The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: DonaldD on November 08, 2019, 04:43:07 PM

Title: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD on November 08, 2019, 04:43:07 PM
 Trump Ordered to Pay $2 Million to Charities for Misuse of Foundation (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/nyregion/trump-charities-new-york.html)
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: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...
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch 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?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch 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?

Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon 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
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD 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...
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 09, 2019, 12:21:23 AM
The Last Detail.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: cherrypoptart 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch 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?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch 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
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD 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".
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch 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”.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD on November 09, 2019, 05:42:18 PM
You still can't substantiate your claim... And yes, everybody can see that.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch on November 10, 2019, 04:15:55 PM
smh
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 10, 2019, 05:07:15 PM
Maybe it is common. But it is uncommon to get caught dead to rights.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati 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/ (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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati 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 (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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake 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 (https://thecity.nyc/2019/09/state-fines-developers-for-their-gifts-to-mayor-de-blasio.html)
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch 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:


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.

Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2019, 12:48:41 PM
How about just 1 item?

Running a sham charity.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 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.:(
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD 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?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 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.
 
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Kasandra 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 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?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati 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== (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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: oldbrian 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati 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.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake 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]
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 13, 2019, 03:46:53 PM
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.

Find the settlement, my understanding taken from the NY AG's recitation of facts (see paragraph 8) is that Trump (not the club) agreed to donate $100k.  I already acknowledged he used the foundation for donations, and clearly thought any donation he had to make could be made through the Foundation.  He reimbursed it a decade later as part of the clean up of things that were questionable (or in this case, probably wrong).  It would not have been much of an issue if he had reimbursed it promptly.

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.

Kind of a silly one to site, also in the NY AG's description (see paragraphs 9 and 10).  Trump's club hosted a charitable golf event for a third party charity that had a win a million for a hole in one event.  They bought insurance on the risk, and then when a hole in one was hit, the insurance refused to pay out.  The other charity eventually "settled" by giving about $750k to the "winner's" own charity.  So how did this lead to the money you describe above?  The Trump club agreed to "settle" as well (I suspect because there was some dispute about whether the hole was set up properly, though I'd guess the third party charity thought it bore most of the blame on that from its settlement). 

Their settlement?  They'd give 2 life time memberships to the course to the third party charity to sell and the proceeds of the sale of a third.  The 3rd membership was donated to the Foundation and then auctioned off and the proceeds were donated to the third party charity.

So literally, the Club donated all 3 memberships - exactly as agreed - and the third party charity got exactly what it was promised, 2 memberships and the proceeds of a third.  Your complaint is that the Foundation agreed to participate?  It didn't do so for free, it took a reasonable service fee, also agreed.

That one is more of a stretch than the others on the "what was wrong" scale, which literally was only triggered because Trump owned the course.

Quote
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.

Or literally it wasn't.  It was making donations that Trump or his businesses agreed to make through the charity.  It does look like it was the open intention of the parties to make those donations through the charity in each of the  cases.  They were wrong about that being okay, but it wasn't a secret, and it was all stuff that could have been legally managed with a smidge more attention to detail.

In other words, process "crimes".

Quote
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]

That's half ass better.  Virtually all the "$9.3 million" was "donations" in lieu of speaker or appearance fees.   Heck according to Wikipedia the original funding was from his book sales.  So yeah, you "caught" him, he was spending "3rd party money" that he asked be donated to the foundation rather than paid to him as income. 

One might think that was a good thing, but apparently it's nefarious.   Would have been far better to take "speakers" fees as cash payments to himself ala Bill Clinton.  To characterize money that would have been paid to him as income but that he asked be contributed to charity instead (even if he controlled the disbursement of the charitable funds) seems a really odd hill to defend.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: oldbrian on November 13, 2019, 03:54:56 PM
Seriati, I got it from your own link!

page 5:
"The terms of the settlement aggreement provided that Mr. Trump [as the owner of Mar-A-Lago, the party in the lawsuit] would contribute $100,000 to charities... In September 2007 Mr. Trump caused the foundation to donate $100,000 to the Fisher House Foundation... On March 10, 2017 Mr. Trump reimbursed the Foundation $100,000 plus interest of $8763.41...

So yes, he did indeed use the foundation money for his business debts.

Now, like I said, I'm not a lawyer.  So you can claim that I am not understanding the byzantine rules surrounding high-level business and family foundations and I will not argue about it. 
But when you claim to have read the paper which you yourself put up a link to, and it is full of nothing BUT Trump being dinged for using Foundation money to pay his business debts, then later (much, much later.  Like after the lawsuit or investigation that the paper was about got started, later) paying it back from his personal accounts; and yet you accuse me of inventing things out of whole cloth ...

Well, it makes me look back at all of those other times you read the legal paperwork and assured everyone here that your opponent was clearly in the wrong or making things up and wonder about your personal biases.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 13, 2019, 04:03:00 PM
page 5:
"The terms of the settlement aggreement provided that Mr. Trump [as the owner of Mar-A-Lago, the party in the lawsuit] would contribute $100,000 to charities... In September 2007 Mr. Trump caused the foundation to donate $100,000 to the Fisher House Foundation... On March 10, 2017 Mr. Trump reimbursed the Foundation $100,000 plus interest of $8763.41...

So yes, he did indeed use the foundation money for his business debts.

Not a business debt, he agreed as a personal matter.  No question he believed that the Foundation was his alternate ego for charitable causes.  Again, as I said, this one was a violation, but the scale of the violation is pretty immaterial and largely just a matter of process.

Quote
But when you claim to have read the paper which you yourself put up a link to, and it is full of nothing BUT Trump being dinged for using Foundation money to pay his business debts, then later (much, much later.  Like after the lawsuit or investigation that the paper was about got started, later) paying it back from his personal accounts; and yet you accuse me of inventing things out of whole cloth ...

The "paper" is the settlement agreement.  It's a recitation of facts that the NY AG insisted on and the Trump parties were willing to allow.  There's no question the Foundation was mismanaged.  There's also no question the scope of the problems is blown out of proportion.

This thread however, is a gross expansion into nonsense that appears no where in the facts or the record.  Most of which is flat out false, like the original claim that Trump stole the money, or the revised claim that Trump "admitted" to something he didn't.

It really shouldn't take this much effort to debunk fake news.

Quote
Well, it makes me look back at all of those other times you read the legal paperwork and assured everyone here that your opponent was clearly in the wrong or making things up and wonder about your personal biases.

Maybe re-read what I wrote again.  Go right ahead, try and pull out your own bias.  Find anything I said that is false.

The fact that I have opinions is not a secret. 

The idea that this would have been prosecuted to this extent for any person not name Trump is false.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2019, 05:20:39 PM
Quote
The "paper" is the settlement agreement.  It's a recitation of facts that the NY AG insisted on and the Trump parties were willing to allow.

IF it is in your settlement agreement, you have indeed admitted to those things. I don't know why you are thinking that is not true. Are you saying that Trump had his fingers crossed and he was actually lying so that doesn't count? Or are you thinking that he has to call a press conference in order to admit to something?

Quote
So literally, the Club donated all 3 memberships - exactly as agreed - and the third party charity got exactly what it was promised, 2 memberships and the proceeds of a third.  Your complaint is that the Foundation agreed to participate?  It didn't do so for free, it took a reasonable service fee, also agreed.

The foundation didn't get the fee. The fee was deducted to pay the auction site. The whole process was to create a shell. If the golf course had auctioned off the membership, that would be income for the course that has to be declared, I presume. By donating the membership and using the charity to run the auction, that gets avoided. I won't say if that is legal tax avoidance or illegal tax evasion, but it is definitely shady. But not theft, that much is absolutely true.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Wayward Son on November 13, 2019, 06:19:19 PM
Quote
Trump's settlement here is on the corporate governance of a charity that was almost completely funded with his own money.

Seriati, what makes you think Trump's charity was almost completely funded by Trump?  ::)

When was the last time Trump donated to his own charity?  Look it up.  You might find it enlightening.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 13, 2019, 07:50:16 PM
Quote
The "paper" is the settlement agreement.  It's a recitation of facts that the NY AG insisted on and the Trump parties were willing to allow.

IF it is in your settlement agreement, you have indeed admitted to those things. I don't know why you are thinking that is not true. Are you saying that Trump had his fingers crossed and he was actually lying so that doesn't count? Or are you thinking that he has to call a press conference in order to admit to something?

No, I think that the settlement agreement itself sets out what it means, as does the affadavit attached thereto that includes the sum total of Trump's personal admissions.  None of which match the claims.

This settlement, like most settlements these days does not include an admission of guilt.  Part 19 lists the Foundations' admissions (all process related).  The final Whereas on page 9-10, says there is no admission of any fact other than those expressly stated in the stipulations.

Take a look at the stipulations:

Paragraph 5-7 are about the Iowa fundraiser.  Pretty much just the facts as I stated them, no "admission" that those facts were wrong or guilt.  And flat out an "admission" that all $5.8 million raised went to the charities in question.  Again, a factual agreement that Trump handed out checks at a campaign event - but not that this was wrong.  Don't believe me?  Take a closer look.

8 - we talked about above for the Flag Pole issue.  And it got an "admission" of the basic facts, Trump agreed to make a $100k charitable donation to settle the hotel's issue, the Foundation made the donation.  Trump paid it back a decade letter, presumably after someone told him it was improper the way it was handled.

9-10 are about the "hold in one" controversy.  Just statements of fact, no admission of fault or guilt.

11-13 was about an apparent mistake in 2013, where a check was cut to a political campaign because the reviewer mistook a non-political charity for the political one and erroneously approved it.  That was caught and corrected in 2016 (ie predating the investigation) and the excise tax of $25k paid by Trump (not the Foundation).

14, the Foundation made a contribution ($5k) that entitled it to an add space, and it let the Hotel use the add (which given the Foundation had no use for it is reasonable, though it should have been recorded and compensated).  The Hotels reimbursed in 2016 (3 years later) with interest and paid the excise tax and self reported it.

15 is the most bizarre one, as it relates to a $10k contribution to another charity to acquire a picture of Mr. Trump, which was then hung in one of his hotels.  Generally, speaking a totally vain but innocuos thing but a violation because of the Foundation's involvement.  Again though, no admission of guilt.  The Hotel ended up paying rental value and the excise tax and of the Trump's reimbursed the $10k.

16. Was a different Trump entities pledge for charity that was paid from the Foundation.  Seeing the common thread?  The Trump's erroneously believed that the Foundation could be used to make charitable contributions on behalf of the Trump family and entities.  Again, totally common in the high end foundation world.  This transaction was also reimbursed and self reported.

And you get to what was further agreed, other than that no facts other than those listed were agreed.  You get agreement that the NY AG raised "significant issues" with respect to governance and certain transactions (section 7 of the agreements they made).  Again, not an admission of guilt.  Or you could expressly look at 8 - "not an admission of liability" on the part of the Trumps or the Foundation.

And what did Trump personally agree to?  It's in Exhibit C, in exchange for taking a Fiduciary class he and his children were dismissed from the claim with prejudice (ie they can't be further moved against).  And their admission?  Paragraph 3, the NY AG raised "important concerns" with respect to governance and certain transactions.  That's even lower than what the Foundation agreed to.

Quote
The foundation didn't get the fee.  The fee was deducted to pay the auction site.

You are correct the fee went to the auctioneer.  I misread that the first time.

Quote
The whole process was to create a shell. If the golf course had auctioned off the membership, that would be income for the course that has to be declared, I presume. By donating the membership and using the charity to run the auction, that gets avoided. I won't say if that is legal tax avoidance or illegal tax evasion, but it is definitely shady. But not theft, that much is absolutely true.

My understanding is that settlement payments are already generally deductible.  Maybe there's more to it somewhere, cause my first thought was the same, but I'm not even sure that this actually was a "settlement" per se, as it appeared that the obligation was to make a charitable donation (which is exactly what they did).  Given that we're ultimately talking about a dispute between two other charities, that's not a shock.

What's shady to you again?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 14, 2019, 03:50:32 AM
Simple answer to your smokescreen. Why was trumps foundation involved in any way when the golf course and the other parties could have settled everything without it?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 14, 2019, 09:53:20 AM
Because Trump made many of his charitable donations through the Foundation.  Pretty common for the super wealthy.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 14, 2019, 10:31:01 AM
Except that there was no part of that as a legitimate charitable donation. It wasn't like they thought about their mission, picked a charity that did good things. They bought off a dude that had his own shady charity fund.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 14, 2019, 10:47:17 AM
Quote
Because Trump made many of his charitable donations through the Foundation.  Pretty common for the super wealthy.

actually made me do a spite take.
Trump doesn't do charity. He doesn't believe in it, he's transnational in everything he does/is.  His charity "giving" has always involved smoke a mirrors. 

