- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 68,960
- Reaction score
- 22,530
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
From ABC News
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?
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?