An aside…
I live near a little town (developing country) where the only non-private primary care facility is a clinic sponsored by the Clinton Foundation. Though I have private insurance, my daughter once got her vaccines there because her pediatrician didn’t have them. The place was humble but clean and organized. They must see at least a hundred kids daily for vaccines and checkups.
Now back to our regular Clinton bashing. 
Given that Hillary and Trump are going after the same group of voters, white *Republican *suburbanites, I think the campaign is going pretty well for Hillary… 
Tim Kaine tells Stephen Colbert about that fateful call: Tim Kaine Recalls that Fateful Call from Hillary Clinton - YouTube
*Mittendorf and other people who study charities say the most general way to address how much a group spends on charities versus overhead is to look at the audited financial statements that consolidate the financial results of the entities that make up the Clinton Foundation. That include the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton Climate Initiative, Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, Clinton Development Initiative, and Clinton Health Matters Initiative.
Financial statement rules require a nonprofit to split its expenses between program services, fundraising, and management/general costs (the latter two are collectively what are referred to as “overhead”), Mittendorf told us.
He said that in 2014, 87.2 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenses were on program services.
…
The American Institute of Philanthropy’s Charity Watch, reached the same conclusion. It has given the Clinton Foundation an A rating and says it spends only 12 percent of the money it raises on “overhead.”
“The Clinton Foundation is an excellent charity,” Charity Watch president Daniel Borochoff said Aug. 24, 2016, on CNN. “They are able to get 88 percent of their spending to bona fide program services and their fundraising efficiency is really low. It only costs them $2 to raise $100.”
Sandra Minuitti at the group Charity Navigator … 80.6 percent of spending was on program services.
Our ruling
Priebus said, “The fact is” the Clinton Foundation has “got about 80 percent in overhead and 20 percent of the money is actually getting into the places it should.”
…
The Clinton Foundation spends between 80-90 percent on program services, which experts say is the standard in the industry to define charitable works. It spends the majority of its money directly on projects rather than through third-party grants.
Conversely, only between 10-20 percent is spent on management of the foundation and fundraising activities, which is tagged as “overhead.”*
At this point, one has to ask: Did Priebus deliberately lie about the Clinton foundation by reversing the “overhead” and “program services” figures, or is he simply too stupid to understand a simple financial statement.
One or the other.
I’d say deliberate lie, but couched so as it could look like a mistake.
Why not both? Too stupid to understand, too willing to keep the political advantage even after getting the explanation.
Yes, he could be but I am sure he has handlers who can tell the difference.
It’s happened before: Orthodox Jewish paper apologises for Hillary Clinton deletion | Hillary Clinton | The Guardian
Hillary leads Trump by 7 points in new Monmouth poll, 46-39-7-2, with Stein bringing up the 2.
Poll: Clinton leads Trump by 7 points - POLITICO
85% has decided among top 2, with 6% still undecided and 9% going to the 3rd parties.
Does anybody know what the undecided numbers are normally like at this point in the cycle? Is 6% low?
Frankly, I pretty much assume that the 3rd party people are undecideds as well, given that many of them are disaffected campers from the Repubs/Dems who likely will come home to roost when standing in the voting booth. Right now, it seems there are more disaffected R’s than D’s, given the relative strengths of the L and G tickets.
The above, of course, is pure ass-pulled supposition. And probably smells just as nice.
The polling average is actually 9%:
The Democratic members of the most recent House Benghazi committee have released their own report, completely exonerating Hillary and blaming the Republicans in the House for Benghazi.
Pennsylvania is looking more and more undecided by the day… and it’s bad news for Trump.
Good to know - thanks.
Random sampling from the Republican attack addendum:
[QUOTE=Benghazi Report]
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump called the hearing a “total disaster” that “was not good for Republicans and for the country.” He also tweeted: “Face it, Trey Gowdy failed miserably on Benghazi.” He then referred to the Chairman as “Benghazi loser Gowdy.”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Benghazi Report Part Deux]
Conservative blogger Erick Erickson of RedState.com called the hearing a “carnival road
show” and a “waste of time because everything about it is politicized and nothing is going to happen. There will be no scalp collection.”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Benghazi Report Numero Tres]
The Washington Post Editorial Board called the hearing “unfortunate,” arguing that the Select Committee had “further discredited itself … as its Republican members attempted to fuel largely insubstantial suspicions about Hillary Clinton’s role in the 2012 Benghazi attacks.”
[/QUOTE]
It feels like I have some light reading to do in the next week. Anyone have the link to the Republican version?
Good mental health requires good mental hygiene. Don’t stick your brain in the crazy!