Its not like the man is a paradigm of virtue. He is who he is and many like him for being that kind of man. We don't have to pretend. No need to be embarrassed or perform mental/ethical gymnastics to defend this type of behavior. You either find it wrong (regardless who does it) or you do but can't admit it (fear it might make it harder to support your man) or you don't care,  No matter which way we feel its not like anything more is going to come of it.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 14, 2019, 11:17:13 AM
Why is it even legitimate to ask why he would choose to use a charitable fund/account to pay for things, or whether he's "really" being nice or not. He literally ran in the primaries on "the system is broken and I totally abuse it like everyone else does, and the system should be fixed." There is no point questioning the virtue of his methods of spending money; only the legality of it is relevant.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 14, 2019, 11:45:07 AM
You may be right questioning the virtue is a waste of time outside a debate on ethics.  Ethically the we learning to look away.

Quote
"the system is broken, and I totally abuse it like everyone else does, and the system should be fixed.” 
Ethically I have a huge problem with the above statement and generalization. Many people don’t abuse it like “everyone else” nor is that an excuse not to do better.

I in no way believe the Administration has any desire to fix it. Their actions show that they will push the brokenness to their advantage for as long as the can. Maybe someday the people stand up and say enough at some point and in that way their actions lead to fixing it but I don’t see that happening.

This brings me back to the virtue question: how can you trust a person who will abuse the system bokkeness to their advantage because "everyone does it” to fix it?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: ScottF on November 14, 2019, 11:48:00 AM
This brings me back to the virtue question: how can you trust a person who will abuse the system bokkeness to their advantage because "everyone does it” to fix it?

You do realize your question above could be applied to every human to ever file a tax return, right?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 14, 2019, 11:51:37 AM
You may be right questioning the virtue is a waste of time outside a debate on ethics.  Ethically the we learning to look away.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in context of a man who already said he abuses the system there's no purpose in asking "why would he use his accounts in a way that advantages him, that ordinary Joe's don't do?" Yes he is going to use every loophole in the book, and yes rich people do that. Whether I like it is immaterial; virtue doesn't enter into it. The system has rules and so long as you play by those rules (i.e. aren't a criminal) then the system is responsible for the results. Garbage in garbage out.

Quote
Quote
"the system is broken, and I totally abuse it like everyone else does, and the system should be fixed.” 
Ethically I have a huge problem with the above statement and generalization. Many people don’t abuse it like “everyone else” nor is that an excuse not to do better.

That doesn't matter. Any system that relies on people being 'fair spirited and not taking more than their share' is ridiculous. The rules should absolutely bar any untoward use of accounts, and any use within the rules it just using your money as wisely as possible. You can object to what a person spends their money on, or how they treat their employees, or any number of other things, but in terms of using the mechanical systems available smart people will optimize maximally. If I told you that you could legally file your taxes in a way that would save you thousands a year and be perfectly legal, you wouldn't do it?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 14, 2019, 12:03:21 PM
This brings me back to the virtue question: how can you trust a person who will abuse the system bokkeness to their advantage because "everyone does it” to fix it?

You do realize your question above could be applied to every human to ever file a tax return, right?

Patently untrue. The vast majority of people file an EZ and pay exactly the proscribed amount.

Meanwhile, yes, lots of people will form a bull*censored* LLC to claim "business" expenses, or try to write off their "home office", or claim more charitable giving than they actually did. They are breaking the law, they are immoral, and they probably shouldn't run for public office and put a magnifying glass on themselves.

Saying "yes rich people do that", don't you wonder if Bill Gates is washing money through his charity to pay his golf membership fees? No? Because it is a legitimate charity trying to actually help people.

I think you'd be surprised how many rich people are not shady operators.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 14, 2019, 12:29:00 PM
Quote
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in context of a man who already said he abuses the system there's no purpose in asking "why would he use his accounts in a way that advantages him, that ordinary Joe's don't do?" Yes he is going to use every loophole in the book, and yes rich people do that. Whether I like it is immaterial; virtue doesn't enter into it. The system has rules and so long as you play by those rules (i.e. aren't a criminal) then the system is responsible for the results. Garbage in garbage out.

I agree, in context of a man who says and does such things there is no purpose in asking why. We know why, there is no reason to pretend we don’t.

That said now you have an ethical question. If indeed its garbage in garbage out, why and how do you change it? Do you change it because it morally wrong or because it harms society, or to get your share, or do you just accept it and look away? If you want better what process do you use?

Quote
That doesn't matter. Any system that relies on people being 'fair spirited and not taking more than their share' is ridiculous. The rules should absolutely bar any untoward use of accounts, and any use within the rules it just using your money as wisely as possible. You can object to what a person spends their money on, or how they treat their employees, or any number of other things, but in terms of using the mechanical systems available smart people will optimize maximally. If I told you that you could legally file your taxes in a way that would save you thousands a year and be perfectly legal, you wouldn't do it?

It does matter. The system does rely on people being fair and for "the good" at times even willing to sacrifice. (Life is the sacrifice of Life). In the majority of our interactions throughout the day we do just that. Without it, chaos.  We ‘default to truth’ because not to do so pretty much ends any way of working together. We do it because selfishly in most cases it works to our favor.

I am no paradigm of virtue and when it comes to charity, I give myself a D-. If you told me how to legally save thousands a year on my taxes I would do it and I would most certainly not try to fix it. I would also not pretend I was going to try fix it. 
That said to take advantage of most tax loop holes requires having lots of money to play with in that way.  The middle class and poor don’t tend to benefit from those loop holes, and you could argue in many cases it harms them.
I’m in that group so by your argument to ‘Get my share’ fair or not, I want to close those loop holes and make such abuses criminal.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 14, 2019, 12:57:57 PM
I would add that the genius of men who play the system as Trump does is to get the common man, who will never get to benefit in the same way from the such a system, to do the fighting and sacrificing to keep things as they are for them. 

Watching the game of thrones, we focus on the main characters, but the question that I couldn't help thinking about was why did the common man follow them. For most of them all they got for their trouble was suffering and in the end everything changed but stayed the same. Burned out homes and new group of people calling the shots.

Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 14, 2019, 01:30:18 PM
Quote
The system has rules and so long as you play by those rules (i.e. aren't a criminal) then the system is responsible for the results. Garbage in garbage out.

That said now you have an ethical question. If indeed its garbage in garbage out, why and how do you change it? Do you change it because it morally wrong or because it harms society, or to get your share, or do you just accept it and look away? If you want better what process do you use?

Are you asking why, in the first place, society should have any rules at all? I suppose you can engage in the political philosophy of that, although I wasn't intending to do so. The structure of the rules can have many ends, true: for instance rules made by wolves tend to be about maximizing the fleecing of sheep. Other rules may be made in order to mimize the unrest of the sheep. In a system trying to avoid the wolf/sheep dichotomy the rules may be structured in such a way as to remove conflicts of interest between fellow humans and to maximize their incentive to help each other. Each system will have its own results based on its 'programming'. Like I said, garbage in garbage out. If a system is generating bad results, sure you can blame the users, but I generally don't.

Quote
The system does rely on people being fair and for "the good" at times even willing to sacrifice. (Life is the sacrifice of Life).

Yep and that's one of the principle problems. Any system open-ended enough to be grossly abused if people don't behave as you'd like them to may as well just be restated to say "abuse the system." Now I do agree that if Tocqueville is right that laws always follow from mores, then we do want to inculcate a good set of mores from which laws can follow. But I also personally see it as being a feedback cycle, where the mores in turn are shaped by the ecosystem set by the laws.

Quote
If you told me how to legally save thousands a year on my taxes I would do it and I would most certainly not try to fix it. I would also not pretend I was going to try fix it.

I don't know what you're intending to mean with "try to fix it." Fix what? I said it would be totally legal, i.e. what the system allows for. If you're so bent on 'doing right' with your money you can always donate it to charity and make it your choice. If you think tax law should be stricter or that the income tax levels should be higher then fine, but that's got nothing to do with maximing how well you operate within a given tax system. Telling people with lots of money they shouldn't manage it responsibly is just silly. If corporations used that logic they would go out of business.

I would add that the genius of men who play the system as Trump does is to get the common man, who will never get to benefit in the same way from the such a system, to do the fighting and sacrificing to keep things as they are for them.

It is the system itself which allows for turning your fellow man into a quasi-slave. This is not a necessary component of all possible systems, although it *is* something that will naturally happen it not strictly curtailed through rules. Provide the mechanisms for dominating others and some select people will do it every time and end up in charge. You do know that 1-2% of the population is psychopathics, right? And that some other percentage that aren't may be somewhere close to that on the spectrum; and that even those that aren't may include people who are just nasty or don't care any more. You can't predicate a system on people like that no existing.

Quote
Watching the game of thrones, we focus on the main characters, but the question that I couldn't help thinking about was why did the common man follow them. For most of them all they got for their trouble was suffering and in the end everything changed but stayed the same. Burned out homes and new group of people calling the shots.

It's not a vote, right? You may as well ask why people in China now "allow" their government to curtail their rights and subject them to morality scores. Even the American founders seemed clear that the only recourse against a government oppressing you is bloody revolution. Well that's harder and harder to do these days, and especially when you've got lots of goodies you're afraid to lose. Give the people lots of stuff and they'll tolerate basically anything. It's when their children are starving that they'll burn down city hall.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 14, 2019, 01:47:37 PM
Quote
Telling people with lots of money they shouldn't manage it responsibly is just silly. If corporations used that logic they would go out of business.

So they should maximize their monetary return at the expense of any other value? Or they'll disappear? By that logic there's absolutely nothing wrong with having your shoes made by eight year olds, because it is legal. Just a broken system they are taking advantage of.

No problem for plantation owners, after all slavery was legal and they might go out of business if they didn't flog human beings for working too slowly.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch on November 14, 2019, 02:07:16 PM
Yes, by saying they should manage money responsibly he actually meant they should chase the almighty dollar at the expense of everything else. Up to, and including, child labor and slavery.

Really connected the dots on that one.  ::)
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 14, 2019, 02:09:17 PM
I'm simply illustrating that virtually everyone understands that ethics play a role in money management. Including making questionable deductions and having a fake charity to settle your personal and business obligations.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 14, 2019, 02:51:33 PM
Quote
If a system is generating bad results, sure you can blame the users, but I generally don't.

I get that. however if we want better how do we go about making the system accountable?
In general we demonstrate how the system is broken by pointing out those that are abusing it and why that isn't working for the many.

If the system is broken it begs the question to if we want to fix it, and then how. By fixing it I mean just that. If my car is broken and I need it I fix it.

in this debate about the charity foundations and how they are used and sometimes manipulated your asking that we put a side question of virtue, ethics morality. Its the system that is broken.
but as TheDrake illustrated "virtually everyone understands that ethics play a role in money management" ethics also plays a role in making the decision to fix or make better a system that is broken. 

We can compartmentalize. Focus on the broken system - garbage in garbage out, without mentioning those that are abusing it, or ethics... however determining the why its broken and why it should be corrected becomes very difficult.

The problem here isn't the system its attaching the system to partisanship. Partisanship is the garbage.

Abusing a charity for personal gain is wrong for anyone, regardless of political affiliation, race, gender. Full Stop. 
We all should demand better but most wont because persons involved in that abuse belong to their tribe. 
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 14, 2019, 03:09:28 PM
I'm simply illustrating that virtually everyone understands that ethics play a role in money management. Including making questionable deductions and having a fake charity to settle your personal and business obligations.

Ethics *may* play a role in money management, but the areas in which it does are separate from what we're discussing here. Unethical behavior may include using the power of your business to leverage unfavorable deals with suppliers that have little choice but to agree; and may include treating your employees poorly, if legally; and may include refusing to ever donate to charity. But they don't include using every tool at your disposal to minimize taxable income if the law permits it. Maybe there are really complex loopholes that the law intends to block but cannot keep up with special maneuvering that people have figured out to do, which would be an engineering issue not a moral issue.

