Author Topic: In any other administration...  (Read 1660 times)

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
In any other administration...
« on: November 08, 2019, 04:43:07 PM »
 Trump Ordered to Pay $2 Million to Charities for Misuse of Foundation
Quote
Among Mr. Trump’s admissions in court papers: The charity gave his campaign complete control over disbursing the $2.8 million that the foundation had raised at a fund-raiser for veterans in Iowa in January 2016, only days before the state’s presidential nominating caucuses. The fund-raiser, he acknowledged, was in fact a campaign event.
To summarize:
  • The Donald J. Trump Foundation gave all proceeds of this charitable event to Trump's presidential campaign.
  • Trump used the sympathy for the needs of veterans to acquire money from donors for his own, personal uses.
  • This event was always planned as a campaign event, notwithstanding how it would be sold to the donors.
  • Trump did this knowingly.
Of course, it's not like Trump has a pattern of using other people's money (ahem, $400M in military/security assistance to Ukraine, access of foreign leaders to the president of all the USA) as bribes to advance his personal electoral chances...

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2019, 05:05:10 PM »
The man has no shame

I saw a video of Trump, sometime in the 1990's showing up, uninvited, to a opening of a HIV/Aids school. Trump sat on stage, pretending to be a donor. There is a shot of him posing beside mayor Giuliani and the developer after which simply drove away, no donation.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2019, 05:27:49 PM »
So it’s your claim that Trump is the only presidential candidate, ever, that the campaign inappropriately received funds and had to return it?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2019, 05:50:13 PM »
The man has no shame

I saw a video of Trump, sometime in the 1990's showing up, uninvited, to a opening of a HIV/Aids school. Trump sat on stage, pretending to be a donor. There is a shot of him posing beside mayor Giuliani and the developer after which simply drove away, no donation.

You personally didn’t see him drop a wad of cash in a bowl on stage so it’s literally impossible for him to have made any kind of charitable donation to this. You’re thinking the only way charitable donations are made are on stage, during the event itself. Can’t donate any other time. Gotta be cash, or maybe one of those giant novelty checks, something really obvious,  handed over right at that moment.

I gotta ask, have you ever donated to charity? If you have, how did you do it?


DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2019, 08:39:26 PM »
So it’s your claim that Trump is the only presidential candidate, ever, that the campaign inappropriately received funds and had to return it?
It's fair to say he is the only candidate to have admitted, in court, to knowingly stealing from a veterans' charity, and, not paying back, but being forced to pay damages.

Let that sink in - the Republican candidate, the supposed champion of the military and services members, stole money designated for veterans for his own personal purposes... and he (not his campaign, nor people working for him, but the candidate himself) admitted that he was guilty of the act.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2019, 08:53:04 PM »
Most Veterans knew he wasn't "our(==veteran's) friend" long before he won his first primary race. It was all over several Military facebook feeds I'm part of back then.

So don't be surprised when most veterans don't get outraged about it, it was basically expected.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2019, 09:45:40 PM »
The president of your country just admitted, personally, to stealing from a charity... That the whole country isn't outraged is symptomatic of just how far down the rabbit hole the country has fallen.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2019, 10:14:55 PM »
The president of your country just admitted, personally, to stealing from a charity... That the whole country isn't outraged is symptomatic of just how far down the rabbit hole the country has fallen.

He stole from his own charity, people who donated to it shouldn't be overly surprised.

If he'd robbed the Red Cross, or a church, it would be an entirely different matter.

But then, on the other hand, I wouldn't be particularly outraged to discover the Clinton's had been running a huge scam off the Clinton Foundation. I think most Conservatives believe they actually are, its just a matter of finding a way to prove it. Sure, we'd love to bust them for the legal violations, but I think most would not be shocked or particularly outraged at the discovery.

Also: https://youtu.be/SjbPi00k_ME

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2019, 11:39:22 PM »
Bwahahaha! The Clinton foundation?  The same charity that Republicans spent years obsessing over, but where the Clinton's were not proven to have done anything wrong?

As for it being his own charity ... a charity run by his named foundation, or the Red Cross, is functionally no different, with the sole difference being that in the former, Trump gets credit for being philanthropic. I really doubt the people who donated to what they thought was a charity that would spend their donations for the benefit of needy veterans really expected Trump to steal the money and spend it on himself.

I'd like to say I'm shocked that anybody is bothering to defend or rationalize Trump's admitted guilt, here, but I'm sadly not... in any other administration...

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2019, 11:56:10 PM »
I mean, seriously... You've got Crunch trying to whatabout unknown, unnamed past presidents, and you suggesting that people expected Trump to steal from his named charity....

If either Clinton had admitted guilt, in court, of stealing from their own foundation, the right wing would have gone ape-sh1t; any suggestion otherwise is just patently dishonest.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2019, 12:21:23 AM »
The Last Detail.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2019, 02:52:50 AM »
I mean, seriously... You've got Crunch trying to whatabout unknown, unnamed past presidents, and you suggesting that people expected Trump to steal from his named charity....

