• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker made nearly $1M working for controversial group

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,660
Reaction score
9,794
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From ABC News

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker made nearly $1M working for controversial group, new records show

Last year, before joining the Justice Department and taking a government salary, now-Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker made nearly a million dollars in salary while leading a tax-exempt organization that allegedly advocated right-wing positions.

The disclosure comes in financial reports the Justice Department sent to congressional committees late Tuesday afternoon – after DOJ revised the documents five times in the past two weeks, the documents show.

The reports say Whitaker received $904,000 in salary from the Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, where he served as president and executive.

COMMENT:-

Now what could possibly be suspicious about someone receiving bundles of money from a "charity" that doesn't spend a dime towards its stated objectives, doesn't have any employees, and some of whose "Board of Governors" members didn't know that they were on the "Board of Governors"?

I mean the facts that the "someone" is actually the only person who received any money from the "charity" and that that "someone" was the sole person who authorized the expenditures of that "charity" only reinforce the completely proper conduct of that "charity" - right?
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,671
Reaction score
30,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
From ABC News

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker made nearly $1M working for controversial group, new records show

Last year, before joining the Justice Department and taking a government salary, now-Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker made nearly a million dollars in salary while leading a tax-exempt organization that allegedly advocated right-wing positions.

The disclosure comes in financial reports the Justice Department sent to congressional committees late Tuesday afternoon – after DOJ revised the documents five times in the past two weeks, the documents show.

The reports say Whitaker received $904,000 in salary from the Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, where he served as president and executive.

COMMENT:-

Now what could possibly be suspicious about someone receiving bundles of money from a "charity" that doesn't spend a dime towards its stated objectives, doesn't have any employees, and some of whose "Board of Governors" members didn't know that they were on the "Board of Governors"?

I mean the facts that the "someone" is actually the only person who received any money from the "charity" and that that "someone" was the sole person who authorized the expenditures of that "charity" only reinforce the completely proper conduct of that "charity" - right?

What is controversial about a tax-exempt organization that advocates right-wing positions?

Oh...and is FACT a "charity" because AP says they are? Here is what FACT says about themselves: "FACT is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting accountability, ethics, and transparency in government and civic arenas." https://www.factdc.org/

Doesn't sound like a charity to me.
 
Last edited:

SLC

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
9,894
Reaction score
3,281
Location
Southlake, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What did he do give two speeches for the Kremlin like Clinton did?
 

Barnacle

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2017
Messages
10,720
Reaction score
5,260
Location
Middle Tennessee
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
From ABC News

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker made nearly $1M working for controversial group, new records show

Last year, before joining the Justice Department and taking a government salary, now-Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker made nearly a million dollars in salary while leading a tax-exempt organization that allegedly advocated right-wing positions.

The disclosure comes in financial reports the Justice Department sent to congressional committees late Tuesday afternoon – after DOJ revised the documents five times in the past two weeks, the documents show.

The reports say Whitaker received $904,000 in salary from the Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, where he served as president and executive.

COMMENT:-

Now what could possibly be suspicious about someone receiving bundles of money from a "charity" that doesn't spend a dime towards its stated objectives, doesn't have any employees, and some of whose "Board of Governors" members didn't know that they were on the "Board of Governors"?

I mean the facts that the "someone" is actually the only person who received any money from the "charity" and that that "someone" was the sole person who authorized the expenditures of that "charity" only reinforce the completely proper conduct of that "charity" - right?


Oh, the horror ... making money while not working for the government ... shouldn't be allowed ...
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,660
Reaction score
9,794
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
What is controversial about a tax-exempt organization that advocates right-wing positions?

Oh...and is FACT a "charity" because AP says they are? Here is what FACT says about themselves: "FACT is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting accountability, ethics, and transparency in government and civic arenas." https://www.factdc.org/

Doesn't sound like a charity to me.

I did put the word "charity" in quotation marks, but I'll accept your point. and rephrase my comment as


Now what could possibly be suspicious about someone receiving bundles of money from a "tax-exempt organization" that doesn't spend a dime towards its stated objectives, doesn't have any employees, and some of whose "Board of Governors" members didn't know that they were on the "Board of Governors"?

I mean the facts that the "someone" is actually the only person who received any money from the "tax-exempt organization" and that that "someone" was the sole person who authorized the expenditures of that "tax-exempt organization" only reinforce the completely proper conduct of that "tax-exempt organization" - right?

After reviewing the above, I'm still of the opinion that the entire "non-profit" is a tax scam.

What's it look like to you?
 