There are, however, some things the law allows that I think it shouldn't, and that is something to take to the legislators, not to the business owners. Asking them pretty please not to import goods made by children is useless when the competitors are doing it and you'll never be able to compete unless you follow suit. If production practices like that are to be decried then they need to be outlawed. If using slaves is no good then ban slavery. Allowing a practice but hoping people won't use it is just dumb. Now a lot of the time a legal system is either incomplete or broken, and IMO that's the fault of the system. When slavery in the U.S. was legal there really was an ethical dilemma there for people who thought it was wrong. The answer is that it shouldn't have been legal; it *may* also have been true that while legal people had the capability to refrain from owning slaves, but IMO that's beside the point when discussing tax law. Historically I think the rule of thumb tended to be that rules were minimal compared with the kind of schemes people could come up with, but that's not going to fly in this age, nor will it going forward.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 14, 2019, 03:20:29 PM
I get that. however if we want better how do we go about making the system accountable?
In general we demonstrate how the system is broken by pointing out those that are abusing it and why that isn't working for the many.

If the system is broken it begs the question to if we want to fix it, and then how. By fixing it I mean just that. If my car is broken and I need it I fix it.

I know this is your question generally. But the people need to actually want it to be fixed. But partisan politics isn't just a fantasy created by politicians; it also requires people to buy into it and legitimize it. Voting for major party candidates does that, for instance, even though it can be difficult to see an alternative that's acceptable. Take a look at people in life, on this board, on social media, and elsehwere - do you see them rebelling against the partisan mindset, or taking part in it? Ask yourself if they really want to fix that, whatever else they say. It's kind of like clickbait articles: people can call them trash all they want, but if they're clicking on them then guess why they exist.

If politics pushes people's buttons, squeezing the "flattering you" button when needed, the "we've found the enemy for you to hate" button, and so forth, the people tend to like those things. Or if 'like them' is a bit facile, they participate in them in any case. I mean, I find it hard to believe that people aren't up in arms about campaign finance and political bribery. I hear of multi-billion dollar campaigns and it makes my head spin. But just as soon as you hear someone advocate that it's great because it means 'their team' is serious then you know the game is over. They'd rather their team win than both teams are kept in check. As long as that's the case you don't have a public will to change anything. Most likely significant change will result from either a total forcing of it by some circumstance, or by some disaster.

It all comes back to conflicts of interest. Most people will not accept any kind of personal loss (including "my team" being taken down a peg) even if it means an improved system for everyone. I also think that probably a majority of people would endorse a system that gives them $5 even knowing it costs someone else $10. They have not been brought up to think of the aggregate system, they have been brought up to worship winners and to hate losers. Again, look to the culture for that. The only way I see to change the culture, and I'm not kidding about this, is to either go into education or to raise your own children and teach them different values.

Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 14, 2019, 03:30:03 PM
Except that there was no part of that as a legitimate charitable donation. It wasn't like they thought about their mission, picked a charity that did good things. They bought off a dude that had his own shady charity fund.

Do you even vet this nonsense?  The original event was a charity fund raiser.  The win a million dollar hole was hit, which meant the charity holding the fund raiser owed a million dollars.  None of that is "Trump."

Trump's "involvement" was that the event was hosted at his golf course.  How was he "buying" off a guy?  The "guy" was owed $1 million.  When the insurance fell through, they settled it for 3/4's paid by the original charity to the "guy".  Trump's contribution to make the situation right was 3 life time memberships to the course that were auctioned off.

The fact that it was "settled" by contributing the funds to other charities is literally the "best case" of that scenario.

None of that is shady or remotely a bad thing.

 
Quote
Because Trump made many of his charitable donations through the Foundation.  Pretty common for the super wealthy.

actually made me do a spite take.
Trump doesn't do charity. He doesn't believe in it, he's transnational in everything he does/is.  His charity "giving" has always involved smoke a mirrors.

That's pretty cynical.  Have no idea what Trump's motivations are, but the NY AG admitted in the stipulations that the charitable donations were to legit charities, not a single claim was for donations to "fake" charities.

Quote
No need to be embarrassed or perform mental/ethical gymnastics to defend this type of behavior. You either find it wrong (regardless who does it) or you do but can't admit it (fear it might make it harder to support your man) or you don't care,  No matter which way we feel its not like anything more is going to come of it.

Or maybe, I think that when a thread is based on lies, that debunking them ought to trigger some humility and maybe a mea culpa, rather than an endless string of 'splaining why notwithstanding the refutations it was still ultimate evil?

Seriously, I didn't engage in mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible.  I just pointed out that claims like, 'Trump admitted to stealing from charities' or that 'Trump admitted guilt' are bogus lies.  I pointed out that the Foundation was mismanaged, but also pointed out that virtually none of that resulted in a real harm, and virtually everything they did was correctable with a bit of paperwork (ie, it wasn't substantively wrong).

Other than poor governance practices, Trump's big mistake was his belief that donating money from a foundation that pretty much exclusively was funded from his own assets and contributions in lieu of payments to himself, was the same things as donating the money directly.  In all cases, he could have skipped funding the foundation and made the donations himself - got the same tax benefits - and there would have been NOTHING shady about it.  Hence, it's hard to see what's "shady" about this process.

Saying "yes rich people do that", don't you wonder if Bill Gates is washing money through his charity to pay his golf membership fees? No? Because it is a legitimate charity trying to actually help people.

I 100% guarantee that Bill Gates has put money through his foundation to donate to another charity that he could have donated directly.

I would not remotely be stunned, if Gates had not on more than one occasion directed that people compensate his foundation for things Gates provided from his own resources (e.g., auctioning off a lunch, or donating an event, or a speaking fee, heck I wouldn't be surprised if something hasn't been donated by Microsoft or hosted at their facilities at some point).  Would you really?  None of that is shady, and it's not shady when Trump did it either.

But moreover, in none of this is there an allegation that Trump used charitable funds to pay for benefits to himself.  He didn't use them to PAY for golf memberships, he literally donated golf memberships to the charities to auction off for their benefit.

It takes a lot of mind twisting to see a crime in making donations to charity, where no part of the process was illegal or even a bad thing.

Quote
I think you'd be surprised how many rich people are not shady operators.

And I think you'd be surprised how an aggressive prosecutor can make any look like a shady operator.  I mean heck, the media does it all the time.  Want someone to "look guilty"?  Catch them by surprise and keep reshowing the "no comment" scene right after you ask a leading question.

Want a private foundation that's poorly managed to look "guilty" it's trivially easy once you dig through all of their records.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 14, 2019, 03:47:42 PM
Quote
But the people need to actually want it to be fixed.

I agree, we make a lot of partisan noise but don't talk about the question as to if we want to or should fix it.

For me its not a partisan issue. Abusing ones charity as far to many people and organisations do is wrong and should be criminal.
The problem may be in the laws of the system but the garbage is in the making of the issue a partisan one.

As a aside in general when we debate these kinds of things we disregard and or look away from the ethical and moral questions.
Facts, truth, ethics don't matter, its the system that's broken and should be the focus. But I can't separate them. How do we repair a system and do better, if that is what we want to do, without facts, truth or ethics?

If we don't actually want to fix the system why are we debating anything at all?
 
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 14, 2019, 03:56:03 PM
As a aside in general when we debate these kinds of things we disregard and or look away from the ethical and moral questions.
Facts, truth, ethics don't matter, its the system that's broken and should be the focus. But I can't separate them. How do we repair a system and do better, if that is what we want to do, without facts, truth or ethics?

I think it's most appropriate to discuss morals and truth in two contexts: when speaking to an individual about things they have personally done, and when looking at systemic design from a top-down point of view. It's good to ask a particular person why they did a thing, whether they think it's a good thing, do they have guilt about it, etc etc; and it's good to ask what we want out of a system, a government, a business culture, and so forth, and to debate the moral and ethical reasons for one choice over the other. But when discussing how aggregate results comes down within a given system I think the most useful thing to do is to look at its design, and especially how various actions are incentivized or inhibited. You want people to walk in an orderly fashion you design a good walkway and educate the public on how to use it. You want a specific person to walk in an orderly fashion you have a conversation with them, or notify them when they're being an a-hole. Those are two different issues.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 14, 2019, 04:00:15 PM
For me its not a partisan issue. Abusing ones charity as far to many people and organisations do is wrong and should be criminal.

Specifically, what do you mean by "abusing ones charity"?

What activities should be criminal?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 14, 2019, 04:02:00 PM
Absolutely there is an ethics question, and often coupled with a legal question, when it comes to taxes.

When you buy a bunch of goats and stick them on your golf course in order to take advantage of a tax break designed to help farmers, that is unethical. It's a shady maneuver that is also 100% legal. Now you could amend the law to stipulate "not on a golf course" or add more rules to excise the abuse. Which is how we get millions of lines added to the tax code to the point where nobody can understand them and are at risk of making dozens of legitimate errors.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon on November 14, 2019, 04:21:13 PM
it *may* also have been true that while legal people had the capability to refrain from owning slaves, but IMO that's beside the point when discussing tax law.

No may about it as far as my family tree can tell. I have a great(omitted)-grandfather who married the daughter of a wealthy landowner who both owned a lot of land, and a lot of slaves. Family lore on the matter is that some slaves were included as part of the dowry, he freed them because he didn't feel slavery was right. This tends to be reflected in the 1840 census for his family(they married in the 1830's), no slaves present in the household despite living in Mississippi at the time. (He died in Utah before the 1850 census, and the family was in Utah by then, still no documentation indicating slaves being held by that family)
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 14, 2019, 04:31:45 PM
No may about it as far as my family tree can tell. I have a great(omitted)-grandfather who married the daughter of a wealthy landowner who both owned a lot of land, and a lot of slaves. Family lore on the matter is that some slaves were included as part of the dowry, he freed them because he didn't feel slavery was right. This tends to be reflected in the 1840 census for his family(they married in the 1830's), no slaves present in the household despite living in Mississippi at the time. (He died in Utah before the 1850 census, and the family was in Utah by then, still no documentation indicating slaves being held by that family)

That's fine, but the point of my comment is that it's *not* acceptable to just tell people "hey, it's ethically you shady you using slaves, even though it's legal." You need to also outlaw it. I mean, sure, you should also tell people on an individual basis "hey man, that's not cool" but the real solution is to do away with the practice, rather than to hope people won't do it and then sort of frown when they do.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon on November 14, 2019, 05:16:59 PM
That's fine, but the point of my comment is that it's *not* acceptable to just tell people "hey, it's ethically you shady you using slaves, even though it's legal." You need to also outlaw it. I mean, sure, you should also tell people on an individual basis "hey man, that's not cool" but the real solution is to do away with the practice, rather than to hope people won't do it and then sort of frown when they do.

Not going to disagree with that, too many confuse legality with morality, as that cuts both ways.

Slavery being legal didn't make it moral.

Harboring of fugitive slaves being illegal didn't make the act immoral.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 14, 2019, 05:18:20 PM
That's fine, but the point of my comment is that it's *not* acceptable to just tell people "hey, it's ethically you shady you using slaves, even though it's legal." You need to also outlaw it. I mean, sure, you should also tell people on an individual basis "hey man, that's not cool" but the real solution is to do away with the practice, rather than to hope people won't do it and then sort of frown when they do.

That's great, I look forward to an era of greatly increased regulations and compliance costs. Like Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 14, 2019, 05:23:57 PM
Quote
Specifically, what do you mean by "abusing ones charity"?

What activities should be criminal?

Far to many charities spend to much of the donated monies on wages and administration, its not unusual for only 20% of donation to get to the cause most people hope their helping. A charity that can't get to at least 50% should lose its status. IMO

Its should be criminal for a charity to be used for personal financial gain (beyond tax shelter), means of payoff... basically if the majority of the monies are not directed to the cause people believe they are donating to - crime.  The charity loses it's status for sure and maybe heave fines if not jail time.

Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 14, 2019, 05:34:22 PM
That's fine, but the point of my comment is that it's *not* acceptable to just tell people "hey, it's ethically you shady you using slaves, even though it's legal." You need to also outlaw it. I mean, sure, you should also tell people on an individual basis "hey man, that's not cool" but the real solution is to do away with the practice, rather than to hope people won't do it and then sort of frown when they do.

That's great, I look forward to an era of greatly increased regulations and compliance costs. Like Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank.

But more regulation isn't always the out come. Actually when its done correctly regulations are often simplified
In the movie 'Matter of sex' the issue of many of the tax laws was attaching a law to a attribute like gender. In the case argued the word woman was attached to the word caregiver which complicated things. Only a woman could be caregivers and receive the tax benefit. Remove the unnecessary attachment of gender and race and the tax law was simplified.

A law preventing someone running for office and using their charity foundation as a means of funding it is easy. NO
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 14, 2019, 06:28:02 PM
Quote
Specifically, what do you mean by "abusing ones charity"?

What activities should be criminal?