If either Clinton had admitted guilt, in court, of stealing from their own foundation, the right wing would have gone ape-sh1t; any suggestion otherwise is just patently dishonest.

Who the donors are matter too, Clinton Foundation has a lot of foreign money floating around.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2019, 06:01:03 AM »
 
Quote
Clinton Foundation has a lot of foreign money floating around.
So does the Red Cross.  There is also no evidence that the Clinton Foundation money went anywhere except to support its identified charitable causes.

But again, irrelevant.  The current president admitted, in court, to stealing from a charity; not only can't you say that was wrong, or that it's unacceptable for the president to have done, but you are seemingly defending him...  Jesus wept.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2019, 06:57:31 AM »
Trump was wrong. He admitted he was wrong. He made it right in the end, under duress perhaps but still they are paying an extra 2 million to charity so it all worked out.

Are we all supposed to turn on him over this? We need to support open borders because a Trump charity didn't keep its books tight? Perhaps it would be easier to get more upset with Trump if there was an alternative but it's down to Trump or open borders and so the math on that is that whatever Trump does wrong has to be worse than allowing virtually unlimited immigration through completely open borders before it adds up to something worth freaking out about.

The Last Detail was about a sailor who gets sentenced to eight years in prison for stealing forty dollars out of a donation box for a charity fund run by a senior officer's wife. That was my way of taking a dig at Trump. Yeah, what he did wasn't right but at least he made it right in the end. Same with the Kurds. That was some letter he sent to Turkey.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2019, 07:50:29 AM »
I mean, seriously... You've got Crunch trying to whatabout unknown, unnamed past presidents, and you suggesting that people expected Trump to steal from his named charity....

If either Clinton had admitted guilt, in court, of stealing from their own foundation, the right wing would have gone ape-sh1t; any suggestion otherwise is just patently dishonest.

I’m not saying what about, I’m pointing out that when you say only the Trump campaign has mismanaged donations that you are, once again, making something up.

Quote
President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for campaign reporting violations — one of the largest fees ever levied against a presidential campaign...


Quote
Tennessee state Rep. Harold Love Jr. illegally used campaign money to pay for dry cleaning, purchases at a jewelry store, trips to meetings and more than $13,000 in food and beverages, according to a newly released audit.

Love's expenditures were among a slew of findings identified by the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance, which also determined the Nashville Democrat had inadequately maintained his campaign finance records.

Admitting some fault, Love defended many of his purchases and said the audit process was at times unwieldy.

There’s tons more examples but those two alone prove that your claim of it being only Trump is a falsehood.

Dude, seriously, you gotta stop making things up.

I can absolutely say what the Trump campaign dud was wrong. I can also say you constantly making things up is wrong. Because, you see, they both are.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2019, 08:02:37 AM by Crunch »

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2019, 08:11:06 AM »
And just to address the Clinton Foundation:

Quote
In addition to the IRS, the firm’s partners have had contact with prosecutors in the main Justice Department in Washington and FBI agents in Little Rock, Ark. And last week, a federal prosecutor suddenly asked for documents from their private investigation.

The 48-page submission, dated Aug. 11, 2017, supports its claims with 95 exhibits, including internal legal reviews that the foundation conducted on itself in 2008 and 2011.

Those reviews flagged serious concerns about legal compliance, improper commingling of personal and charity business and “quid pro quo” promises made to donors while Hillary Clinton was secretary of State.

The submission also cites an interview its investigators conducted with Andrew Kessel that quotes the foundation’s longtime chief financial officer as saying he was unable to stop former President Clinton from “commingling” personal business and charitable activities inside the foundation and that he “knows where all the bodies are buried.”

It is/was a slush fund for the Clintons (including a quid pro quo!)

It’s essentially an open secret and everybody pretends it’s not happening. There’s a very good reason donations to it fell by almost 60% immediately after she lost the election.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2019, 09:02:07 AM »
Now, let’s ask a question about campaigns a financial activity.

If it came out that the Trump campaign was bribing local politicians during the election, should he have been forced out of the election? Would it be an impeachable offense now?

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2019, 09:03:10 AM »
Quote
I’m pointing out that when you say only the Trump campaign has mismanaged donations that you are, once again, making something up.
Please do quote where I stated this, Crunch.
Quote
your claim of it being only Trump is a falsehood.

Dude, seriously, you gotta stop making things up.
Again, where did I state it was only Trump that mismanaged donations? I did say he was the only president to have admitted in court to stealing from a charity money that was specifically donated for the benefit of veterans. I'll let you figure out which logical fallacy you have employed to claim that I'm now presenting a "falsehood" about Trump.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #18 on: November 09, 2019, 01:27:20 PM »
On a Tuesday, wearing a white shirt. Untucked. You should narrow it down even more absurdly. smh
« Last Edit: November 09, 2019, 01:32:07 PM by Crunch »

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2019, 03:39:03 PM »
Got it, Crunch.  You can't actually point out what you said that I said. You're making a habit of misrepresenting people then being too cowardly to either back up your observation, or to admit your mistake... although I'm being a bit generous by calling it a "mistake".

