Donald Trump Faces Challenges in Shutting Down His Charitable Foundation

[ThoughtEx.]

"Donald Trump announced this weekend that he plans to shutter his charitable foundation in an effort to rid himself of potential conflicts of interest, but he will likely face challenges in doing so. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman responded to Trump's announcement by saying the foundation cannot dissolve because it is currently under investigation.

“The Trump Foundation is still under investigation by this office and cannot legally dissolve until that investigation is complete,” spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick told the Washington Post."

Donald Trump Faces Challenges in Shutting Down His Charitable Foundation

Alright Trump supporters, what's your spin job for this? After settling (losing) the Trump U fraud case, he's now trying to distance himself from his charity. Which is under investigation. And from the way it sounds, they have a solid case if they are keeping it from dissolving.

One of the things they are investigating is his alleged settling of lawsuits with charity money. And donating to an Attorney General's campaign fund in FL. According to a another news site.

So, if the investigation bears fruit, what do you think we will see? How do you suppose he will try and wiggle out of this one?

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

"Donald Trump announced this weekend that he plans to shutter his charitable foundation in an effort to rid himself of potential conflicts of interest, but he will likely face challenges in doing so. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman responded to Trump's announcement by saying the foundation cannot dissolve because it is currently under investigation.

“The Trump Foundation is still under investigation by this office and cannot legally dissolve until that investigation is complete,” spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick told the Washington Post."

Donald Trump Faces Challenges in Shutting Down His Charitable Foundation

Alright Trump supporters, what's your spin job for this? After settling (losing) the Trump U fraud case, he's now trying to distance himself from his charity. Which is under investigation. And from the way it sounds, they have a solid case if they are keeping it from dissolving.

One of the things they are investigating is his alleged settling of lawsuits with charity money. And donating to an Attorney General's campaign fund in FL. According to a another news site.

So, if the investigation bears fruit, what do you think we will see? How do you suppose he will try and wiggle out of this one?

The Justice Department refused to allow the FBI to investigate the Clinton Foundation, even though they were armed with a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. That potential case also invloved the actions of a sitting cabinet member during her term, not merely an electee.

If that didn't raise your hackles, this shouldn't.

The fact that one foundation was protected while the other was brought to bear casts doubt on the entire process. Trump very much was selling access, but now it's going to be much harder to do anything about it when Clinton - who was also very much selling access - got a free pass.

And when you consider $10,000 a plate fundraisers, that's all every politician does: they all sell access.

Throw them all out.

 

[KevinKohler]

What Jesus just said.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Gonzo is on the money.

 

[VanceMack]

Its kind of a conundrum, isnt it? Leftists shriek "Ohmigarsh!!! They are going to sell access to the president through donations to his foundation (kinda like HRC at the State Department)!!!!" OK...they will shut it down to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Leftists shriek "Ohmigarsh!!! They are shutting down the charity!!!"

In other words...leftists shriek.

Oh...and hey...I dont pretend to be a lawyer...but if there is an accusation that a charity is supporting a political candidate and the assertion is that that is a criminal act, how does that bode for Planned Parenthood (a 501C3 tax payer funded charity) and its political contributions?
"In the 2014 election cycle, Planned Parenthood spent US$6,587,100 on contributions to candidates and political parties (overwhelmingly to Democrats) and on independent expenditures."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

 

[TheGoverness]

The Justice Department refused to allow the FBI to investigate the Clinton Foundation, even though they were armed with a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. That potential case also invloved the actions of a sitting cabinet member during her term, not merely an electee.

If that didn't raise your hackles, this shouldn't.

The fact that one foundation was protected while the other was brought to bear casts doubt on the entire process. Trump very much was selling access, but now it's going to be much harder to do anything about it when Clinton - who was also very much selling access - got a free pass.

And when you consider $10,000 a plate fundraisers, that's all every politician does: they all sell access.

Throw them all out.