Far to many charities spend to much of the donated monies on wages and administration, its not unusual for only 20% of donation to get to the cause most people hope their helping. A charity that can't get to at least 50% should lose its status. IMO

Okay.  Got no problem with that, Charities today are frequently abused by shady groups that tie themselves to a good sounding cause.  Look at the lists maintained of abusive charities, there are hundreds if not thousands that try to play off the Make a wish Theme where almost none of the money goes to the kids.  My wife can't stand a well known Breast Cancer charity that gives less than 20% to research and spends most of it's money on awareness.

But that has next to nothing to do with Trump's Foundation.  I'm not aware they paid anyone a salary or spent anything on fund raising.

Quote
Its should be criminal for a charity to be used for personal financial gain (beyond tax shelter), means of payoff... basically if the majority of the monies are not directed to the cause people believe they are donating to - crime.  The charity loses it's status for sure and maybe heave fines if not jail time.

Okay.  How does that fit in here?  The Trump Foundation monies were permitted to go to any charitable causes the Board approved (the Board was pretty much, Trump, two of his kids and an employee of his).  Ergo - any charity is within their mandate - and there's not even a plausible allegation of a non-charity receiving a payment (other than the one case where the charity self reported an error related to two similarly named groups) from the foundation. 

Again, other than the campaign event, the issues with the Foundation were connected with payments to other charities - nothing about such payments was illegal or improper for the Foundation to do.  What was improper was the "connection" to non-profit entities that were arguably required to make the donation themselves.  To the extent they were holy owned by Trump - the "argument" is that Trump was required to donate more, even though it was almost certainly the understanding at the time, that the Foundation would be making the donations.

I guess my issue here is wrapping my head around what specifically is agitating people here.  Other than TDS, and some fake fact situations, I'm not getting what EXACTLY people find outrageous. 

I mean to put it simply, the claim is "you promised to make a charitable donation, which you did from a charity to which you donated money previously."   And jumping from there to "evil".
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 14, 2019, 06:29:25 PM
But that's what everyone is bickering about. It's not like the charity went and bought a campaign bus, which all reasonable people would agree is illegal. How do you define what counts as funding a campaign? Does getting publicity count?

As for identifying shady charities, I trust Charity Navigator (https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.cnadvisories)

Unsurprisingly, the Trump Foundation made the list, probably quite some time ago.

Here's an example of that slushiness that you talked about Fenring, and it isn't a high profile politician. Some regular people do similar things and get caught.

Quote
Hall, a former professional and collegiate football player, started the Roy Hall Driven Foundation in 2009. The organization changed its name to the Driven Foundation in 2010. Hall received cash in exchange for personal autographs when it was unclear whether he was appearing on his personal behalf as a private individual or as a representative of Driven. He also made public speaking appearances under circumstances in which it was unclear whether he was appearing on his own behalf as a private individual or as a representative of Driven. No paper trail existed to differentiate the two.

Here's a list of all the organizations similar to Trump's (https://nonprofitquarterly.org/is-nys-atty-general-underwood-just-picking-on-the-trump-foundation/) who also got in trouble for the same stuff.

Quote
Schulman reached a settlement with then-Attorney General Eric Schneiderman late last year over allegations that he diverted funds from NYLAG to other charities he controlled in order to raise his community profile. This is similar to how Underwood says that Trump Campaign officials reportedly directed the disbursements of funds to Iowa veterans’ charities to appear more generous as the 2016 Republican Iowa Caucus approached.

So yeah, this counts as illegal behavior.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 14, 2019, 07:36:42 PM
But that's what everyone is bickering about. It's not like the charity went and bought a campaign bus, which all reasonable people would agree is illegal. How do you define what counts as funding a campaign? Does getting publicity count?

I don't know, does it?  Are you seriously arguing that no other politician has ever had publicity support from a charity or the unspoken endorsement of a charity? 

I mean again, I asked this upfront, is the message on the main beef that got NY interested, that Trump had a charitable event for Veteran's instead of participating in a debate, really conduct you think makes us worse?  Is that really something you think is important to punish?  As shady?  Or Nefarious?

Maybe there's a good argument there.  But I haven't seen it made here.

Quote
As for identifying shady charities, I trust Charity Navigator (https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.cnadvisories)

Unsurprisingly, the Trump Foundation made the list, probably quite some time ago.

You trust them?  Does that mean you searched on the list for Trump?  Cause the "Trump Foundation" did make the list, and probably a long time ago.  And its "official" rating?  Not rated.  Why?  Cause it's a private foundation.

You know what else made the list?  "Donald J. Trump Foundation" which shows with a "High Concern" rating - why?  Not because of any financial issues, but largely because of the post 2016 negative media coverage, and then the AG's agreement to dissolve it.  You can't make this up, literally, you trust their rating, which is just repeating the negative media and nothing about how they spend money.  Might ask yourself why it isn't "unrated" given what it is - a private foundation.

So the "shadiness" that they are reporting on is completely based on the events in the AG report and a very hostile media covering him.  That's pretty much just repeating what we know.  Why am I having to take the 30 seconds to do the search on the link you provided to get to the truth that it's not adding anything to the debate? 

And I followed your link to the situations similar to Trumps to "prove" it wasn't selective enforcement.  You have to be kidding, each of those cases involves significant fraud and misappropriation - the exact thing that doesn't exist in the Trump Foundation.  As I noted - way above - these cases are never brought as a routine matter without fraud and your link proves that in the lengths it goes to assert these are the same thing.

Case one.  The guilty party "took" $500k from his father's foundation.  That's theft (ie fraud).  The "similarity" to Trump?  Trump approved actual charitable payments without calling a Board meeting (with his two kids and employees).   Given that in case one, there's no way to make that legit, and in Trump's case there's no chance the Board wouldn't have approved.  Fail.

Case two.  The guilty party redirected funds from a charity he controlled to other charities he controlled to raise his profile.  That's oddly also theft, the first charity can not divert it's funds as a matter of law so long as it's charitable purpose exists.  That doesn't apply - at all - to a foundation that is authorized to contribute to any charity.  The "similarity" apparently is that the guilty party was "trying to raise his profile" which they assert is the same as Trump.  The fact that first is patently theft from the charity and the other is not is kind of a big difference to ignore to make the tangential claim the point.  Fail.

Case three.  Actual fake charity that didn't do anything it said it was going to do.  Given that doesn't match the Trump situation - at all - how did they create a similarity?  Oh yeah the Trump foundation bid - at another charities event - $10k on a portrait of Trump.  There's nothing actually illegal about that though, it's not an uncommon thing to bid the amount of an intended donation on something the charity doesn't really need.  The only real thing this tells you is about Trump's vanity.  The actual problem that the Trump foundation had on that point wasn't that this purchase was illegal, its that the Foundation let the Trump hotels hang the picture without charging them "rent".   This one seems more like a lie than anything else, but it's a fail.

Case four.  The guilty party bought themselves a house with the charity's money.  Nothing like that happened with Trump.  How is this "similar" well the charity had a "failure of oversight" just like how Trump did (oh yeah, except in Trump's case there's no chance that the legal Board wouldn't have signed off on what he wanted, so this one is completely fake).  Fail.

Case five.  The guilty brothers used the charities funds on shopping sprees for themselves.  How is that similar to Trump?  Well the assertion is that these guys mixed family and charity business - just like the Trumps.  Even though nothing remotely like this occurred with the Trumps.  This one is the most arguable as they site to Trump paying personal legal expenses - by which they are referring to Trump agreeing to make a charitable donation and actually making it from the Foundation.  That's an actual violation, but it's almost completely a technical one given that Trump would be the ultimate source of the payment no mater which person paid it.  Still, the similarity has nothing to do with the theft that brought charges on the brothers, which was not justifiable under any fact pattern.

Case six.  The guilty party used the charities funds to pay for his meals, vacations and entertainment.  They don't explain how this one was similar other than to claim "allegations resemble" those against Trump.  They literally don't.  There are no allegations that Trump ever took money from the Foundation in this manner, in fact money flowed the other way from Trump or in lieu of payments that could have been to Trump.  This one was a complete fail, but I note, even on the lean facts presented, I'd expect that the guilty party here may have had a legitimate dispute - travel by an officer of an entity, even a charity is often legitimately reimbursable (the allegation is that these were "vacations" which likely means they were mixed use trips and may have been shady), as would be certain meals (again the allegations were that these were excessive, though they easily good have been for legitimate fund raising or other purposes) and entertainment (which personally I don't think should ever be okay on a "personal" level, but would often be legit in a fund raising context).

Pretty much that list was garbage to make you think there's some kind of NY AG ruthlessness towards charities that doesn't exist.  Those were all cases where charitable funds were clearly converted to illegal uses (except maybe the last, though it isn't clear from what they described).  That didn't happen with Trump's charities.  Even in the argument about "settlements" the settlements were literally donations to charities.  One could actually argue that what in fact happened was that the Foundation made a free standing donation and that Trump still owes another, but I suspect that the donations were always papered the other way.  A technical violation, but NOTHING LIKE FRAUD.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 14, 2019, 07:49:11 PM
You trust them?  Does that mean you searched on the list for Trump?  Cause the "Trump Foundation" did make the list, and probably a long time ago.  And its "official" rating?  Not rated.  Why?  Cause it's a private foundation.

No, I've been using them for over a decade to research any charity I'm considering making a donation to, including overhead ratios, legal action, and background.

Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon on November 14, 2019, 07:54:17 PM
A law preventing someone running for office and using their charity foundation as a means of funding it is easy. NO

Hey, so the Clinton's and Bill Gates, among others can never run for office, or otherwise need to put their charities on hiatus while they hold office? Sounds great.

You do realize that the moment "The Clinton Foundation" or any other "(Insert Name) Foundation" performs a charitable act, even absent being directly tied to a campaign event, it is going to "come around" and be used to benefit the Campaign in some shape or form?

This shouldn't be an abstract thing for some of you guys, who feel that the Stormy Daniels payoff was a campaign contribution that needed to be reported to the FEC.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon on November 14, 2019, 08:10:13 PM
Case six.  The guilty party used the charities funds to pay for his meals, vacations and entertainment.  They don't explain how this one was similar other than to claim "allegations resemble" those against Trump.  They literally don't.  There are no allegations that Trump ever took money from the Foundation in this manner, in fact money flowed the other way from Trump or in lieu of payments that could have been to Trump.  This one was a complete fail, but I note, even on the lean facts presented, I'd expect that the guilty party here may have had a legitimate dispute - travel by an officer of an entity, even a charity is often legitimately reimbursable (the allegation is that these were "vacations" which likely means they were mixed use trips and may have been shady), as would be certain meals (again the allegations were that these were excessive, though they easily good have been for legitimate fund raising or other purposes) and entertainment (which personally I don't think should ever be okay on a "personal" level, but would often be legit in a fund raising context).

The funny thing is case six is eerie in its resemblance to how The Clinton Foundation actually does operate, except they're clever enough to dot their i's and cross their t's.

Bill's heading to $100,000 speaking engagement? Here's use of the foundation funded jet, foundation funded hotels, foundation funded food(via a per diem determined by the board, no doubt) and oh we might spread those engagements over several days within close physical proximity to each other, so rather than flying them home only to fly back a day later, we'll just pay for them to stay in the areas for the 2 to 3 days between speaking engagements.

Comparable games are played with the use of Air Force One, and surprisingly, the media did report about how Obama was taking advantage of it during his term in office. Although I expect they'll be screaming if Trump tries it. Where in order to avoid having to pay the full cost of their vacation trips, or even campaign trips, they'd mix some "Presidential Duties" into the trip on the way out, or back from the vacation, if not both. That way the tax payer would pick up the tab for travel from the "official function" to/from the White House depending on if they're leaving or coming back. Leaving PotUS(or the campaign) to pay the difference for the "not official" portion of the trip.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 15, 2019, 12:42:09 AM
Thanks for that write-up about the cases, Seriati. I can't vet any of that personally but I appreciate it when someone does legwork.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch on November 15, 2019, 07:23:36 AM
Thanks for that write-up about the cases, Seriati. I can't vet any of that personally but I appreciate it when someone does legwork.

Concur.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 15, 2019, 09:16:26 AM
I appreciate the thought, but I didn't do any real leg work on those.  Just follow the link, it's a bunch of one paragraph "summaries" of each case.  I'd expect if you look at the actual cases there's a lot of nuance. 