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2019, 05:37:19 PM »
I don’t think you got anything. We can all read your posts, the thread ain’t that long.

You go after a misappropriation of campaign funds as if it’s such an outragey outrage and act all outraged. Then you try to make out that it’s only an outrage when it’s a veterans charity and try to cherry pick out other little specifics to narrow it down to absurdity to make it seem like you’re being intellectually consistent.

The truth is, nearly every campaign I can think of over the last couple of decades has been flagged for misappropriation of funds. It’s so common it’s not even news. But you now want to pretend that it is. The truth is, you’re only talking about it because “muh Trump”.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2019, 05:42:18 PM »
You still can't substantiate your claim... And yes, everybody can see that.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2019, 04:15:55 PM »
smh

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #23 on: November 10, 2019, 05:07:15 PM »
Maybe it is common. But it is uncommon to get caught dead to rights.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #24 on: November 11, 2019, 09:47:30 AM »
It's fair to say he is the only candidate to have admitted, in court, to knowingly stealing from a veterans' charity, and, not paying back, but being forced to pay damages.

Can you provide a link to this admission?  Close as I can tell, you're either grossly mistaken or lying to even make the claim. 

Maybe it would help to look at a slightly more neutral description of the situation?  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/08/trump-foundation-saga-troubled-charity-ends-2-million-judgment/2532798001/

The primary violation is not THEFT of charitable funds, it's that the charity let the campaign decide, where to donate the funds and to take credit for it. 

Quote
Chief among them: allowing Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to orchestrate a televised fundraiser in Des Moines, Iowa, for the foundation, which then distributed $2.8 million to veterans’ charities that were also chosen by the campaign.

Charities are prohibited by New York law from supporting political candidates or campaigns.

So, pretty much they raised and donated the money but had a "technical" campaign finance violation that there is ZERO PERCENT chance a NY AG brings against a Democratic campaign that does the exact same thing in favor of and in coordination with a charity from the left.

But the "meat" of this claim, is that there was an impermissable endorcement by the charity, not that Trump stole the money.  The NYT goes on to pretend like some minor fees that were paid were the majority of what happened.

So what was the "settlement" (and it wasn't a court win, just to be clear)?  In addition to the money already donated, the $1.7 million currently in the charity goes to charities not of Trump's choosing, plus $2 million more for the mismanagement to the same charities.  The charity was mismanaged, no question about it, but mostly it was a failure of corporate formalities (no Board meetings).  The primary "misuse" was to allow donations to charities that could be seen as promoting the Trump campaign.

So again, can you substantiate the accusation that you made?

I note too, that Trump's position on this admission (in your article) was this:  "'100 percent of the funds to great charities' and that he had suffered '4 years of politically motivated harassment' by the attorney general’s office."  Which is pretty consistent with the actual facts that the money went to charities.

In a response to your ignoring the problems with the Clinton Foundation, take a look at this:

Quote
In September 2015, a foundation tied to Victor Pinchuk, the billionaire son of a former Ukraine president, contributed $150,000 to Trump’s charity, according to the charity's tax return.

The contribution arrived in conjunction with a speech that Trump made via satellite hookup to a Pinchuk Foundation conference in Kyiv. Trump, who was running for president at the time, referred to Pinchuk as a friend during the speech, according to a 2018 report by a Forbes contributor.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team examined the Pinchuk payment as part of its probe into foreign funding that streamed to Trump and his associates in the year before Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

So literally Mueller investigated that donation.  I'd love to see what would happen if a special counsel were appointed to investigate bribery and foreign influence in connection with the massive donations received by the Clinton Foundation from parties interested in matters she was responsible for as Secretary of State.

I'll put it out there, I don't even think it's possible that what happened was legal, and if you used the standards that the left applies to Trump she'd listed out as possibly the most corrupt candidate of all time.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #25 on: November 11, 2019, 09:55:35 AM »
I mean here's the AG's statement, I didn't find the actual settlement.  https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/ag-james-secures-court-order-against-donald-j-trump-trump-children-and-trump

But this is the quote "money quote":

Quote
In the first half of 2016 — at the height of the Republican primaries — Mr. Trump used Foundation money, raised from the public, to demonstrate his purported generosity and attract votes. Mr. Trump and his campaign doled out $500,000 at a campaign rally in the days leading up to the first primary election in the nation, the Iowa caucuses, then took credit for all $2.8 million in grants the Foundation made.

Wow, the horror of "taking credit" for the grants the Foundation made that were tied to event that he threw at which the money was raised.  And you realize, what they mean by "taking credit" is that the Trump Foundation (an actual charity) received the funds and sent them onto the Veteran's charities, rather than the money going directly to the charities.  The horror.

And what did the judge say?

Quote
In her decision ordering Mr. Trump to pay $2 million, Justice Saliann Scarpulla said, “…Mr. Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Foundation and that waste occurred to the Foundation. Mr. Trump’s fiduciary duty breaches included allowing his campaign to orchestrate the Fundraiser, allowing his campaign, instead of the Foundation, to direct distribution of the Funds, and using the Fundraiser and distribution of the Funds to further Mr. Trump’s political campaign.”