Good Post, Jesus. :thumbs:

 

[Napoleon]

The Justice Department refused to allow the FBI to investigate the Clinton Foundation, even though they were armed with a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. That potential case also invloved the actions of a sitting cabinet member during her term, not merely an electee.

If that didn't raise your hackles, this shouldn't.

The fact that one foundation was protected while the other was brought to bear casts doubt on the entire process. Trump very much was selling access, but now it's going to be much harder to do anything about it when Clinton - who was also very much selling access - got a free pass.

And when you consider $10,000 a plate fundraisers, that's all every politician does: they all sell access.

Throw them all out.

You're comparing apples to oranges. There was never any fact based doubt that the money raised by the Clinton Foundation was used for charitable purposes. The Trump Foundation is a different story and there is absolute proof that Donald was using the "charity" as a slush fund for his personal expenses and illegal campaign contributions (which he was fined for doing).

 

[Mason66]

"Donald Trump announced this weekend that he plans to shutter his charitable foundation in an effort to rid himself of potential conflicts of interest, but he will likely face challenges in doing so. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman responded to Trump's announcement by saying the foundation cannot dissolve because it is currently under investigation.

“The Trump Foundation is still under investigation by this office and cannot legally dissolve until that investigation is complete,” spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick told the Washington Post."

Donald Trump Faces Challenges in Shutting Down His Charitable Foundation

Alright Trump supporters, what's your spin job for this? After settling (losing) the Trump U fraud case, he's now trying to distance himself from his charity. Which is under investigation. And from the way it sounds, they have a solid case if they are keeping it from dissolving.

One of the things they are investigating is his alleged settling of lawsuits with charity money. And donating to an Attorney General's campaign fund in FL. According to a another news site.

So, if the investigation bears fruit, what do you think we will see? How do you suppose he will try and wiggle out of this one?

Why would the Attorney General think the charity could not be dissolved?

The investigation has nothing to do with that, they can keep investigating.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Clinton has nothing to do with any of this. She's not going to be President, he is, let's focus on him. It's ridiculous to think anyone at this point is trying to gain her points, rather than just plain old criticizing questionable behavior.

The man is appointing all of his friends to key positions, being sued left and right, and under investigation for charities fraud. You can't wave that away with "But the allegations against Hillary..."

Either you can justify Trump's behavior on its own merit, or you can't. Which is it?

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Why would the Attorney General think the charity could not be dissolved?

The investigation has nothing to do with that, they can keep investigating.

You would have to ask AG Eric Schneiderman, If i had to hazard a guess, to keep evidence from disappearing. To me it appears as if Trump just wants to dissolve the Charity to distance himself from his crimes. This has been kept relatively quiet, I'm sure he wants to keep it that way.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

You're comparing apples to oranges. There was never any fact based doubt that the money raised by the Clinton Foundation was used for charitable purposes. The Trump Foundation is a different story and there is absolute proof that Donald was using the "charity" as a slush fund for his personal expenses and illegal campaign contributions (which he was fined for doing).

The issue is pay-to-play for access.

 

[Mason66]

You would have to ask AG Eric Schneiderman, If i had to hazard a guess, to keep evidence from disappearing. To me it appears as if Trump just wants to dissolve the Charity to distance himself from his crimes. This has been kept relatively quiet, I'm sure he wants to keep it that way.

What crimes would those be?

The AG can't hold this over his head making him do or not do anything.

If the AG thinks there has been a crime committed he can get a search warrant, collect the evidence and the charity dissolves.

He can't direct them to keep operating for his sake.

 

[Napoleon]

The issue is pay-to-play for access.

That isn't the issue because that isn't why Donald's Foundation is under investigation. It's under investigation because people made dontations believing that it was a charity when in fact Donald was using the charity for personal expenses, illegal campaign contributions, and to settle his legal bills.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

That isn't the issue because that isn't why Donald's Foundation is under investigation. It's under investigation because people made dontations believing that it was a charity when in fact Donald was using the charity for personal expenses, illegal campaign contributions, and to settle his legal bills.

