The Gain Control Series - Miscellaneous Mayhem

by Dr. Ellen Brandt


This series offers our two cents worth of advice to Candidate Trump, telling him how we - GOP Base Loyalists - might like him to respond, in debates and otherwise, to specific kinds of attacks by Hillary Clinton.


The series now proceeds to a grab bag of attacks which were made in the First Debate, dropped in the Second Debate, possibly because of the Town Hall format, but which could emerge again towards the end of the campaign.


As Republicans, many of us think these particular points of attack are inconsequential, certainly not matters of national import which deserve a place in a Clean Campaign. But they've become part of the grease and grime of the Clintonistas' Dirty Campaign and, as such, must be taken care of in a calm and efficient manner - if possible conveying the message that, "We Republicans are better than this and would love to get back to real issues. But since Secretary Clinton continues to fling mud, here's how we wash it all off."


We here outline brief suggested responses to five such Miscellaneous Mudslingings: the Birther issue, contractor lawsuits, bankruptcy allegations, the family foundation and its miscalculations, and the charge that - horror of horrors! - some Trump companies have lost money.


Trump Channeling Our Advice (On the Birther issue): My distinguished Opponent, as we all know, also utilized this particular issue during her 2008 campaign for the Democratic nomination.


At that time, many questions had been raised which had not been thoroughly investigated. Some Republicans and some non-Republicans think that still more investigation needs to be made. But we no longer believe this is true - nor, I hasten to add, does Secretary Clinton. So we are both on the same side of this issue now. Case closed.


Trump Channeling Our Advice (On Contractor Lawsuits): To be frank, this entire line of attack seems so irrelevant, it continues to baffle both me and Republicans in general.


Business people operate in the worlds that surround their industries and their particular sectors of those industries. In order to be successful, you need to become a respected part of your industry. I believe I have been greatly respected - in fact, admired - within my industry, as were my father before me and my children today.


Bringing up class action disputes from 30 or 40 - or even 50! - years ago in a purely political attempt to "prove" anything whatsoever seems the height of folly.


Has my particular industry made mistakes in the past? Of course, it has, as all industries have. Have any of my principal or subsidiary companies participated in such mistaken actions? Again, of course, we have. Industries and companies, like individual human beings, make errors, correct those errors, and continue to improve and to grow.


All business people understand this. And I would hope Secretary Clinton, despite her dearth of business experience, might be able to grasp these concepts, as well.


Trump Channeling Our Advice (On Bankruptcy Allegations): In my almost 50 very successful years in business, I've launched approximately (GIVE NUMBER) new principal and subsidiary companies, creating thousands upon thousands of new jobs.


Of that number, which most would consider impressive, only (GIVE NUMBER) companies, all subsidiary companies, have run into difficulty and taken advantage of the business protection and income protection statutes which almost all large companies - and many medium-sized or small companies - take advantage of, if a pressing need presents itself.


This manufactured political issue is analogous to the manufactured taxation issues we've discussed before. Any and every truly successful businessman or businesswoman is going to hire the best lawyers and accountants and advisors, who in turn are going to assist her or him in utilizing existing laws and existing legislation in the ways that benefit his or her companies the most.

Secretary Clinton seems to be accusing me, in essence, of choosing to make beneficial business decisions, under the letter of the law, rather than bad business decisions, that she would somehow approve of more readily.


This is Through-the-Looking-Glass fuzzy thinking on her part. And what it proves, once again, is that her own business prowess and judgment are questionable - not mine.


Trump Channeling Our Advice (On His Family Foundation and Its Miscalculations): Most Republicans - and by this time, one would hope most Americans - realize that any mudslinging against our relatively small, domestically-oriented Family Foundation is a blatant attempt to deflect the myriad scandals - which many think may skirt the borders of High Treason - at the Clinton Foundation, a large, extremely influential, and internationally important - in the very worst sense! - institution.


Our Trump Foundation is a true domestically-based "family office" kind of entity, akin to all the very comparable family philanthropic foundations you see funding public television or museums or the national parks - all of which we also contribute to.


And if we have made some paperwork mistakes in our funding - that's what they amount to - we are extremely sorry and have now made amends, financial and otherwise, to any complaining entities involved.


How can one possibly compare this to the vampire squid which is the Clinton Foundation? It seems to have its hands out to every government or corporation or political group in the world that thinks it needs government access at the highest levels in the United States. And in most cases, the Clinton Foundation has been happy to deliver that access on what most believe is a "pay for play" basis.


The Clinton Foundation is a global morass of pure corruption, according to many who have studied its complicated and Machiavellian operations. It is, of course, the "family foundation" everyone should be focusing on now - and my distinguished Opponent fully understands this.


Trump Channeling Our Advice (On the Charge Some Trump Companies Have Lost Money): On this charge that - horror of horrors! - some of my business ventures have lost money over the course of my 50 years as an entrepreneur and business leader: Hillary, you are absolutely right!


The hallmark of a successful and creative entrepreneur is taking chances, taking risks, in order to make wonderful things happen. They have to be calculated risks and risks you can afford to make, of course. I think the very fact that our core business of real estate has been able to expand and grow and create jobs and help the various states and cities into which we've expanded proves that the majority of the risks we've taken have panned out.


If Secretary Clinton doesn't understand what business is like, what entrepreneurship is like, what creative risk-taking is like - well, once again, that is par for the course for someone whose entire career has been spent inside a cocoon of protection and privilege and being "anointed" by the wolves of Wall Street and the Thug-Elite of the Globalist Agenda.

It all returns to what we've been talking about since the beginning of our campaign: Is America satisfied with the status quo? Or are we finally ready to take some risks - Yes, some entrepreneurial risks! - to get this country moving again?



**********************************************