This really boils down to punishing Trump because he raised charitable funds as a campaign event.  Wow, hard core criminal activity there.

Are you really sure that it is BETTER to punish candidates for raising money for charity during the campaign because they might get credit for raising money for charity in the eyes of the voters?

Don't believe me, look at what the judge "found""

Quote
Justice Scarpulla noted in her decision that “Mr. Trump’s campaign, rather than the Foundation: (1) ‘planned’ and ‘organized’ the Fundraiser; and (2) ‘directed the timing, amounts, and recipients of the Foundation’s grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans.’”

Once again, something that with just a smidge of looking into it, turns out to be 95% nonsense wrapped around the tiniest smidge of reality.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #26 on: November 11, 2019, 10:23:49 AM »
Among the many differences, Clinton resigned from the board when she started her campaign. Trump was on his foundation's board during his campaign. Trump's board was entirely his family, and he had direct control of it. Clinton's foundation does have Bill and Chelsea on the board, but they also have eight other people with a variety of experience.

I'm not sure where you think buying Tim Tebow's jersey falls into a legitimate use of a charity's funds, or setting lawsuits involving his other businesses. Or if you think that the Clinton foundation was buying sports memorabilia.

Let's review also that they never even had a board meeting for 19 years. If that sounds like a legitimate charity to you, give me a few minutes to set up a GoFundMe page.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #27 on: November 11, 2019, 10:29:16 AM »
TheDrake, I totally agree the Trump Foundation was mismanaged, even on the scale of private charities/foundations it was off the deep edge, more of a back of the envelope vehicle than an operating entity.  Clinton Foundation is a much more polished affair.  But in my experience, that means the Clinton Foundation  KNEW how inappropriate it was to grant donors enhanced access to the candidate/Secretary, how inappropriate it was to mix records and to dual hat governmental employees at the Foundation.  It's really inexcusable.

That said, you're grossly kidding yourself if you think there aren't hundreds of other family foundations associated with the very wealthy that are just as mismanaged.  The NY AG is either doing nothing, or at worst sending them a letter directing them to clean up their practices, absent a compelling case of charitable theft - which doesn't exist in this circumstance.

Maybe you can find it, the case where the NY AG went this overboard on a charity for "process" violations absent some underlying fraud, cause I sure haven't seen it.  Kind of puts teeth behind the "selective prosecution" claim.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #28 on: November 11, 2019, 01:40:21 PM »
That said, you're grossly kidding yourself if you think there aren't hundreds of other family foundations associated with the very wealthy that are just as mismanaged.  The NY AG is either doing nothing, or at worst sending them a letter directing them to clean up their practices, absent a compelling case of charitable theft - which doesn't exist in this circumstance.

Maybe you can find it, the case where the NY AG went this overboard on a charity for "process" violations absent some underlying fraud, cause I sure haven't seen it.  Kind of puts teeth behind the "selective prosecution" claim.

We both understand many of those "process crimes" exist as a backdoor to give cause/access for investigation of other crimes. So between there being little reason to pursue it when they don't expect to find other crimes, and the matter of being "a white collar crime" lack of enforcement absent either political reasons or the IRS getting involved is hardly shocking. As it is, Trump certainly fits the bill for the "politically motivated" end of the spectrum.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #29 on: November 11, 2019, 01:57:57 PM »
Lots of investigations are at least influenced by celebrity or involvement in public service.

Are you paying taxes on your nanny, or is she not legally allowed to work in the US? Odds are no one cares - until you apply for a security clearance or run for office.

Does it relate to your particular political ideology? That doesn't seem clear to me. Being liberals certainly didn't shield Clinton appointees.

De Blasio's charity also didn't do so well

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #30 on: November 11, 2019, 06:23:24 PM »
So it’s your claim that Trump is the only presidential candidate, ever, that the campaign inappropriately received funds and had to return it?
It's fair to say he is the only candidate to have admitted, in court, to knowingly stealing from a veterans' charity, and, not paying back, but being forced to pay damages.

Let that sink in - the Republican candidate, the supposed champion of the military and services members, stole money designated for veterans for his own personal purposes... and he (not his campaign, nor people working for him, but the candidate himself) admitted that he was guilty of the act.

Maybe I misunderstood but I thought this thread was about misappropriation of campaign funds. Apparently it’s not. Here’s the list:

  • misappropriation of funds
  • veterans charity
  • not paying back
  • paying damages
  • admission of guilt
  • open supporter of veterans

Now, obviously, these have all been done by many people, many times. But the complaint is that Trump ,and only Trump, in the entire history of humanity, has combined all 6 of those into one single act.

Should we assume if the campaign had only done 2 or 3 of those it wouldn’t be this incredible travesty? Many, many politicians have done 2 or 3 of these at once (for example, Obama) and you guys ignore that. It’s only this completely arbitrary list of cherrypicked features that, when combined, is such an outrage.

I wonder, did you intend to add any other ”since 2016” or “in months starting with a J”?

The truth is, so many people do each of these that it’s almost certain that others have hit on this combination.

