Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Adelson’s Newspapers on Trump: Everything is Fine

As the GOP establishment scrambles for the lifeboats in the wake of Donald Trump’s disastrous campaign, Trump’s biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson, is moving full-steam ahead, writing big checks and mobilizing newspapers owned by his family to support Trump, even as the candidate careens toward a massive defeat.

Print Friendly


The GOP establishment is scrambling for the lifeboats as Donald Trump’s campaign fails to engage in any meaningful corrective action following the release of a 2005 audio recording of the real estate magnate bragging about sexually assaulting women. The tape, alongside a stream of women coming forward to offer their own accounts of the GOP nominee’s unwanted sexual advances, has even led two “big money donors,” according to NBC News, to send emails asking for their money back. But Trump’s biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson, is moving full-steam ahead, writing big checks and mobilizing newspapers owned by his family to support Trump, even as the candidate careens toward a massive electoral defeat.

On September 12, Adelson and his wife, Miriam, each wrote $2.5 million checks to Future45, a pro-Trump super PAC, according to FEC filings. Eleven days later, the couple both made another set of $2.5 million donations, bringing the couples funding of the super PAC up to $10 million.

As news of the tape broke on October 7, journalists sought comment from the Adelsons but the couple kept their silence. Indeed, the Adelsons’ support came about as the candidate abandoned a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in favor of Sheldon Adelson’s position of a “binational state,” as one Trump aide told supporters.

Media Reframe

Trump’s demeaning statements about women and the airing of sexual assault allegations against the GOP nominee have had little impact on the Adelsons’ decision to throw their money behind his candidacy. In fact, newspapers owned by the Adelsons are actively pushing back against the women’s claims and seeking to frame Trump, despite dismal poll numbers, as a competitive candidate in the final weeks of the campaign.

Israel Hayom, the pro-Likud Israeli newspaper owned by Adelson’s family, attempted positive spin with the headline: “Trump scandals have minimal effect on his campaign, poll shows.”

The October 16 article, bylined by “Israel Hayom Staff,” claimed that “Trump has suffered minimal damage from the wave of scandals involving his treatment of women,” and focused exclusively on a Washington Post/ABC poll published on Sunday that showed Clinton holding a four-point lead over Trump. That was one of the most positive polls for Trump. Monday’s RealClearPolitics’ average of pollsfinds Clinton with a 6.4% lead.

Perhaps even more misleading was an Israel Hayom Sunday column by Boaz Bismuth that repeated Trump’s campaign rally rhetoric about a media conspiracy to destroy Trump’s candidacy and sinister secrets being withheld about Hillary Clinton. He wrote:

However, on Nov. 8, there will actually be a U.S. election featuring two candidates, one of them Trump, and the other, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who, according to reports, also has skeletons in her closet (perhaps even an entire cemetery, according to WikiLeaks.) But her problems, it seems, should be hidden. There is an ongoing concerted effort among American media outlets today to take down Trump.

Bismuth also sought to cast suspicions on the women’s claims based on the timing. He wrote:

Trump’s major problem is, of course, the fact that the claims from women are surfacing now, immediately following the release of the tape from 11 years ago. The timing is perfect, even if Clinton’s supporters claim that it is entirely coincidental.

Stateside, the Las Vegas Review Journal, which Adelson bought last year and sought to conceal his ownership, rushed to Trump’s defense in an October 10 editorial. The Review Journal’s editorial board argued that it was hypocritical of Hillary Clinton to even mention Trump’s audio recording in light of Bill Clinton’s checkered past with women. They wrote:

Do not mistake: Donald Trump deserves the harsh condemnation he has endured in response to the video released days ago on which he is heard bragging about how his wealth enables him to take sexual advantage of women. Voters can judge the issue for themselves. But it’s also worth noting that if every private comment is to be resurrected for public scrutiny, no human can ever be safe from the preening mob’s hollow shame and scorn.

And for Hillary Clinton to even broach the subject is the height of hypocrisy, arrogance and deceit.

Three days later, the paper published another editorial, this one attempting to shift the focus away from the recording of Trump bragging about groping women and towards WikiLeaks’ disclosures of Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta’s, hacked emails. The editorial concluded:

How do we know where Hillary Clinton’s private positions end and where her public positions begin? Given her penchant for prevarication, what should voters believe? What “private” positions will she eagerly jettison to curry favor with special interests? What “public” positions does she have no intention of honoring and are simply voter chum designed to attract support?

It all comes back to the same issue: Can anybody believe anything Hillary Clinton says about anything?

Against the Current

The Review Journal’s steady flow of pro-Trump editorials wouldn’t be so unusual if other major regional newspapers supported Trump’s presidential campaign. But they aren’t. USA Today, which never endorses candidates in the presidential race, declared Trump “unfit for the presidency,” and the Dallas Morning News, which hasn’t endorsed a Democrat for the presidency since before World War II, endorsed Clinton, saying “There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.”

Adelson’s media properties—alongside Breitbart, which is partially owned by the Trump-supporting Mercer family—appear increasingly out of step with public opinion and are falling back on conspiracy theories about the Clintons. They are also dredging up decades-old sex scandals about Hillary Clinton’s husband and selective interpretations of polls to frame Trump as a desirable, or even competitive, candidate.

The Mercers and the Adelson are putting more than their millions behind Trump. They’re increasingly responsible for the only positive media attention for the Trump campaign as the election draws to a close and the candidate’s serial mistreatment of women sends his poll numbers into a death spiral.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.