My point though was simple, there are an enormous amount of technical violations of the law that occur.  It's almost unheard of for a government inspection of something not to generate a list of "violations," which is short for violations of law.  Prosecutions, however, almost never follow without some form of fraud or deliberate bad act.  There's nothing there in the Trump situation on that front, which makes it obvious that the prosecution of Trump was in fact out of the ordinary when you compare it to a list of actual prosecutions and they all pretty much involve fraud. 

I should dig into that sixth case further.  Given the description its either something really eggregrious, expenses with no basis in reality at all, or the individual in question was themselves targeted for a reason.

This is exactly why the recent focus by leftist charities on Attorney General races has me freaked out.  They are deliberately targeting the systemic weakness in allowing a prosecutor to choose whether to pursue a case.  That discretion is supposed to be there to further justice, to "right size" the level of the prosecution to the facts and the situation, if instead it is used to punish political enemies and protect political allies our system is going to collapse.  We're going to really need prosecutorial reform.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 15, 2019, 10:55:43 AM
A law preventing someone running for office and using their charity foundation as a means of funding it is easy. NO

Hey, so the Clinton's and Bill Gates, among others can never run for office, or otherwise need to put their charities on hiatus while they hold office? Sounds great.

You do realize that the moment "The Clinton Foundation" or any other "(Insert Name) Foundation" performs a charitable act, even absent being directly tied to a campaign event, it is going to "come around" and be used to benefit the Campaign in some shape or form?

This shouldn't be an abstract thing for some of you guys, who feel that the Stormy Daniels payoff was a campaign contribution that needed to be reported to the FEC.

Clinton foundation gets a Failing grade and IMO should not be given a charity status. Less then 20% goes to actual causes.
By my rules anyone with a foundation can run for office they just can't use any of the foundation monies in that campaign. Their foundations would have to be 100%
transparent.  If they have something to hide, don't run.

Quote
But that has next to nothing to do with Trump's Foundation

You asked me what I meant by "abusing ones charity" and was responding about charity in general not specific to Trump.

Trumps foundation has always been a sham long before 2016. Clinton's Foundation is also questionable and IMO falls into the sham category as well allthough that can point to causes is which they 'made a difference' I don't think Trump foundation can do that. Regardless under my rules they get shut down.

I've lost track of what were debating here

With regards to Trump. The man doesn't believe in charity. Everything for him is transnational, 'What have you done for me lately is his jam. Everything is a quid pro quo. With that frame of reference their are no lines that can't be crossed because there are no lines so shutting down his foundation was the right thing to do.
I have no idea if he crossed any criminal lines or just played the system to take as much as he could from it - garbage in garbage out. 

It's clear from debate we don't want to change how the system works with regards to such foundations work and If we look away from the ethics and morals involved there is nothing left to debate here.

The over all affect though is that we continue to lower the bar of our expectations for future leaders and we only have ourselves to blame
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 15, 2019, 11:05:38 AM
Again though, you seem to be making a lot of implicit assumptions there that don't actual bear out.  When you describe Trump's charity as a "sham" the normal meaning of that is fake, and doesn't actually make contributions to real charities.  There's no evidence that this is occurred.  The Foundation made real donations to real charities.

Is all you're saying that the point of the Foundation was to make Trump look good?  It's a sham because it's there to be used by Trump to "prove" or show his goodness?

If that's you're beef, you're going to have to walk me through why using a Foundation to do exactly what he could have done directly (and there's no question he could have done all these things directly, gotten tax benefits and full credit) is wrong it your world. 

What exactly are you saying that he used the Foundation to do - that he couldn't have literally just done himself - that warrants the negativity?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 15, 2019, 11:07:41 AM
Far to many charities spend to much of the donated monies on wages and administration, its not unusual for only 20% of donation to get to the cause most people hope their helping. A charity that can't get to at least 50% should lose its status. IMO

I just wanted to address this point in passing, because there are misconceptions about how these things often go. Have you ever run a nonprofit or a charity? They are super hard to run well and usually are over budget for everything, because they don't have that much budget, and require a lot of volunteer hours. However if they get enough donations and have an income stream the first thing you want to do in these cases is hire full-time staff so that you can actually stop being a shoestring operation and get real work done. Problem: you need to keep growing if you're going to be hiring staff. And problem: the bigger your goals the more infrastructure you need. Having a $400,000 operating budget with $100,000 of suplus sounds bad to you, right? Only 20% is going to its proper destination. But hold on a sec, because if they're growing that means the overhead may stay the same since it's now sufficient but the surplus will grow. That's in a good case. In a bad case donations are dropping off, but due to the size of the operating the overhead can't be lowered without removing staff and administrative space. But if you do that it doesn't wean down the size of the operation slowly; no it basically makes it impossible to keep doing what they're doing at that scale, which means if you downsize you're also going to downsize on donations, and begin to circle the drain.

These aren't the only two options, but there are many reasons why a charitable organization needs a substantial administration even though its income isn't what it hopes it will be. At best we could call that an inevitable result of competition, where other causes are competing for your donors. At worst we'll have to admit that many (most?) administrators don't do an great job and they just don't run their companies that well. It's not illegal to be so-so at your job, and the charity isn't criminal being not being that successful or efficient.

Maybe some are actually shady operations, either embezzling donations or else lying about what they do. Ideally market forces would weed out the good ones from the bad ones and people would be given a head's up about which charities legit do what they say they'll do. There's no way to ban a charity from being crappy; you may as well make it illegal for brick and mortal stores to be losing money.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 15, 2019, 11:10:34 AM
Is all you're saying that the point of the Foundation was to make Trump look good?  It's a sham because it's there to be used by Trump to "prove" or show his goodness?

If that's you're beef, you're going to have to walk me through why using a Foundation to do exactly what he could have done directly (and there's no question he could have done all these things directly, gotten tax benefits and full credit) is wrong it your world. 

What exactly are you saying that he used the Foundation to do - that he couldn't have literally just done himself - that warrants the negativity?

Yes, I would like to know this as well. It sounds as though some people here think that by using his charity to help promote his campaign through positive PR that this was somehow illegal. But how can it be illegal to create PR by donating to charity? Does that essentially mean politicians should be barred from doing charitable deeds and other nice things, because it might "influence" their election chances, which therefore makes the charitable deed a 'sham'?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 15, 2019, 11:39:21 AM
Quote
The Foundation made real donations to real charities.

The Foundation made lots of donations to other foundations that were not operational. They were legitimate 501c, in the sense that they were also shams of the same type.

Quote
sham - a thing that is not what it is purported to be.

The Trump foundation purported to be an organization designed to make donations to eventually wind up in operations to help a cause.

I will accept the selective enforcement argument. After looking into it more:

Quote
Other donations made to the Trump Foundation that may have been in return for Trump's personal work include:

$400,000 from Comedy Central as payment for Trump's attendance at a celebrity roast in his honor.[50]
$150,000 from People Magazine in return for exclusive photos of Trump's son, Barron Trump.[94]
$500,000 from NBC Universal in 2012 while the network was airing Trump's show, The Apprentice.[105]
$100,000 from the family of Donna Clancy, whose family law office had been renting space at the Trump Organization's 40 Wall Street building.[104]
$100,000 in 2005 for work by Trump's wife Melania for Norwegian Cruise Lines for a segment that was later included in Trump's show, The Apprentice. A spokeswoman for the company confirmed that the appearance fee to Melania was paid in the form of a donation to the Trump Foundation.[104]

So all of those entities are also engaging in paying for Trump (the individual) to be on their programs, not Trump (the organization).

Again, a politician absolutely can do charitable things - as long as they don't mention their campaign while they are handing over the check, or making a speech about their campaign. That's separating X the candidate from X the donor. This was the Trump issue. I'm willing to be proven wrong if other politicians are doing that. But I think this is the i-dotting an t-crossing mentioned earlier. Minding the Ps and Qs is the difference between legal and illegal.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD on November 15, 2019, 11:42:36 AM
Quote
Clinton foundation gets a Failing grade and IMO should not be given a charity status. Less then 20% goes to actual causes.
A quick Wikipedia search suggests this is untrue.  Two different charity monitor services, Charity Navigator and CharityWatch, each gave the foundation their highest rating for governance and disbursements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation#Charity_review_sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation#Charity_review_sources)
Quote
In September 2016, [Charity Navigator] gave it its highest possible rating, four out of four stars, after its customary review of the Foundation's financial records and tax statements.[76] A different charity monitor, CharityWatch, said that 88% of the foundation's money goes toward its charitable mission and gave the foundation an A rating for 2016. In 2015, based on revenue of $223 million and an expense ratio of 12% the foundation spent in excess of $26 million to complete its mission.[77]
Of course, the Wikipedia entry might not be accurate, or these entities might not be on the up and up... from where did you get your information, rightleft22?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 15, 2019, 11:52:27 AM
Again, a politician absolutely can do charitable things - as long as they don't mention their campaign while they are handing over the check, or making a speech about their campaign. That's separating X the candidate from X the donor. This was the Trump issue.

Actually I don't think this is right. It's completely legitimate to use reputation earned off one venture to support your reputation on another. If the main feature in both cases is *you* then, yeah, it is totally legit to promote yourself. If you run a successful company on the one hand, and are asked to be on the board of a charity on the other (let's say), it's the opposite of the case that you must divorce these two. On the contrary, they want your reputation as a business owner, and likewise your presence on a charity board is totally going to affect your business credibility as a good citizen. That's how it should be. It is completely honorable to actually do good things and to be known for it, and for that to impact how people perceive other work you do, since the common denominator between them is you. You are being up your own reputation. This is exactly what happens with freelancers, by the way, where your only possible credibility is going to come from what other people have said about you on other projects, even those unrelated to the task you're doing now; like "I've never had X do this job for me before, but I know he's totally reliable from other stuff."

What I mentioned earlier about wearing different hats is a different issue, where a person may not bother to note in which capacity they're acting when doing a job. That's why formal board meetings are needed for a charity, for instance, to make it clear "we're doing the charity stuff now" and they're not discussing Trump's hotel business at the same time, mixing it all together.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 15, 2019, 12:05:35 PM
But you can't use foundation funds to have a political rally, which is the argument being made. That violates the 501c rules:

Quote
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

In this case, the targeting of Iowa charities 4 days before caucuses in and of itself suggests a violation. Adding a big event on top of it makes it worse.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 15, 2019, 12:09:16 PM
But you can't use foundation funds to have a political rally, which is the argument being made. That violates the 501c rules:

I'll leave that one to Seriati, because he seems to claim that this isn't what was happening.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 15, 2019, 12:30:11 PM
Quote
At one point, Lewandowski emailed a foundation official to see if money could be ready to distribute during Trump’s last campaign events before the caucuses: “Is there any way we can make some disbursements this week while in Iowa? Specifically on Saturday,” Lewandowski wrote, in an email cited by Underwood.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 15, 2019, 12:59:16 PM
Quote
It sounds as though some people here think that by using his charity to help promote his campaign through positive PR that this was somehow illegal. But how can it be illegal to create PR by donating to charity? Does that essentially mean politicians should be barred from doing charitable deeds and other nice things, because it might "influence" their election chances, which therefore makes the charitable deed a 'sham'

I'm not sure how he used his charity to promote positive PR for the campaign. There is a suggesting he used money from the foundation for his campaign expenses (Not related to charity PR) but not sure if that has been proved. 

Trump did used his "charity" to promote his business interest and played in the gray area. That's who he is and what he does. I have no idea if he crossed any criminal line but IMO only a fool would have donated to that foundation unless all they wanted was Trumps favor.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 15, 2019, 01:13:26 PM
Quote
The largest disbursement in the foundation’s history — a $264,231 gift to the Central Park Conservancy in 1989 — appeared to benefit Trump’s business: it paid to restore a fountain outside Trump’s Plaza Hotel.

That's using foundation funds to benefit your business, isn't it? All of you arguing that this is perfectly natural, happens all the time, rarely prosecuted, maybe even shouldn't be prosecuted - you may well be right. I'm no legal expert, nor am I an expert in charitable organizations.

It goes against the fundamental concept of a tax exempt charity, however.

It may also be true that no donor was defrauded, because the people who "donated" had no real expectation that the money would be used except to benefit Trump personally. Certainly anyone who researched it even for two minutes would probably understand it was going to be used to gain favors for Trump - and the donations were probably to curry favor with Trump.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 15, 2019, 01:14:45 PM
Again, a politician absolutely can do charitable things - as long as they don't mention their campaign while they are handing over the check, or making a speech about their campaign. That's separating X the candidate from X the donor. This was the Trump issue.

Actually I don't think this is right. It's completely legitimate to use reputation earned off one venture to support your reputation on another.

