Donald Trump used $258,000 from his charity for legal settlements, reports say

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorolfr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_Gail_36 said:
I can’t wait for this election to be over. I hope the next four years go relatively well.
Click to expand...
I don’t blame you for wanting the election to be over.

But do not expect the next four years to go well. Think what you want about Trump who, right now, is doing better but is still behind. For myself, I hate it that there is a strong chance with Clinton that we’re about to witness the demise of constitutional government.

I’ll grant, it has been some time coming, and others have been complicit. Congress has increasingly delegated its powers to the executive and has only itself to blame for that. It has been utterly supine with Obama, so the popular will means very little anymore. But Obama has, himself, identified his one saving feature; laziness. Hillary Clinton might or might not be ill, but her agents won’t be. I fear we’re on the edge of government by executive fiat, approved by a politicized supreme court. Remember, Bill Clinton’s appointee, Ruth Ginzburg, has declared the Constitution “outmoded”. Does anybody really think Hillary won’t appoint justices just like that?

Everybody should be deathly concerned about that, and about the extreme hazard that an all-powerful executive branch will be “bought” by domestic and foreign money at every turn. But many are not. We’re well on the way to becoming a “Banana Republic” in all but growing bananas.
 
Newsweek is just continuing their role as free political advertising for the person they support. This is such a non-news story. It is $68,000 for a study, chicken feed to be sure, in anticipation that one day this embargo, like all embargoes, will end. Big deal. This will not even make my list of why I won’t vote for Trump.
 
Trump Foundation ordered to stop fundraising by N.Y. attorney general’s office
The New York attorney general has notified Donald Trump that his charitable foundation is violating state law — by soliciting donations without proper certification — and ordered Trump’s charity to stop its fundraising immediately, the attorney general’s office said Monday.
Click to expand...
…]
Click to expand...
“The Trump Foundation must immediately cease soliciting contributions or engaging in any other fundraising activities in New York,” Sheehan wrote to the foundation, of which Trump himself is still president. The Trump Foundation has no paid employees, and its board consists of Trump, three of his children and one Trump Organization employee. They all work one half-hour per week, according to the charity’s most recent IRS filings.
Click to expand...
Schneiderman ordered the Trump Foundation to supply the state, within 15 days, with all the legal paperwork required of charities that solicit money from the public.
Click to expand...
In addition, Sheehan ordered that Trump’s foundation provide all the financial audit reports it should have provided in prior years, when it raised money without legal permission. He said that if Trump’s foundation did not stop its fundraising and file the proper paperwork, that would be considered “a continuing fraud upon the people of New York.”
Click to expand...
 
JonNC said:
Schneiderman is the same guy who wants to use the power of government to silence free speech, most notably regarding those who dispute the man made climate change political movement. His political motives he wears on his sleeve.
Click to expand...
So you believe the Trump Foundation was not illegally soliciting donations?
 
lmachine said:
So you believe the Trump Foundation was not illegally soliciting donations?
Click to expand...
I don’t know about Jon, but just because a hyper-active Democrat prosecutor makes accusations against a Republican politician, that doesn’t mean the Repub committed any crime or even that there’s a reasonable basis to assert that he did.

I remember the Tom DeLay mess, in which a very political Democrat prosecutor prosecuted him. Eventually, DeLay prevailed, but it took years, ruined his political career, and probably cost him hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

If Clinton is elected, I think we’ll be seeing a lot more of that kind of thing. Democrats in power don’t brook dissent and abuse the law to crush it. One recalls the Obama administration’s suit against the Little Sisters of the Poor. He didn’t like their religion, so he sued them and is trying to drive them out of providing charity.

I would say we’re about to enter a “banana republic” era, legally.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I don’t know about Jon, but just because a hyper-active Democrat prosecutor makes accusations against a Republican politician, that doesn’t mean the Repub committed any crime or even that there’s a reasonable basis to assert that he did.
Click to expand...
The reasonable basis on which to assert that the Trump Foundation broke the law is that it is a foundation registered in New York State, solicited donations over $25,000 a year, did not have the NY certification required to accept that much in donations, and did not undergo the annual audits required of foundations that accept that much in donations. This information is all public. If you can explain why the Foundation was not operating illegally I’d be interested, but asserting that there’s no reasonable basis to assert so because of the political leanings of the AG ignores the facts of the case.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I don’t know about Jon, but just because a hyper-active Democrat prosecutor makes accusations against a Republican politician, that doesn’t mean the Repub committed any crime or even that there’s a reasonable basis to assert that he did.