Bullseye

Fund police; Defund the politicians
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
33,987
Reaction score
11,311
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
From ABC News

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker made nearly $1M working for controversial group, new records show

Last year, before joining the Justice Department and taking a government salary, now-Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker made nearly a million dollars in salary while leading a tax-exempt organization that allegedly advocated right-wing positions.

The disclosure comes in financial reports the Justice Department sent to congressional committees late Tuesday afternoon – after DOJ revised the documents five times in the past two weeks, the documents show.

The reports say Whitaker received $904,000 in salary from the Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, where he served as president and executive.

COMMENT:-

Now what could possibly be suspicious about someone receiving bundles of money from a "charity" that doesn't spend a dime towards its stated objectives, doesn't have any employees, and some of whose "Board of Governors" members didn't know that they were on the "Board of Governors"?

I mean the facts that the "someone" is actually the only person who received any money from the "charity" and that that "someone" was the sole person who authorized the expenditures of that "charity" only reinforce the completely proper conduct of that "charity" - right?
So what?
 

Barnacle

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2017
Messages
10,720
Reaction score
5,260
Location
Middle Tennessee
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I did put the word "charity" in quotation marks, but I'll accept your point. and rephrase my comment as


Now what could possibly be suspicious about someone receiving bundles of money from a "tax-exempt organization" that doesn't spend a dime towards its stated objectives, doesn't have any employees, and some of whose "Board of Governors" members didn't know that they were on the "Board of Governors"?

I mean the facts that the "someone" is actually the only person who received any money from the "tax-exempt organization" and that that "someone" was the sole person who authorized the expenditures of that "tax-exempt organization" only reinforce the completely proper conduct of that "tax-exempt organization" - right?

After reviewing the above, I'm still of the opinion that the entire "non-profit" is a tax scam.

What's it look like to you?


Have you informed the Clintons and Obamas on your opinion yet?
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
52,972
Reaction score
22,728
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What is controversial about a tax-exempt organization that advocates right-wing positions?

Oh...and is FACT a "charity" because AP says they are? Here is what FACT says about themselves: "FACT is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting accountability, ethics, and transparency in government and civic arenas." https://www.factdc.org/

Doesn't sound like a charity to me.

From their "About" page:

The Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust (FACT) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization

Why did you leave out the bolded part?

Maybe it's because a 501(c)(3) is aka a "charity."

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-p...tion-requirements-section-501c3-organizations

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,660
Reaction score
9,794
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Have you informed the Clintons and Obamas on your opinion yet?

If you think that it was wrong for the Clintons and Obamas to do it (assuming that they did [for which there is no evidence {a lot of accusations, but no evidence}]) why do you think that it is OK for Mr. Whittaker to do it?

I know, because "That's DIFFERENT!!!".
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,660
Reaction score
9,794
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Nope, not at all. People have a right to work, he exercised it. Again: So what?

And, of course, neither the Clintons nor the Obamas "have a right to work".

Mind you, I do understand that "That's DIFFERENT!!!".

(The difference being that the Clintons and the Obamas are "The Other Guys" while Mr. Whittaker is one of "Our Guys".)
 

Barnacle

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2017
Messages
10,720
Reaction score
5,260
Location
Middle Tennessee
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
If you think that it was wrong for the Clintons and Obamas to do it (assuming that they did [for which there is no evidence {a lot of accusations, but no evidence}]) why do you think that it is OK for Mr. Whittaker to do it?

I know, because "That's DIFFERENT!!!".


Didn't say that it was neither right nor wrong, just felt your strong opinion should be forwarded to the Clintons and the Obamas ... (grin)
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,660
Reaction score
9,794
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Didn't say that it was neither right nor wrong, just felt your strong opinion should be forwarded to the Clintons and the Obamas ... (grin)

There is no reason for me to tell someone against there are only accusations and no evidence (despite repeated investigations) that I think that what they didn't do would have been wrong if they had done it.

My position is fairly straight forward, if Mr. Whitaker has done what there is evidence of him doing then it is wrong and if Mr Obama or Ms. Clinton had done the same thing then it would be just as wrong.

The position of "Team Trump" is equally straight forward and that is


That __[NAME 1]__ did "X" is of no consequence because __[Name 2]__ also did "X", but the fact that __[Name 2]__ did "X" is horrible. Not only that, but it doesn't actually matter that there have been repeated investigations into __[Name 2]__ and none of them have verified what we are saying __[Name 2]__ did .

PS - I am well aware that BOTH "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Conservative Oligarchic Capitalist Party" and "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Conservative Oligarchic Capitalist Party" use exactly the same tactic and I consider it equally wrong for both of them. This, of course, is in contrast with the prevailing view that "It's OK if 'My Guys' do it, but utterly despicable if 'Their Guys' do it.".
 
Top Bottom