Actually, there's nothing remotely illegal or unethical for a politician to mention their campaign while handing over checks.  The "ethical" or "legal" violation is of the charity itself, for "endorsing" the politician.  But why is that unethical?  Seriously, why is it unethical for a charity to endorse a politician. 

Largely, it was a rule designed to keep churches from endorsements, and to keep tax free dollars from going to support politicians.  The punishments are all targetted at making tax payments and losing tax free status.  Trump paid the excise taxes, they were literally tiny.

But you can't use foundation funds to have a political rally, which is the argument being made. That violates the 501c rules:

It's actually not the argument made.  No foundation funds were used for a political rally.  You can read the AG's statements yourself, they are absolutely clear that the CAMPAIGN paid for the charitable event (not the other way around).  The AG argued that the apparent endorsement was wrong, not that any funds were misapplied.

Quote
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

Yes it's a tax law, designed to prevent tax free dollars from going to support politicians, the "consequence" is an excise tax (treating the dollars as taxable).  And ultimately the risk of loss of tax free status.  Note they didn't apply either of those remedies to the event - cause there was no misuse of charitable dollars.

Quote
In this case, the targeting of Iowa charities 4 days before caucuses in and of itself suggests a violation. Adding a big event on top of it makes it worse.

Again, ask yourself if this is a good result.  You literally seem to think that it should be criminal for a politician to raise money for a charity while they are campaigning.  Is that serving a greater good that I'm missing?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 15, 2019, 01:23:14 PM
Quote
Again, ask yourself if this is a good result.  You literally seem to think that it should be criminal for a politician to raise money for a charity while they are campaigning.  Is that serving a greater good that I'm missing?

Nope. It should be criminal to use your charity TO campaign. Both for FEC purposes and tax purposes. It already is criminal for a campaign to coordinate with a charity and direct its activities. The same reason a Super PAC can't be directed by the campaign. Because we have limits on direct contributions to campaigns. If you can skirt past those, then there are no limits. There are limits on personal contributions to avoid having an oligarchy. The fact that it hasn't been effective isn't a reason for it to not exist.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 15, 2019, 01:40:43 PM
The topic of this thread - In any other administration - is still holding true

No way those defending Trumps use of his "charity" would use the same arguments to defend Clinton if he had done the same things. (which he may have)

When I use the word 'shady' I mean a lack of transparency - smoke and mirrors misdirection. A problem with to many of these types of foundations
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 15, 2019, 02:37:06 PM
The topic of this thread - In any other administration - is still holding true

No way those defending Trumps use of his "charity" would use the same arguments to defend Clinton if he had done the same things. (which he may have)

You know, going back to the thread topic, I have to completely disagree. You can say whatever you want about whether you believe Hillary was operating a pay-to-play scheme, but I have no doubt that if Saudi Arabia and QATAR started donating large sums to the Trump foundation people would be losing their crap and it would be called Treason 2019. In terms of optics what the Clintons were doing literally could not look worse, other than obviously there being an actual smoking gun of corruption. The kind of stuff we're talking about here in the Trump foundation is little league stuff compared to that, almost a joke in comparison if what we're talking about is "in any other administration." Granted Hillary wasn't the POTUS but still.

I actually do agree in general that standards are changing - for the worse - but on this specific topic it's cringy to hear talk that Trump's golf course shenanigans are anything serious when compared to what literally could amount to selling out the country in the previous admin. And make no mistake I'd make the same attacks against Trump if I heard he was doing the same.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon on November 15, 2019, 02:44:12 PM
But you can't use foundation funds to have a political rally, which is the argument being made. That violates the 501c rules:

I'll leave that one to Seriati, because he seems to claim that this isn't what was happening.

My understanding is the rally was funded by other means. The Foundation funded the donation which happened during the political rally, and it was that crossing of lines which got Trump in trouble.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 15, 2019, 02:50:49 PM
Regardless, the Clinton foundation didn't violate any laws. And that's what's important, right?

Fenring:
Quote
There is no point questioning the virtue of his methods of spending money; only the legality of it is relevant.


Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 15, 2019, 02:52:02 PM
But you can't use foundation funds to have a political rally, which is the argument being made. That violates the 501c rules:

I'll leave that one to Seriati, because he seems to claim that this isn't what was happening.

My understanding is the rally was funded by other means. The Foundation funded the donation which happened during the political rally, and it was that crossing of lines which got Trump in trouble.

Yes, the foundation didn't rent the venue. Is it better if we replace "have a political rally" with "promote a political rally"?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 15, 2019, 02:56:23 PM
Regardless, the Clinton foundation didn't violate any laws. And that's what's important, right?

Fenring:
Quote
There is no point questioning the virtue of his methods of spending money; only the legality of it is relevant.

That comment of mine was made specifically regarding utilizing tax law to the maximum of one's advantage. If the Clintons were doing that then fine, it's legal. Pay to play is hard to prove because the donations are not going to come with a note saying "thanks for the state department favors!!!11!!" But that type of malfeasance, if it happened, is the sort of thing people worried about with the Clinton Foundation. I don't think I've ever heard a complaint about the Clintons fudging their taxes with the Foundation. We're talking about the difference between messing with your books a little to reduce spending, versus selling out to a foreign nation, and you're quoting my text back at me as if that's what I was talking about?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Lloyd Perna on November 15, 2019, 03:01:17 PM
Regardless, the Clinton foundation didn't violate any laws. And that's what's important, right?

Fenring:
Quote
There is no point questioning the virtue of his methods of spending money; only the legality of it is relevant.

We won't know until there is an investigation.  Isn't that how this works now?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 15, 2019, 05:28:35 PM
Quote
We won't know until there is an investigation.  Isn't that how this works now?

I thought we didn't like investigations, their all political witch hunts?
Following Process is bad as well, better to work around them?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch on November 15, 2019, 05:50:08 PM
Quote
We won't know until there is an investigation.  Isn't that how this works now?

I thought we didn't like investigations, their all political witch hunts?
Following Process is bad as well, better to work around them?

Republicans take back the house, we’re gonna love them. It’s your game, you wanted it, don’t be surprised when we decide to play too. The world is changing and the rules you wanted to play by will be applied to you. I can already tell you’re not gonna like it.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon on November 15, 2019, 06:00:44 PM
But you can't use foundation funds to have a political rally, which is the argument being made. That violates the 501c rules:

I'll leave that one to Seriati, because he seems to claim that this isn't what was happening.

My understanding is the rally was funded by other means. The Foundation funded the donation which happened during the political rally, and it was that crossing of lines which got Trump in trouble.

Yes, the foundation didn't rent the venue. Is it better if we replace "have a political rally" with "promote a political rally"?

There is letter of the law, which you seem to be fixated on, and then there is intent of the law.

In terms of intent behind the law, it is very much a grey item on if what Trump did should even be considered a violation with respect to The Trump Foundation.

I'm inclined to think that prosecution of Trump for a violation of that law, in that manner, was no intended by the people who initially drafted that law.

It's very possible that the ones who made subsequent revisions to the law intended prosecution to be possible. I'm not sure that was an improvement myself.

Mostly, it just demonstrates the Tax Code in the United States turns morality into a pretzel wanting to pretend to be Gordian Knot.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 17, 2019, 06:37:14 PM
That's fair. I am fixated on the letter of the law. I think a president should be beyond reproach. So any gray area should be avoided by them.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 18, 2019, 11:53:07 AM
Quote
We won't know until there is an investigation.  Isn't that how this works now?

I thought we didn't like investigations, their all political witch hunts?
Following Process is bad as well, better to work around them?

Republicans take back the house, we’re gonna love them. It’s your game, you wanted it, don’t be surprised when we decide to play too. The world is changing and the rules you wanted to play by will be applied to you. I can already tell you’re not gonna like it.

Because the game was so different when it was the Benghazi witch hunt.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 18, 2019, 01:53:37 PM
Quote
Republicans take back the house, we’re gonna love them. It’s your game, you wanted it, don’t be surprised when we decide to play too. The world is changing and the rules you wanted to play by will be applied to you. I can already tell you’re not gonna like it.

Your making a lot of assumptions and over generalizations that undermine your arguments and moral authority. That the left made the ‘rules’ of the game and that Everyone on the Left approve of those rules (if that former is true).
Your main argument being that because your opponent abused the system and rules "of the game" its ok for you to abuse the system and rules.   An eye for an eye for an eye.

Trump, who used to the system to his advantage, demonstrated how broken the game is, ran on how broken the system is,  implying he would fix it. Only like you he has no desire to fix anything but to continue to excuse himself from doing better and using the system as is, broken, and in the process break it even more. Just playing the game
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch on November 18, 2019, 04:40:37 PM
Quote
We won't know until there is an investigation.  Isn't that how this works now?

I thought we didn't like investigations, their all political witch hunts?
Following Process is bad as well, better to work around them?

Republicans take back the house, we’re gonna love them. It’s your game, you wanted it, don’t be surprised when we decide to play too. The world is changing and the rules you wanted to play by will be applied to you. I can already tell you’re not gonna like it.

Because the game was so different when it was the Benghazi witch hunt.

You mean where soldiers were abandoned on the ground and the ambassador was killed? That the incident you think was about nothing?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 18, 2019, 05:40:44 PM
The incident happened, and it was deadly. The hoax part was claiming that they refused to deploy available assets and that they deliberately intended to deceive the public about the attacks. 9 different investigations turned up not a shred of evidence.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch on November 19, 2019, 07:47:07 AM
Yeah, everyone knows that there is no way support could have arrived onsite over a 6 hour period.

Surveillance stuff, easy. I mean, 6 hours, get those babies across the Med from military bases close by in an hour. No problem. But anything that could do more than simply watch, just impossible. Not a single air or ground asset within 1500 miles. Just nothing could be done, everything in the US military was just too far away to help. Except those drones, they’re magic.

That’s the story. You will believe it.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2019, 08:38:03 AM
Go ahead and show me the testimony within the nine investigations that proves your point.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2019, 12:21:13 PM
The incident happened, and it was deadly. The hoax part was claiming that they refused to deploy available assets and that they deliberately intended to deceive the public about the attacks. 9 different investigations turned up not a shred of evidence.

There was no "hoax" in Benghazi, other than the administration's decision to sell politically convenient lies about what caused it.

A better question is what was the purpose of having an investigation, or several at all?

Legitimately, the President's authority to decide a course of action in that circumstance is absolute.  Obama's judgment about what could be done is absolute and unreviewable.  It can't legitimate be any other way.

Obviously, having an investigation is in part designed to be politically damaging, almost exactly like having a sham impeachment process.  That part is not legitimate.

But does that mean there are no legitimate investigations to be made?  Not at all, there are in fact lots of legitimate questions for a Congress that cares about oversight to pursue in those circumstances.  If you think otherwise, you're actually arguing for a beyond ridiculous level of unquestionable authority in the President's hands. The fact that Congress can't pull it's head out it's political as and do a fair investigation, doesn't actually change that some are warranted.

Like for example, it's absolutely legitimate to investigate whether funds appropriated for security were applied correctly, and whether requests for additional security were improperly ignored.  Congress has spent substantial time looking at these issues overtime as our embassies have been attacked or threatened over the years.  Funding and oversight of spending and future spending needs are 100% within Congresses wheelhouse.

It would also be legitimate to investigate whether there were break downs in the response, including specifically, around command, control and communication that would have prevented Obama from having access to knowledge about options.  While I'm sure the military did so, this actually involves multiple organizations that don't report to them and accordingly, would require the higher level oversight.

It would be legitimate for the Intelligence committees to investigate if there was an intell breakdown, if not, that might lead to a more fulsome investigation of decisions made.  If there was it may lead to changes in authorizations or funding.

Pretty much this is all legit, whether or not it makes an admin look bad, the problem comes when the goal seems to be to make the admin look bad.  Of course, it a world where it's an "impeachable offense" to ask for an investigation into criminal 2016 election interference, based on which political party it helps its hard to know if an investigation was legit or not.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Kasandra on November 19, 2019, 12:58:03 PM

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.
I can see how hard you're straining to justify yourself :) :) :), but you can't come right out and say Trump did something wrong and leave it at that, can you?  Not. Remotely. Possible. :D
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch on November 19, 2019, 03:21:33 PM
Go ahead and show me the testimony within the nine investigations that proves your point.

The point that there were assets in the area that could have responded during the hours of the attack? Seriously? We have entire military bases that could fit that description. There are always navy resources in the Mediterranean and they could have responded. It’s the height of ignorance to suggest that there were simply no assets within 6 hours of Benghazi. Where do you think the surveillance drone came from?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2019, 03:32:53 PM
I really can't believe I'm having to do this for you, but it seems actual soldiers don't agree with you armchair ones. There were apparently four guys who could get there late, and they were told not to go.