It’s just not Trump so you don’t care.  If you don’t care about all the others, why should I, anyone else, care about this one? As Seriati makes obvious, it’s largely made up on several points and, as I make obvious, it’s a ridiculously arbitrary set of requirements.

This really does boil down to just one thing - ORANGE MAN BAD! That’s all.


TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #31 on: November 12, 2019, 12:48:41 PM »
How about just 1 item?

Running a sham charity.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2019, 01:52:59 PM »
Quote
The truth is, so many people do each of these that it’s almost certain that others have hit on this combination
Worst defense ever.

You paint with a very large brush. must be nice to know with such certainty just how everyone feels about people that do the things that "so many people do"

Really are you going to argue that because some people get away with murder everyone should get away with it. We should just let it all go?

TDS is very troubling.:(

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #33 on: November 12, 2019, 02:26:15 PM »
Normally we seem to have agreed that whataboutism is not a valid defense against most arguments, however in the specific case of the argument "Trump is the worst!" it actually becomes a valid defense to suggest that he's around equally as bad as many others who came before him. It doesn't exonerate him for any wrongdoing, but it does answer the charge of him being particularly a new level of bad. I tend to agree that "never seen before!" is something that needs to be pushed back against if it's not actually true, as it ends of being a tacit approval of past corruption, whitewashing it, in order to tar and feather the current enemy. That being said, if "never seen before!" really *is* true then that needs to be taken very seriously as well. But "whataboutism!" is not always a valid counterpoint to people saying that sudden concern for what's always been going on can seem very convenient.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2019, 02:39:04 PM »
Trump is not necessarily a new level of bad - that seems to be a mental blocker for people who cannot actually fault Trump for anything.

Trump admitting to personally breaking election law, in court - which is what the plea deal is, after all - is something that one would think is indefensible, but strangely, brings out the apologists.

That being said, this particular action does seem to be unique - when did the last sitting president admit, in court, to breaking the law?

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #35 on: November 12, 2019, 03:00:31 PM »
Quote
It doesn't exonerate him for any wrongdoing, but it does answer the charge of him being particularly a new level of bad.

It was more the size of the brush being used to paint everyone as in playing the worst offender game which is just a distraction.
Most people I know would not condone any charity with such a record.
 

Kasandra

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2019, 04:43:47 PM »
I don’t think you got anything. We can all read your posts, the thread ain’t that long.

You go after a misappropriation of campaign funds as if it’s such an outragey outrage and act all outraged. Then you try to make out that it’s only an outrage when it’s a veterans charity and try to cherry pick out other little specifics to narrow it down to absurdity to make it seem like you’re being intellectually consistent.

The truth is, nearly every campaign I can think of over the last couple of decades has been flagged for misappropriation of funds. It’s so common it’s not even news. But you now want to pretend that it is. The truth is, you’re only talking about it because “muh Trump”.
I don't come here that often, but I am wondering if Crunch has ever conceded that Trump has ever done anything wrong.  I know others here are seriously challenged, like Cherry, but even he will occasionally back down.  If memory serves, even Seriati might have done that once or twice.  There are a sizable number of people who literally can't conceive of anything Trump could do that would make them not vote for him, let alone point a finger at him.  One woman in a recent focus group was asked if it would be wrong if Trump shot someone on 5th Avenue.  She paused for a second and then said that it would depend on why he shot them.  Balance that nuanced thinking against the more than a dozen attempts to impeach Obama that were proposed by office-holding Republicans and their supporters, including for his transgender bathroom directive and for "pushing his agenda".  Wow, there's a high crime if I ever saw one. 

Do we think Obama was more deserving of impeachment than Trump?  Apparently, some of us do.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2019, 04:52:52 PM by Kasandra »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #37 on: November 12, 2019, 04:45:27 PM »
Trump is not necessarily a new level of bad - that seems to be a mental blocker for people who cannot actually fault Trump for anything.

Trump admitting to personally breaking election law, in court - which is what the plea deal is, after all - is something that one would think is indefensible, but strangely, brings out the apologists.

You want to provide that quote?  Again, the violation of election law is minor and it's a violation of the charity not Trump's.

Quote
That being said, this particular action does seem to be unique - when did the last sitting president admit, in court, to breaking the law?

Obama's campaign settled  election law violations - also largely technical violations.   Trump's settlement here is on the corporate governance of a charity that was almost completely funded with his own money.  He's definitely not the first wealth person with that problem.

And this "election law violation" was in fact most a series of technicalities under NY law that applies to charities.  The charity was definitely mismanaged, or rather it was never actually managed.  But pretending this is more than that is not an accurate summary of what happened.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #38 on: November 12, 2019, 05:17:32 PM »
Quote
You want to provide that quote?  Again, the violation of election law is minor and it's a violation of the charity not Trump's.
Actually, the plea deal (to which Trump agreed) specifically states that Donald Trump "breached his fiduciary duty" to the foundation (charity) and also "allow[ed] his campaign to orchestrate the fundraiser".  Those actions were attributed to Trump by the plea deal to which he agreed.  By agreeing to the plea deal, that means Trump has accepted those descriptions as fact.  This is from USA today, but Judge Scarpulla's text is quoted all over the place:
Quote
In this week's ruling, Scarpulla wrote "that Mr. Trump breached his fiduciary duty" with statutory violations that included "allowing his campaign to orchestrate the fundraiser."