Ah, the campaign du jour. Link after link after link recently was on his son selling access.

It's a multi-front attack. Makes it hard to keep track of which front sometimes.

Maybe if they throw enough ****, some will stick! It's the Nancy Grace method. Again, though, the point about bringing a case is a valid one, and protecting one Foundation from inspection casts doubt on the entire process.

That all being said, it is patently disingenuous to say that the Clinton Foundation didn't enrich a single Clinton, not when considering that Chelsea drew a million dollar salary from it right out of college.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

What crimes would those be?

The AG can't hold this over his head making him do or not do anything.

If the AG thinks there has been a crime committed he can get a search warrant, collect the evidence and the charity dissolves.

He can't direct them to keep operating for his sake.

Yeah he sure can, and this investigation has been underway since Sept. It's not new, or a political maneuver. Some of the things they are investigating, Donating charity money to a FL AG, paying off lawsuits with settlement money, buying two large paintings of himself with charity money, why some of the largest donators to the charity are getting positions, and most recently the thing with Eric selling access...

Why does it sound like you want to discredit an AG doing his job, just to save face for Trump?

 

[Mason66]

Yeah he sure can, and this investigation has been underway since Sept. It's not new, or a political maneuver. Some of the things they are investigating, Donating charity money to a FL AG, paying off lawsuits with settlement money, buying two large paintings of himself with charity money, why some of the largest donators to the charity are getting positions, and most recently the thing with Eric selling access...

Why does it sound like you want to discredit an AG doing his job, just to save face for Trump?

Because this is a publicity stunt for the AG. He does not have the power to tell a private charity or company what they can or cannot do.

If he thinks he has a case, he should continue with that case.

 

[Grand Mal]

The Justice Department refused to allow the FBI to investigate the Clinton Foundation, even though they were armed with a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. That potential case also invloved the actions of a sitting cabinet member during her term, not merely an electee.

If that didn't raise your hackles, this shouldn't.

The fact that one foundation was protected while the other was brought to bear casts doubt on the entire process. Trump very much was selling access, but now it's going to be much harder to do anything about it when Clinton - who was also very much selling access - got a free pass.

And when you consider $10,000 a plate fundraisers, that's all every politician does: they all sell access.

Throw them all out.

There has to be a point where "Butbutbut Hillary!" is no longer a defense for Trump.
Shall we call inauguration day that point?

 

[Mason66]

Yeah he sure can, and this investigation has been underway since Sept. It's not new, or a political maneuver. Some of the things they are investigating, Donating charity money to a FL AG, paying off lawsuits with settlement money, buying two large paintings of himself with charity money, why some of the largest donators to the charity are getting positions, and most recently the thing with Eric selling access...

Why does it sound like you want to discredit an AG doing his job, just to save face for Trump?

This will be a moot point on the 20th of January anyway.

 

[ludin]

You would have to ask AG Eric Schneiderman, If i had to hazard a guess, to keep evidence from disappearing. To me it appears as if Trump just wants to dissolve the Charity to distance himself from his crimes. This has been kept relatively quiet, I'm sure he wants to keep it that way.

What crimes he hasn't been charged with anything?
The NY AG is a liberal hack who supported Clinton.

 

[Napoleon]

Ah, the campaign du jour. Link after link after link recently was on his son selling access.

It's a multi-front attack. Makes it hard to keep track of which front sometimes.

Maybe if they throw enough ****, some will stick! It's the Nancy Grace method. Again, though, the point about bringing a case is a valid one, and protecting one Foundation from inspection casts doubt on the entire process.

That all being said, it is patently disingenuous to say that the Clinton Foundation didn't enrich a single Clinton, not when considering that Chelsea drew a million dollar salary from it right out of college.

It's disingenuous to compare the two. Chelsea actually worked at the Clinton Foundation and she was a salaried employee. Donald did not work at the Trump Foundation, didn't contribute a penny to it, and the key difference is that he stole donations for personal expenses.

