For the uranium deal … known as Uranium One … the Clintons collected: $145 Million !!
You are mistaking a charity for a foundation. A foundation isn’t a charity. Foundations fund charities. Foundations primarily make money from its associated family / company, plus investment income from the investments the foundation makes.
Trump only has less skeletons that we know of. However, he has admitted to only making contributions because he expected politicians to dance to his tune, he has business interests that may affect how other countries deal with us and expect us to deal with them if he becomes president, we now know that we does not pay close attention to how his subordinates adhere to legal requirements, and that he has been willing to put his name on any product as long as he was paid.
He’s a sometimes greedy business man, sometimes a crony capitalist. She’s an influence peddler
Trump paid and ran for his primary himself. He’s doing this because he says he wants to give back to the Country. He wants to do something good. Hillary has plenty of deals overseas just look at the Clinton Foundation payments while she was SOS. And before there was the Clinton Foundation there was the Clinton Library.
I was using the term “charity” generally; I understand the differences between private foundations and public charities. Foundations typically make most of their money from the family or company, and the Trump Foundation started out that way, but not anymore. It started 2007 with $4200 in the bank, and in 2007 and 2008 Trump donated a total of $65,000 and nothing since (or at least through 2014). All other funds have come from outside donors. So even if all of the money that Trump donated went to the settlements most of the settlement money was from outside donors. And it doesn’t matter anyway, since self-dealing is illegal.
“Disqualified persons” can’t borrow money from their private foundation. Trump, as an officer, is a “disqualified person” and can’t borrow money from the foundation for himself or his businesses. So if he borrowed money to pay the settlements and paid it back that would be illegal. That would have shown an iota of integrity though, he didn’t bother to pay the money back.
Why is it “probably illegal”? If the donation actually went to charity to soothe the ruffled feathers, why is that not still a charitable donation? At least it didn’t go to pay the salary of Huma Abedin, one of Trump’s kids or the Libyan adventures of Sydney Blumenthal.
And it is wrong to put up artwork in a restaurant, for customers to see and appreciate?
I was trying to soften it but you’re right that it’s not “probably” illegal, it’s just plain illegal. “Self-dealing”, or an officer of a foundation using funds to benefit himself or his businesses is illegal. The legal obligation resulting from the lawsuit is Trump’s, not his foundation’s. By using Foundation funds to meet his legal obligations he is personally benefiting from charitable donations to the Foundation, or self-dealing. This violates tax laws.
Mourning’s charity was also named in the suit. I don’t know if they had to pay any settlement, but the Trump course was sued for colluding with the tournament’s insurance company to make the holes too short to qualify for the prize.
Yes, if that artwork was purchased by a private foundation for one of the foundation’s officers. In 2007 tax filings the Trump Foundation declared that it did not violate rules by using charitable donations to “furnish goods, services, or facilities” to one of its officers. It bought a painting for Trump, one of its officers.
So, an anti-Trump “investigator” found a portrait or print and declares it to be the one the Foundation paid for and publishes his “finding” without verifying anything, even that it was an original. Couldn’t possibly be another portrait or a print, of course, because the “investigative journalist” declared it to be the very one the Foundation paid for.
Ah, so Mourning’s charity was named in the suit as a defendant. No surprise. So Trump, who donated the use of the golf course to the charity, took the burden off Mourning’s charity by paying it for them. Still charitable. Not like paying Huma Abedin to arrange pay-to-play deals.
The Trump campaign has been asked numerous times for over a week now where the portraits are and what charitable use they’re being put to. It’s the portrait purchased in 2007, so I’m sure if it’s a print the campaign will say something.
I didn’t say the settlement donation was a win for the plaintiff, I said the settlement donation was a legal obligation to settle the case. It doesn’t matter where the money to settle the lawsuit is going, it can’t come from a private foundation unless the private foundation was the entity being sued. The Trump Foundation was not being sued; Trump’s golf course was. It is illegal for Trump to use Trump Foundation funds to pay for his own or his businesses’ legal expenses.
And perhaps they will. And it doesn’t have to be a print. It could also be another painting of the same guy.
It’s not another painting; it’s the image he purchased at the auction in 2007, and posed next to in photos at the auction after he bought it. If it’s a print it’s a print of the image purchased with Trump Foundation funds and potentially kosher, if it’s the original it’s illegal use of charity money.
It did. It’s a shame that it came illegally from the Trump Foundation.
According to you. Apparently not to the IRS.
Unfortunately the IRS doesn’t have the resources to examine every transaction in the country, but media attention can focus the agency on tax law violations. The newly opened investigation into the Trump Foundation by the NY Attorney General will also provide more information and share the investigative burden.
A settlement is not a “legal obligation” until it’s made. Trump had no “legal obligation” to settle anything. But another charity, which Trump was trying to benefit, was a co-defendant with the golf club. If the Mourning charity wasn’t already in need of money, it would not have asked Trump to use the golf course for the tournament. Trump Foundation took the burden off Mourning’s charity by giving the Plaintiff about ten cents on the dollar. Big deal. It still benefited a charity. How does anybody know Trump himself wouldn’t have fought the plaintiff to the very end? Truth is, they don’t. But Trump’s club wasn’t the only defendant. It’s entirely possible for one defendant in a lawsuit to win and another to lose.