That conduct, she wrote, resulted in "distribution of the funds to further Mr. Trump's political campaign."
So no, that's really not a technicality - Trump funnelled money from a charity to his businesses and election campaign. This is not at all equivalent to the reporting violations attributed to Obama's campaign, which were, as you pointed out, technical.  Also, Obama, as far as I know, was in no way implicated in taking the actions for which the campaign was found responsible.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2019, 07:25:27 AM »
I don’t think you got anything. We can all read your posts, the thread ain’t that long.

You go after a misappropriation of campaign funds as if it’s such an outragey outrage and act all outraged. Then you try to make out that it’s only an outrage when it’s a veterans charity and try to cherry pick out other little specifics to narrow it down to absurdity to make it seem like you’re being intellectually consistent.

The truth is, nearly every campaign I can think of over the last couple of decades has been flagged for misappropriation of funds. It’s so common it’s not even news. But you now want to pretend that it is. The truth is, you’re only talking about it because “muh Trump”.
I don't come here that often, but I am wondering if Crunch has ever conceded that Trump has ever done anything wrong.  I know others here are seriously challenged, like Cherry, but even he will occasionally back down.  If memory serves, even Seriati might have done that once or twice.  There are a sizable number of people who literally can't conceive of anything Trump could do that would make them not vote for him, let alone point a finger at him.  One woman in a recent focus group was asked if it would be wrong if Trump shot someone on 5th Avenue.  She paused for a second and then said that it would depend on why he shot them.  Balance that nuanced thinking against the more than a dozen attempts to impeach Obama that were proposed by office-holding Republicans and their supporters, including for his transgender bathroom directive and for "pushing his agenda".  Wow, there's a high crime if I ever saw one. 

Do we think Obama was more deserving of impeachment than Trump?  Apparently, some of us do.

I’ll say that what the Trump campaign did here was wrong if that will make you happy. It’s something nearly every campaign has done for at least the last 20 years, including Obama. Given all the fabricated impeachment scams, why do you think this isn’t being used to impeach Trump? Why isn’t this a “high crime or misdemeanor” for the Democrats to use?

As for shooting someone on 5th avenue, Obama literally murdered American citizens. You guys still voted for and defended him. Your moral outrage is obviously hypocritical.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2019, 09:51:59 AM »
Quote
I’ll say that what the Trump campaign did here was wrong if that will make you happy. It’s something nearly every campaign has done for at least the last 20 years, including Obama
This is patently untrue, on several levels.  First off, the implication in your "admission" is that Trump was not responsible for breaking the law - whereas Trump has admitted, via his plea deal, that he was directly responsible for re-directing money from the charity to his businesses and to his campaign.  Of course, you do not explicitly state that Trump was not responsible - so before putting words into your mouth, do you also accept that Trump, as he has admitted, was responsible for breaking the law?

As for Obama, what evidence do you have that any of Obama's actions contravened a law?  Of course, your wording is once again weaselly, so it's hard to pin down exactly what you mean by "It’s something nearly every campaign has done for at least the last 20 years, including Obama". Putting aside the false equivalency between stealing from a charity and mis-reporting funds raised by the campaign, as was the case with the campaign to elect Obama... did you mean to write "... including Obama's campaign"?  Because by leaving out that last word as you did, it makes it look like you just cannot NOT attribute these actions directly to Obama... and it also makes it look like you don't have the courage to outright say it.  Of course, that's not your intent - that's just the way it looks.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2019, 10:07:50 AM »
Are we in danger of normalizing to much 'bad' behavior?
Bad as in what has been traditionally argued as morally and ethically wrong as well as criminal 
How comfortable are we with that?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2019, 10:24:22 AM »
Quote
You want to provide that quote?  Again, the violation of election law is minor and it's a violation of the charity not Trump's.
Actually, the plea deal (to which Trump agreed) specifically states that Donald Trump "breached his fiduciary duty" to the foundation (charity) and also "allow[ed] his campaign to orchestrate the fundraiser".

Here's a link to the actual deal https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=JLJih9v_PLUS_EKSuJs36THzexg==.  I've read it, most of what you claimed is in there is not.  Please point out the direct admission you just claimed.  (I'll give you a hint, it isn't there, the judge made that up).

Quote
Those actions were attributed to Trump by the plea deal to which he agreed.  By agreeing to the plea deal, that means Trump has accepted those descriptions as fact.

Actually, no it doesn't.  The plea expressly says otherwise on behalf of the Foundation, and makes no such claims about Trump or anyone else.  All the agreed to was that it "raised concerns" - which means reasonable people could disagree.

But I challenge you to look at it in detail and square it up with your original claim that Trump stole from veterans.  The deal makes it crystal clear that nothing of the sort happened, that it's a series of largely technical violations.  The primary "election law violation" is not in fact an election law violation it's specifically a TAX LAW and Charity law interaction.  NY makes it illegal for charities to engage in conduct that incurs excise taxes, certain kinds of support of political campaigns incur excise taxes, ergo illegal. 

