising pitches to its email list, according to Sean Spicer, an RNC spokesman.
And that doesn’t include the $2 million in matching funds Trump said he would kick in. Read further details here.
Hardly a fan of Republicans or Trump, at least one writer over at that Left-wing hate site Slate is worried that the GOP candidate’s revealing speech against Clinton this week was very “terrifyingly effective” – that piece is here. But there are some factual errors that need to be cleared up here – and as usual, the Left-wing media hate machine is spinning out of control in its effort to discredit Trump.
One issue in particular is something that Trump brought up during his speech Tuesday: That at one point, Trump said, citing Schweizer, “Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.” Slate says not true and that the story has been “debunked” many times.
Actually, Trump is exactly right. From an April 23, 2015 New York Times report:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
Who’s lying, Schweitzer, The New York Times, and Trump – or Slate and the other Left-wing hate sites? You be the judge. The rest of the Times story is here.