Quote
In February, the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, was asked by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, why F-16s at Aviano Air Base in Italy weren't deployed to Benghazi that night.
"This is the middle of the night now, these are not aircraft on strip alert," Dempsey said. "They're there as part of our commitment to NATO and Europe. And so, as we looked at the time line , it was pretty clear that it would take up to 20 hours or so to get them there. Secondly, senator, importantly, it was the wrong tool for the job."
Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified that "unfortunately, there was no specific intelligence or indications of an imminent attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi. And frankly, without an adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond.
"That's not just my view or General Dempsey's view. It was the view of the Accountability Review Board that studied what happened on that day," he added.
"This is not 9/11," Panetta said in a February interview on CNN's "State of the Union." "You cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time. That's the nature of it. Our people are there, they're in position to move, but we've got to have good intelligence that gives us a heads up that something's going to happen."
Hicks said that around 10 p.m. on the night of the first attack, he was at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli talking to State Department officials in Washington, regional security officer John Martinec at the U.S. Embassy, defense attache Lt. Col. Keith Phillips and others.
Phillips was reaching out to officials with the Libyan Ministry of Defense and to the chief of staff of the Libyan Armed Forces, as well as officials with the Joint Staff and the U.S. Africa Command.
Hicks recalled asking Phillips, "Is there anything coming?"
He said Phillips replied "that the nearest fighter planes were Aviano, that he had been told that it would take two to three hours to get them airborne, but that there were no tanker assets near enough to support a flight from Aviano."
There was one team that headed from Tripoli to Benghazi, arriving at around 1:15 a.m., Hicks said.
Phillips, Hicks recalled, "worked assiduously all night long to try to get the Libyan military to respond in some way." The Libyan prime minister called Hicks and told him that the U.S. ambassador had been killed, after which "the Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements."
Hicks said that four U.S. Special Forces troops in Tripoli -- led by the leader of the U.S. Special Operations Command Africa, SOCAfrica -- planned to hitch a ride on the Libyan plan to travel to Benghazi to help.
"We fully intended for those guys to go, because we had already essentially stripped ourselves of our security presence, or our security capability, to the bare minimum," Hicks recalled.
But the four were informed by someone with SOCAfrica that they didn't have the authority to go, Hicks said.
"So Lt. Col. Gibson, who is the SOCAfrica commander, his team, you know, they were on their way to the vehicles to go to the airport to get on the C-130 when he got a phone call from SOCAfrica which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now,'' Hicks said. "And so they missed the flight."
"They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it," Hicks said. "I still remember Col. Gibson, he said, 'I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military.' A nice compliment."
The C-130 left between 6 and 6:30 a.m., so the four Special Forces troops would not have arrived in time to fend off the 5:15 a.m. attack on the CIA annex in Benghazi.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Fenring on November 19, 2019, 03:52:09 PM
And frankly, without an adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond.
"That's not just my view or General Dempsey's view. It was the view of the Accountability Review Board that studied what happened on that day," he added.
"This is not 9/11," Panetta said in a February interview on CNN's "State of the Union." "You cannot just simply call and expect within two minutes to have a team in place. It takes time.

So...is this intentionally or unintentionally subversive?  :-X
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 19, 2019, 04:12:12 PM
Crunch, TheDrake I think you are both buying in to an overstated case.  I don't believe there was a team that could have been the right tool ready to go in the anticipated time window of 'next 6 hours.'  However, that time window is very after the fact.  For all we knew real time, the situation could have been going on for 24 hours or 3 days, or over in 15 minutes.  That was literally the President's call and he made it.

I got to say though, it's easy to question whether the go order should have been sent even if help wasn't going to get there for 12 hours.  You could always cancel, but it can't ever get there if it's not sent.  But getting their hard too late sends a message as well (and not necessary a good one).   That is literally why we have a unitary executive to make those decisions, and recourse on "being wrong" is political - as in elections - not Congress.  Congress does not have the authority to remove a President over policy disagreements (just wish the House would remember that).
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2019, 04:29:09 PM
Do we have reason to believe that no one was mobilizing, and Obama decided to never evacuate them?

Here's what the investigation found out:

Quote
Within 90 minutes of the Sept. 11, 2012, surprise attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound that killed Ambassador J.  Christopher Stevens and an aide, the report tells us, Obama had told his secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do everything possible, implicitly including using military force, to protect Americans.

These were “very clear directions,” according to Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), one of Obama’s harshest critics on the panel.

How different from the version of the president’s conduct propounded on right-wing talk radio and TV in the aftermath: that he and his aides coolly watched live video of the mayhem in Benghazi, supplied by drones flying overhead, but declined to order a rescue mission.

I think the words you are looking for are "total exoneration"?

Somebody in the chain of command told those four troops not to get on the Libyan C130. I'm not reliving all those hearings to find out who actually gave the order for them not to go, but it seems pretty clear it wasn't Obama.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon on November 19, 2019, 04:35:19 PM
Do we have reason to believe that no one was mobilizing, and Obama decided to never evacuate them?

Here's what the investigation found out:

Quote
Within 90 minutes of the Sept. 11, 2012, surprise attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound that killed Ambassador J.  Christopher Stevens and an aide, the report tells us, Obama had told his secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do everything possible, implicitly including using military force, to protect Americans.

These were “very clear directions,” according to Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), one of Obama’s harshest critics on the panel.

How different from the version of the president’s conduct propounded on right-wing talk radio and TV in the aftermath: that he and his aides coolly watched live video of the mayhem in Benghazi, supplied by drones flying overhead, but declined to order a rescue mission.

I think the words you are looking for are "total exoneration"?

Somebody in the chain of command told those four troops not to get on the Libyan C130. I'm not reliving all those hearings to find out who actually gave the order for them not to go, but it seems pretty clear it wasn't Obama.

It would have been a good exercise if someone, from either political party, to find out who told the team not to board the plane, and that would warrant an investigation.

But people are also overlooking that some of the investigations were looking into the cover up/response to the aftermath of that attack. Where did the idea of blaming an obscure Youtube video come from?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2019, 05:15:52 PM
The investigation determined that the administration was getting that from the intelligence agencies.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: yossarian22c on November 19, 2019, 05:29:36 PM
And the fact that same obscure YouTube video had led to a massive protest in Egypt earlier that day. The politically convenient lie as some like to refer to it had been walked back by the administration within a week. There wasn’t a long term disinformation campaign.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch on November 19, 2019, 05:32:15 PM
There wasn’t a long term disinformation campaign because the attempted disinformation campaign was laughable, it fell apart before it had a chance to become “long term”.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 19, 2019, 05:48:18 PM
And yet when Trump puts out his disinformation...

Withdrawn. I know its a whatabout.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 20, 2019, 01:23:00 AM
Do we have reason to believe that no one was mobilizing, and Obama decided to never evacuate them?

Here's what the investigation found out:

Quote
Within 90 minutes of the Sept. 11, 2012, surprise attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound that killed Ambassador J.  Christopher Stevens and an aide, the report tells us, Obama had told his secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to do everything possible, implicitly including using military force, to protect Americans.

These were “very clear directions,” according to Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), one of Obama’s harshest critics on the panel.

How different from the version of the president’s conduct propounded on right-wing talk radio and TV in the aftermath: that he and his aides coolly watched live video of the mayhem in Benghazi, supplied by drones flying overhead, but declined to order a rescue mission.

I think the words you are looking for are "total exoneration"?

I was actually thinking that you may have found an exoneration.  But then I decided to double check it and see if I can find context. 

Can you provide a link?  I found a total of six references for "very clear directions" and Peter Roskam on a google search.  I read part of an angry New Yorker article that seems to claim Roskam was narrating something.  It doesn't appear that Roskam stated that as true.

You can look at the final report (the words are not there) but the read is fascinating.  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-114hrpt848/pdf/CRPT-114hrpt848.pdf (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-114hrpt848/pdf/CRPT-114hrpt848.pdf)  The report is huge, but the relevant part seems to be at 69-71.

If you look around that section, it looks essentially like the words were Panettas.  And that timeline goes something like this - note the "urgency" - Panetta was leaving for a regular 5 o'clock meeting with the President when he heard about the situation.  He met with the President and briefed him on the situation, and the President told him, send those troops.  Panetta so urgently followed this order that he went back to the Pentagon, which I grant you is only 3 miles, but seems like an urgent order could be sent from the white house.   "Within  the hour" of returning to the Pentago sent orders out to act.  That's great, but apparently, then the Pentagon itself took hours to pass it on, and the local groups weren't on ready status and had a poor amount of transport (by the way, apparently this was  a known issue that the military had repeatedly raised). 

Quote
Somebody in the chain of command told those four troops not to get on the Libyan C130. I'm not reliving all those hearings to find out who actually gave the order for them not to go, but it seems pretty clear it wasn't Obama.

I agree with that.  Even without reading the report in full.  He's not irresolute, once he gave an order he wouldn't have waffled.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 20, 2019, 07:01:58 AM
Panettas testimony. Washington post was my original source for Roskam. They like back to the select committee report, where I assume somewhere Roskam made the statement bergamot or in writing.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch on November 20, 2019, 07:38:17 AM
It’s not as if Obama had any responsibility for the military, intelligence operations, or the state department, right? If only there was a single person who was the authority for all those agencies, someone that could direct and coordinate all of them.

Next, you guys will tell me Obama never even knew it was happening. Learned about it it on CNN the next morning.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: yossarian22c on November 20, 2019, 08:08:35 AM
Quote
Somebody in the chain of command told those four troops not to get on the Libyan C130. I'm not reliving all those hearings to find out who actually gave the order for them not to go, but it seems pretty clear it wasn't Obama.

I agree with that.  Even without reading the report in full.  He's not irresolute, once he gave an order he wouldn't have waffled.

I absolutely agree that a military officer may have told those men not to get on the plane. If they were still gathering what the scope of the attack was, you don't send 4 men in to fight 40, even if knowing many military personal the 4 men would have volunteered anyway. You wait until you can send a larger force in so that you don't end up with more people dead or in need of rescue.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 20, 2019, 08:34:53 AM
It’s not as if Obama had any responsibility for the military, intelligence operations, or the state department, right? If only there was a single person who was the authority for all those agencies, someone that could direct and coordinate all of them.

Next, you guys will tell me Obama never even knew it was happening. Learned about it it on CNN the next morning.

Sometimes you're downright incoherent. What more do you want him to do than tell the Joint Chiefs and the SecDef that they have authority to do whatever is necessary?

Did you want him to start calling ground commanders directly and have em get on in there?

There is a chain of command. You can have a legitimate complaint that the buck stops with him, that before the incident there were systemic problems that he should have addressed. To suggest that he personally should have been directing the details of the response is bizarre.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 20, 2019, 11:37:52 AM
It’s not as if Obama had any responsibility for the military, intelligence operations, or the state department, right? If only there was a single person who was the authority for all those agencies, someone that could direct and coordinate all of them.

Next, you guys will tell me Obama never even knew it was happening. Learned about it it on CNN the next morning.

I don't understand this Crunch.  You can believe Panetta was lying, but based on his testimony, Obama knew within a couple of hours and issued a clear order to move assets to help. 

Why that translated into what we got is a good question and one that it's reasonable for Congress to ask.  But blaming Obama is misplaced (unless you have reason to think Panetta was lying, or about Obama countermanding his own order).  It's not clear to me though, why in all the years of discussions Obama didn't just come out and say he ordered action taken as soon as he heard about it.  Do you think he was "covering" for the failures to implement by his administration/military?  If so, that's far more of a stand up move than I would've given him credit for.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 20, 2019, 12:44:35 PM
I've been looking at this again and can't seem to get it locked down so if this is incorrect I'll be happy to be properly illuminated but the gist of what I get from the internet is that this was that proverbial 3 am phone call and since Obama had a campaign event the next day and wanted a good night's sleep he went straight back to bed. Delegation of authority is important and legitimate but in this case obviously it didn't work. I don't know if Obama told them what to do and they didn't do it or he left it up to them when hindsight shows he should have made the call himself because they got it wrong but we do know that when the crisis situation happened, its handling was ineffective and a failure. And then of course they lied about it blaming the video when they knew otherwise.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2018/09/10/obamas-benghazi-remark-a-new-low/
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 20, 2019, 02:53:56 PM
So the thread that started with Trumps charity foundation has turned to be about Obama and Benghazi.
And so it go nothing will change because I think we don't want it to.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 20, 2019, 04:08:10 PM
You would prefer to keep repeating our talking points back and forth on his charity? Or that we start a new thread instead of going off-topic?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 20, 2019, 05:48:39 PM
You would prefer to keep repeating our talking points back and forth on his charity? Or that we start a new thread instead of going off-topic?