Was there an excise tax associated with the Fund raiser?  Not one bit.  Hmm...

So the problem with the Fund raiser is not a legal violation of the specific law, or even that funds were stolen, or even that funds were misused.  The "problem" as identified in the complaint was that a campaign used its funds to organize an event for a charity.  Yes, you read that right.  One could just as easily look at that as a donation by the campaign to the charity.

Then, of all horrors, Trump showed the "giant charity checks" at future campaign events.  Totally behavior that we want to PUNISH!@!!

Virtually all of the remainder of the "infractions" were Trump using the Foundation to make charitable donations.  Yep, to make charitable donations.  He seemed to believe - a common view in the wealthy - that pledges make by his wholly owned entities or his family, could be satisfied by paying it out of the Foundation that he funded.  That's the essence of a technical violation, easily rectified in any reasonable system and fixed on a go forward basis by having the Foundation do the pledge in the first case.

Remember the "tax law" issues that were the entire basis here, it looks like in total they ended up being less than $10k over decades of these minor problems (some of which the Foundation self reported).

Quote
This is from USA today, but Judge Scarpulla's text is quoted all over the place:
Quote
In this week's ruling, Scarpulla wrote "that Mr. Trump breached his fiduciary duty" with statutory violations that included "allowing his campaign to orchestrate the fundraiser."

Yes, Scarpulla is known to be abrupt and a bit rude.  Not a shocker.  Still a misstatement of the agreement, and frankly not appropriate for a sitting judge.

Quote
That conduct, she wrote, resulted in "distribution of the funds to further Mr. Trump's political campaign."

By which she is referring to him giving actual checks to Veteran's organizations at campaign events.  You'll have to walk me through why you think that is illegal or unethical.  Frankly I think that's an absurdly untenable position.

The "technical" violation is that the Foundation wrote the checks  - with funds it raised specifically to provide to veteran charities - to the veteran charities in a way that "could" be "seen as supporting" the Trump campaign, which again would be a potential violation of a NY rule that prohibits charities from conduct that could incur excise taxes (which support of a political campaign could do).  Does this?  Not a chance, to incur the excise tax the charity would have to make a donation to the campaign.  To get there from what occurred you'd have to get the IRS to rule that there was an express dollar value of the publicity that should count as a contribution and levy the tax on that dollar amount. 

Do you realize what that would mean to charities across the country?  Any charity that could be deemed to be supporting a candidate or a party, even if not expressly and only just by coincidental involvement around an election, could be levied with a tax on a made up valuation of the publicity.

Quote
So no, that's really not a technicality - Trump funnelled money from a charity to his businesses and election campaign.

I can't give you any more excuses, you are now knowingly repeating a lie.

Quote
This is not at all equivalent to the reporting violations attributed to Obama's campaign, which were, as you pointed out, technical.  Also, Obama, as far as I know, was in no way implicated in taking the actions for which the campaign was found responsible.

It's actually less of a violation that Obama's, Obama's campaign directly violated election laws, which are written specifically because of their potential to improperly influence elections.  The Foundation, violated an interaction of tax and NY charity law in a manner that's designed to avoid tax consequences to charities, but that has little to nothing to directly do with elections, and involved ZERO dollars of inappropriate spending by the charity.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2019, 10:26:34 AM by Seriati »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2019, 12:07:25 PM »
Seriati, your explanation makes sense.

I had personally not heard that Trump specifically admitted to violating the law by "stealing" funds from a charity, and I can assure you I would have if that were the case. The idea that a campaign would take monies donated to a charity and apply them to a political campaign would actually be pretty major, as it would probably amount to fraud among other things. If the situation is actually that the campaign was the entity operating the charity event rather than the charity itself, where the funds were certainly going to the charity, then as Seriati points out the fault is in improperly differentiating Trump the charity head from Trump the campaign head and making sure he's not wearing two hats at the same time. As someone who runs a non-profit (as a side career to my day job) I can tell you from personal experience that it can be vexxing to have to ensure that the "me" doing certain activities isn't confused with the "me" doing other ones. As I sit on the board of the company, I need for instance to make sure of what I'm doing as a board member, what I'm doing as part of the actual running of the company, and what I'm doing for myself, as these are all different capacities. When you're the one doing everything it can easily begin to feel like since you're the one doing it then what's the difference. This sort of difficulty is joked about in Gilbert & Sullivan's Iolanthe:

Quote
LORD CH.  I feel the force of your remarks, but I am here in two capacities, and they clash, my Lords, they clash!  I deeply grieve to say that in declining to entertain my last application to myself, I presumed to address myself in terms which render it impossible for me ever to apply to myself again.  It was a most painful scene, my Lords—most painful!
 