 

[MaggieD]

"Donald Trump announced this weekend that he plans to shutter his charitable foundation in an effort to rid himself of potential conflicts of interest, but he will likely face challenges in doing so. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman responded to Trump's announcement by saying the foundation cannot dissolve because it is currently under investigation.

“The Trump Foundation is still under investigation by this office and cannot legally dissolve until that investigation is complete,” spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick told the Washington Post."

Donald Trump Faces Challenges in Shutting Down His Charitable Foundation

Alright Trump supporters, what's your spin job for this? After settling (losing) the Trump U fraud case, he's now trying to distance himself from his charity. Which is under investigation. And from the way it sounds, they have a solid case if they are keeping it from dissolving.

One of the things they are investigating is his alleged settling of lawsuits with charity money. And donating to an Attorney General's campaign fund in FL. According to a another news site.

So, if the investigation bears fruit, what do you think we will see? How do you suppose he will try and wiggle out of this one?

"Shut it down" can be completely figuratively. If you don't accept contributions, you've shut down.

If what you've said is true, he will lose his charitable exemption and be fined considerably, I would think. However, I know it's hard for his detractors to do, but they really need to let this play out in the courtroom. There's not much doubt in my mind that this is political after all.

 

[Paperview]

Because this is a publicity stunt for the AG. He does not have the power to tell a private charity or company what they can or cannot do.

If he thinks he has a case, he should continue with that case.

Waaa? You really think private charities and company's are not subject to the laws of the state?

The AG ordered the foundation to stop raising money, (which they were forced to do after they were found to be violating the law) and has said the TF cannot legally dissolve until the investigation is complete. He sure as heck can.

 

[Mason66]

Waaa? You really think private charities and company's are not subject to the laws of the state?

The AG ordered the foundation to stop raising money, (which they were forced to do after they were found to be violating the law) and has said the TF cannot legally dissolve until the investigation is complete. He sure as heck can.

Well I guess he can go search an empty office.

The AG cannot order the foundation to continue working when there is nothing to do. That is effectively dissolving it.

I am not sure what the AG is trying to do here, but like I said it will be a moot point after the 20th of January.

 

[Deuce]

Its kind of a conundrum, isnt it? Leftists shriek "Ohmigarsh!!! They are going to sell access to the president through donations to his foundation (kinda like HRC at the State Department)!!!!" OK...they will shut it down to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Leftists shriek "Ohmigarsh!!! They are shutting down the charity!!!"

In other words...leftists shriek.

Oh...and hey...I dont pretend to be a lawyer...but if there is an accusation that a charity is supporting a political candidate and the assertion is that that is a criminal act, how does that bode for Planned Parenthood (a 501C3 tax payer funded charity) and its political contributions?
"In the 2014 election cycle, Planned Parenthood spent US$6,587,100 on contributions to candidates and political parties (overwhelmingly to Democrats) and on independent expenditures."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

Is there someone in this thread who has responded with what you would paraphrase as "ohmigarsh?"

 

[Deuce]

Ah, the campaign du jour. Link after link after link recently was on his son selling access.

It's a multi-front attack. Makes it hard to keep track of which front sometimes.

Maybe if they throw enough ****, some will stick! It's the Nancy Grace method. Again, though, the point about bringing a case is a valid one, and protecting one Foundation from inspection casts doubt on the entire process.

That all being said, it is patently disingenuous to say that the Clinton Foundation didn't enrich a single Clinton, not when considering that Chelsea drew a million dollar salary from it right out of college.

The Golden Boy did several things wrong, it's not a "multi front attack," it's people criticizing him for things he does.

Chelsea didn't draw a million dollar salary from the Clinton Foundation. Her salary was, in fact, zero. She got hired by NBC.

And you claim the FBI was not allowed to investigate, which is false.

Are you sure your perception of this situation is even based on reality?