I remember the Tom DeLay mess, in which a very political Democrat prosecutor prosecuted him. Eventually, DeLay prevailed, but it took years, ruined his political career, and probably cost him hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting argument. You cherry-pick instances where politicians have been accused of something, only to be found innocent later. You ignore all the instances where politicians have been correctly accused of wrong-doing. The fact is, being accused and having that accusation upheld is the rule, not the exception. So there is no reasonable basis to suppose that this is not the case with the present Trump Foundation question.
 
Here’s something on another Trump foundation, The Eric Trump Foundation, “Eric Trump ‘Charity’ Spent $880K at Family-Owned Golf Resorts”:
In promotional videos and press releases, ETF touts a 95 to 100 percent donation ratio and implies that by benefit of being a Trump, namesake properties are handed over for charity events at little or no cost. But according to a Daily Beast analysis of annual IRS reports and New York state financial disclosures from the charity’s inception in 2007 to 2014, the most recent year for which data is available, ETF spent $881,779 on its annual Golf Invitational at Trump-owned clubs, a portion of which—$100,000 in 2013 and $88,000 in 2014—was reported as paid directly “to a company of a family member of the Board of Directors.” In other words, Donald Trump himself.
Click to expand...
thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/30/eric-trump-charity-spent-880k-at-family-owned-golf-resorts.html
 
lmachine said:
So you believe the Trump Foundation was not illegally soliciting donations?
Click to expand...
Don’t know, but I wouldn’t trust Schneiderman to come to an even handed conclusion.
Hopefully, his foundation didn’t take money from foreign governments that murder gays and brutally oppress women and girls
 
Ridgerunner said:
I don’t know about Jon, but just because a hyper-active Democrat prosecutor makes accusations against a Republican politician, that doesn’t mean the Repub committed any crime or even that there’s a reasonable basis to assert that he did.

I remember the Tom DeLay mess, in which a very political Democrat prosecutor prosecuted him. Eventually, DeLay prevailed, but it took years, ruined his political career, and probably cost him hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

If Clinton is elected, I think we’ll be seeing a lot more of that kind of thing. Democrats in power don’t brook dissent and abuse the law to crush it. One recalls the Obama administration’s suit against the Little Sisters of the Poor. He didn’t like their religion, so he sued them and is trying to drive them out of providing charity.

I would say we’re about to enter a “banana republic” era, legally.
Click to expand...
Yes, and they recently tried the same thing on Rick Perry. Harris County Texas approaches Chicago in terms of progressive corruption

Lots of cherries to pick. 😉
 
JonNC said:
Don’t know, but I wouldn’t trust Schneiderman to come to an even handed conclusion.
Hopefully, his foundation didn’t take money from foreign governments that murder gays and brutally oppress women and girls
Click to expand...
Hopefully people that gave to his foundation thinking they could claim it on their taxes, didn’t.
 
JonNC said:
Don’t know, but I wouldn’t trust Schneiderman to come to an even handed conclusion.
Click to expand...
Is that just because he is a Democrat? Or do you have a special reason for discounting his ruling based on some previous action of his that was also unfairly handled?
 
kat07 said:
Trump does have less skeletons in his closet compared to Hillary. Way less, and that’s a fact. Also, Trump is a private citizen. Hillary was in one of the highest offices in our country. That’s the moral dilemma. Maybe Clinton supporters and Hillary don’t see the major moral and ethical dilemma here.
Click to expand...
The only reason Trump doesn’t have any skeletons in his closet is because he takes them out and mounts them on his balcony. 😛
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Is that just because he is a Democrat? Or do you have a special reason for discounting his ruling based on some previous action of his that was also unfairly handled?
Click to expand...
You forget: There are two kinds of people in the world. Wrong people and Republicans. 😛
 
Rudy Guiliani said in a recent interview that Trump was required to minimize his tax liability as a “fiduciary duty” because “If he didn’t do it, he’d get sued.” But considering that the tax return leaked to the New York Times was a personal return and not a corporate tax return for one of Trump’s companies, I’m not sure who would have sued Trump unless he perhaps sued himself. 😉
 
Thorolfr said:
Rudy Guiliani said in a recent interview that Trump was required to minimize his tax liability as a “fiduciary duty” because “If he didn’t do it, he’d get sued.” But considering that the tax return leaked to the New York Times was a personal return and not a corporate tax return for one of Trump’s companies, I’m not sure who would have sued Trump unless he perhaps sued himself. 😉
Click to expand...
With his own money he has no fiduciary responsibility to minimize tax liability. He has a personal incentive to do so. Now, Don is the kind of guy who first and foremost looks after himself and his tax behavior is proof of this. The problem with both candidates is that they are both very self serving individuals with no concern for anyone but themselves. Not a good quality in a president in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top