LORD TOLL.  This is what it is to have two capacities!  Let us be thankful that we are persons of no capacity whatever.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2019, 01:03:12 PM »
Fenring - that's pretty funny. And also why Clinton stepped down from the board of the Clinton Foundation to avoid having to sort such things out. That's what normal people do when they run for office. Divest the other personas as much as possible, and just be a public servant.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2019, 01:33:45 PM »
Fenring - that's pretty funny. And also why Clinton stepped down from the board of the Clinton Foundation to avoid having to sort such things out. That's what normal people do when they run for office. Divest the other personas as much as possible, and just be a public servant.

That's easy to say when the person is a career politician. Things are a bit different when there are charity or business operations that really do rely on you at least being available to make important decisions, even if you're quite otherwise busy being President. And you know what I think on this matter, I think a President should be forbidden to be a part of anything at all outside that job, but if that's not what the law says then it's just a matter of Trump being sloppy on this, which is very different from him admitting to stealing or whatever.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2019, 01:43:32 PM »
The "problem" is that the Trump Foundation was just run as an account and not an operating charity.  That's a common problem with the Foundations of the very wealthy.  They think since it's "their money" (usually 100% is donated by the individual or family) and that they control the Board (usually more than 50% control) that the situation is that they can just donate the money without much oversight.  They are correct, 95% of the time, and so long as there is no fraud and no family dispute the foundation will not have any issues if it's really just funneling the money to preferred charities.

There's nothing illegal or improper about the Foundations being controlled in that manner and donating the money in that manner, what was improper was not to have board meetings and other indicia (most of which would not itself have involved real meetings or actual work, just record keeping by the family lawyers).

It's interesting that you mention Clinton stepping down from the Foundation's Board.  I have not been able to find any historical references to the Board members over time, and in particular what years Hillary was on the Board (almost like they've been deliberately removed).  Let me know if you can help.  She resigned - according to her - to focus on her campaign full time, not because of any potential conflicts issues.  At all times, her husband and daughter remained on the Board, as did a short list of Clinton recognizable people.  I will say this, Hillary was a master of technical compliance without following the intent of the rule.

oldbrian

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2019, 02:01:20 PM »
I'm not a lawyer, so I might be misreading it, but it looks like it wasnt just Donald Trump, philanthropist, randomly deciding where to donate the foundation's money, but rather Donald Trump, philanthropist, donating the money to one of Donald Trump, businessman's businesses.  Over and over again.
As you said, he treated it as just another account for him to draw from when he needed cash for something.  Which is absolutely illegal.

The part relating to the campaign was Trump, politician, using his campaign resources to help the foundation (very generous!) and claiming credit for the foundation's work in a propaganda maneuver designed to deliberately muddle the issue in the eyes of the voters. But not illegal, and maybe what Crunch was referring to about the 'every campaign for the last 20 years' thing. In fact, I think it was the ONLY thing on the list where Trump did NOT use the foundation's money for his personal or business concerns.

For a statesman, it was absolutely unethical.
For a politician, it was maybe unethical.  I would like to think so, but maybe I just have unrealistic hopes for politicians.
For a businessman, it was ethical.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #48 on: November 13, 2019, 02:54:18 PM »
I'm not a lawyer, so I might be misreading it, but it looks like it wasnt just Donald Trump, philanthropist, randomly deciding where to donate the foundation's money, but rather Donald Trump, philanthropist, donating the money to one of Donald Trump, businessman's businesses.  Over and over again.

No where in any part of the claim did Trump donate money to his businesses.  Can I be any clearer on this point?

Every dollar that was raised for Veteran's charities went to actual and legitimate Veteran's charities.

Period.

Quote
As you said, he treated it as just another account for him to draw from when he needed cash for something.  Which is absolutely illegal.

No.  Not to "draw cash from" to make charitable donations from. 

I think there's a lot of deliberate misinformation out there, but you can even find fact checkers on this stuff that make it clear that this stuff you describe is not at all what happened.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: In any other administration...
« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2019, 03:09:13 PM »
Quote
Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents.

Those cases, which together used $258,000 from Trump’s charity, were among four newly documented expenditures in which Trump may have violated laws against “self-dealing” — which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses.

In one case, from 2007, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club faced $120,000 in unpaid fines from the town of Palm Beach, Fla., resulting from a dispute over the height of a flagpole.

In a settlement, Palm Beach agreed to waive those fines — if Trump’s club made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans. Instead, Trump sent a check from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a charity funded almost entirely by other people’s money, according to tax records.

Quote
In another case, court papers say one of Trump’s golf courses in New York agreed to settle a lawsuit by making a donation to the plaintiff’s chosen charity. A $158,000 donation was made by the Trump Foundation, according to tax records.

So, yeah, if you didn't know the quid pro quo ;) of it, it could just look like a donation from a foundation to a charity. What it really was, was using the charity's funds to make Trump's business problems go away.

It also wasn't even close to entirely his own money.

Quote
Through 2015, Trump contributed $5.5 million to the Trump Foundation, including money from his book, while outside donors contributed an additional $9.3 million.[25][26] His final gift to the foundation was $35,000 in 2008.[4]

Many of the outside donors to the foundation have done business with Trump or the Trump Organization.[27] Several philanthropy experts noted that having a family foundation primarily funded by outside money is unusual.[25][27]