No, either way we end up repeating talking points. Maybe that's all their is. I'm wonder if maybe we have all become complainers, perpetually happy to be offended and wronged, just so we might feel something. I don't get the impression that any of us expect anything to change when it come to politics. 
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon on November 20, 2019, 06:06:05 PM
Oh, I think change is coming, we just haven't hit the mystical tipping point where it happens.

I think we're about to see another political party become established, and if past precedent follows suit, one of the other two is going to fade away pretty quickly after that.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Pete at Home on November 20, 2019, 11:04:56 PM
You would prefer to keep repeating our talking points back and forth on his charity? Or that we start a new thread instead of going off-topic?

We could always talk about something serious, like Trump’s physical resemblance to the movie version of Goldfinger.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch on November 21, 2019, 08:14:09 AM
Oh, I think change is coming, we just haven't hit the mystical tipping point where it happens.

I think we're about to see another political party become established, and if past precedent follows suit, one of the other two is going to fade away pretty quickly after that.

I sincerely hope that’s all that happens. As the left continues to embrace violence, lies, and demonization of others, the right will eventually join and things may escalate out of control. It boils slowly but once it hits the tipping point it goes very fast and you’re pretty likely to see people hanging from streetlights.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: D.W. on November 21, 2019, 09:28:11 AM
Quote
As the left continues to embrace violence, lies, and demonization of others,
That thing you're looking at?  Not a window or even a partisan lens.  That's called a mirror.   :P
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Seriati on November 21, 2019, 10:38:17 AM
Not sure I see your point D.W., you can find a lot of moderate Dems out there issuing warnings, even panicky warnings, that the progressives drive for ideological purity is making the "big tent" smaller every day.    How many groups can be "not welcome" based on a single ideological point before they need to find a different place to sit?  Where do liberal pro life catholics belong?  Where will Jewish voters sit if the Dems keeping heading down the anti-semitic path?  If it becomes clear that Republicans deliver better economics to minorities how will they stay in the tent promising to undo those reforms?

The Republicans aren't pushing people out, the media is trying to define them as smaller and meaner but that's just a game the DNC controlled media plays for it's bosses.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch on November 21, 2019, 11:59:46 AM
Quote
As the left continues to embrace violence, lies, and demonization of others,
That thing you're looking at?  Not a window or even a partisan lens.  That's called a mirror.   :P

My mirror is antifa? It’s a mirror that shows Republicans being accosted at restaurants? Right. smh
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 21, 2019, 01:56:16 PM
Quote
As the left continues to embrace violence, lies, and demonization of others,
That thing you're looking at?  Not a window or even a partisan lens.  That's called a mirror.   :P

My mirror is antifa? It’s a mirror that shows Republicans being accosted at restaurants? Right. smh

And of course antifa = everyone that leans left.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon on November 21, 2019, 02:26:31 PM
I think we're about to see another political party become established, and if past precedent follows suit, one of the other two is going to fade away pretty quickly after that.

I sincerely hope that’s all that happens. As the left continues to embrace violence, lies, and demonization of others, the right will eventually join and things may escalate out of control. It boils slowly but once it hits the tipping point it goes very fast and you’re pretty likely to see people hanging from streetlights.

That's the rub, last time this happened, with the Whig Party in the 1850's, the party disappeared in less than 4 years. Although most of the people involved were still around, just in the Republican Party instead. Of course, a few years after the Whigs went away, the country found itself in a Civil War.

Of course, that wasn't the only time a major political party had disappeared from the political landscape in the US, it just happened to be the last.

And as to things becoming hyper-partisan, we have historical precedent of that happening. While the rhetoric was plenty nasty(Jefferson vs Adams in particular; or Jackson vs J.Q. Adams), it didn't approach anything near civil war levels.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDeamon on November 21, 2019, 02:29:33 PM
Where will Jewish voters sit if the Dems keeping heading down the anti-semitic path?

Oh, they'll continue to silently enjoy their self-delusions and say the Dems aren't anti-semitic because only right-wingers are capable of being so.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch on November 21, 2019, 07:06:50 PM
Quote
As the left continues to embrace violence, lies, and demonization of others,
That thing you're looking at?  Not a window or even a partisan lens.  That's called a mirror.   :P

My mirror is antifa? It’s a mirror that shows Republicans being accosted at restaurants? Right. smh

And of course antifa = everyone that leans left.

And, of course, I didn’t say that. But, what’s the official stance of the left in Portland when antifa takes to the streets? What does the Democrat Portland mayor tell police to do?

Antifa is not the entire left but it certainly enjoys institutional support from many leftist leaders.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Pete at Home on November 24, 2019, 03:14:39 PM
Quote
As the left continues to embrace violence, lies, and demonization of others,
That thing you're looking at?  Not a window or even a partisan lens.  That's called a mirror.   :P

My mirror is antifa? It’s a mirror that shows Republicans being accosted at restaurants? Right. smh

And of course antifa = everyone that leans left.

Antifa is a program started by Stalin and other Leninists, and modern crypto antifites accuse anyone to their right in a key argument as “fascists.”

Never let a stinking Leninist forget Molotov/Ribbentrop.

Lenin himself was kept alive by the Kaiser, for Leninism to serve as a lethal virus against Russia and other Entente powers.

Leninists in academia and government have created the circumstances for naziism to make a resurgence.l
1. Sustained Economic failure targeting the middle class.
2. Programs that force the disparate and otherwise disconnected “white” peoples of America to identify as white and to be targeted for discrimination and violence as white.
3. Publicly identifying whites as public enemy number one.
4. constant public emphasis that “whites” are just about to lose their power and majority.


Kaiser creates the Leninist disease to distract the Entente powers in WWI
Stalin creates Antifa while playing footsie with Hitler under the table so that Allies will deal with Stalin rather than warring on him during WWII.
Today, cryptoLeninists continue Stalin’s strategy, fostering fascism while pointing at its resurgence as the world’s #1 threat.

Want to defeat fascism? Remove Leninists from academia and government.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Pete at Home on November 24, 2019, 03:37:04 PM
This week, leftwit bastards have used their same sex marriage victory to get Chik Fil A to drop all donations and support to the SALVATION ARMY.

Anyone else been homeless here and know what that means?

A true Revolution of informed Proletariat would hang these “Social Justice” scam artists in the street.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 25, 2019, 11:57:17 AM
Anybody know that you can support thousands of charities helping the homeless that are not the trashy salvation army?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 25, 2019, 12:04:20 PM
In case you want to know why they are trashy

https://medium.com/james-finn/please-dont-support-the-salvation-army-9f1408c333ff

Meanwhile, those funds are not "lost" they are just diverted to other charities.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: rightleft22 on November 25, 2019, 01:21:10 PM
Quote
And of course antifa = everyone that leans left.

Quote
And, of course, I didn’t say that. But, what’s the official stance of the left in Portland when antifa takes to the streets? What does the Democrat Portland mayor tell police to do?

I know that you don't intend to say that however your tendency is to say that as your statements tend to overly generalize dividing people into camps.  Us - them, right - left, good - bad
It leaves little space for dialog

The issue, right or left, is how to address the rise of the extreme voices. The linear nature of Social media pretty much insures that the extreme voices are the ones that are heard making it appear to represent the sides in a binary world of Us-Them.  When we only debate at the extreme there is no way to hear or engage the middle ground. Democracy lives in the compromise of the middle ground. Embrace the extreme of the few and that’s no Democracy fails.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Pete at Home on November 25, 2019, 02:37:48 PM
In case you want to know why they are trashy

https://medium.com/james-finn/please-dont-support-the-salvation-army-9f1408c333ff

Meanwhile, those funds are not "lost" they are just diverted to other charities.

Glad you are worried about the FUNDS being LOST. If you care about the people who are being lost, please tell me where I go for relief now when Salvation Army was the only homeless shelter in town to not kick me out when I had a head injury?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Pete at Home on November 25, 2019, 02:57:15 PM
Anybody know that you can support thousands of charities helping the homeless that are not the trashy salvation army?

So... since Salvation Army helps white trash as well as other groups, you have no problem using extortion to “divert” the funds to groups that only benefit people that deserve it because of their ethnicity?  Let them eat White privilege?
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Pete at Home on November 25, 2019, 03:10:36 PM
Salvation Army is the only homeless shelter in Augusta afaik that doesn’t either force religious ideology on its recipients, or terrorize them in other ways (eg infiltrated with gang members)
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: DonaldD on November 25, 2019, 03:12:07 PM
The other way to think about it is how bad an actor does a charity have to be in order for Chick-Fil-A to drop you... And blaming the powerful left on Chick-Fil-A's decision is silly - the year following the same sex marriage decision and the whole Chick-Fil-A controversy attempts to boycott, etc., (2012), the company reported a year-over-year increase in sales of 12 percent.  At the same time, the company had a favorability rating of upwards of 60% and an unfavorable of less than 20%.

But what does Chick-Fil-A itself have to say?  This paraphrase is from Wikipedia:
Quote
In an interview with Bisnow in 2019, Chick-fil-A President Tim Tassopoulos said the company will stop donating to charities with anti-LGBT views.[33] The company will instead donate to charities focused on education, homelessness and hunger.[33][34] These new organizations could include both faith-based and non-faith-based charities, but the company said none of the organizations have anti-LGBT positions.
Maybe, just maybe, the company has come around to the idea that it shouldn't be supporting groups with hate-based policies.  Note that you can be against same-sex marriage with having anti-LGBTQ policies.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Crunch on November 25, 2019, 03:12:10 PM
When you get down to hating the Salvation Army, that's some insane hatred. Really, off the charts.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: TheDrake on November 25, 2019, 03:21:34 PM
In case you want to know why they are trashy

https://medium.com/james-finn/please-dont-support-the-salvation-army-9f1408c333ff

Meanwhile, those funds are not "lost" they are just diverted to other charities.

Glad you are worried about the FUNDS being LOST. If you care about the people who are being lost, please tell me where I go for relief now when Salvation Army was the only homeless shelter in town to not kick me out when I had a head injury?

It is a fair criticism of my point of view to select communities in which SA is the only game in town. Presumably SA will shutter redundant areas as they lose funding. Or SA could just stop their political activity and focus on people who need help.

Activities which actively remove their help from people in need.

Quote
The Salvation Army of the United States chose to turn down $3.5 million in contracts with the city of San Francisco, resulting in the closure of programs for the homeless and senior citizens. The church backed out of these contracts due to San Francisco’s requirement that city contractors must provide spousal benefits to both same-sex partners and opposite-sex partners of employees.

Quote
In 2004, the Salvation Army in New York City also threatened to close down all of its services for the city’s homeless due to a similar non-discrimination ordinance.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Pete at Home on November 25, 2019, 03:30:32 PM
Quote
.

 Or SA could just stop their political activity and focus on people who need help


Not so. The funding is being cut in re ya libation for their pre 2015 opposition to same sex marriage.

Thanks for pointing out that this move will redirect help for the homeless away from communities where the Salvation Army is the only game in town. In Other words, red state cities.
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Pete at Home on November 25, 2019, 03:53:32 PM
I have no problem with NYC or SF enforcing their standards in their own communities.

But here, leftist activist that shut down existing services to the homeless in right-leaning communities because they don’t systematically provide for same sex relationship benefits.

A policy like this is designed to inspire harder crimes.   This is just one more example of the cultural left using same sex couples and their families as human shields.  Sheetheads and Nazis will use this crap to grow their disease through the growing vulnerable body of disregarded poor.


Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Pete at Home on November 25, 2019, 04:23:01 PM
One non Salvation Army source of help for me has been the Universal Unitarian Church, entirely funded by its local parishioners (many of whom are personally pagan or Atheist, but also includes Children. I get group therapy through them and volunteers go above and beyond. In this new political climate, the church has become a target for some illiterate hate group. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.augustachronicle.com/news/20191118/vandalized-church-not-running-scared-minister-says%3ftemplate=ampart
Title: Re: In any other administration...
Post by: Pete at Home on November 25, 2019, 06:09:38 PM
Bear in mind that Augusta is the 2nd biggest city in Georgia, and the greater Augusta area I speak of includes a couple counties in South Carolina as well.

Red state homeless are people too, neh?