• 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!

Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on ‘self-dealing,’ new filing to IRS shows

Re: Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on ‘self-dealing,’ new filing to IRS sho

Donald trump is too busy for your nonsense. hes got to make America great again
Reality check for you, the Don is going to nothing but enrich himself and build up his empire. He's like a six-year-old that's been given the keys to a toy store. And the dude wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
 
Re: Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on ‘self-dealing,’ new filing to IRS sho

Yes, seriously. I can't begin to TELL you how many people I glad hand in the name of business. That picture is your proof?? Keep trying.

... You need more proof other than the decades of pictures with Trump and the Clintons? Lol. Okay, the proof is in the fact he won't prosecute them anymore. That was his entire selling point. Remember "lock her up"? That doesn't seem to be what's happening. Clinton is taking walks in the park and taking selfies.

But here, let's see us put our money where our mouths are: If the Clintons are convicted of any crime, I'll pay a dollar for every year either one of them serve.

:lol:
 
Re: Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on ‘self-dealing,’ new filing to IRS sho

... You need more proof other than the decades of pictures with Trump and the Clintons? Lol. Okay, the proof is in the fact he won't prosecute them anymore. That was his entire selling point. Remember "lock her up"? That doesn't seem to be what's happening. Clinton is taking walks in the park and taking selfies.

But here, let's see us put our money where our mouths are: If the Clintons are convicted of any crime, I'll pay a dollar for every year either one of them serve.

:lol:

I don't understand why you're so anxious to bet with me. I don't think she'll serve any time either.
 
Re: Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on ‘self-dealing,’ new filing to IRS sho

I don't understand why you're so anxious to bet with me. I don't think she'll serve any time either.

I'm not anxious to bet with you. I'm just loving the turn around. It's pretty clear Trump wouldn't really dare right now. This amazing show of political force has us in a weird position. People knew it wouldn't happen, Trump couldn't have actually thought this was going to happen.

Now, Trump is president elect and he will be expected to make good on the lock her up chant. If Hillary doesn't die in 4 years, and she's walking about, people won't forgive Trump.

Or will they? Who knows.
 
Re: Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on ‘self-dealing,’ new filing to IRS sho

Illegal? Gee Whiz!!! I did NOT see that coming.

Perhaps you could clarify things for me. What, exactly did he do that's illegal and how did he further his own interest by doing it. I completely missed that part in the tax return and the article.


I was making a broader reference than was specifically set forth in the OP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

Records Reveal the Trump Foundation Admitted to Illegal “Self-Dealing� | Vanity Fair
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...9e9fac-8352-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html
Trump Paid Legal Settlements With His Charity’s Money

Using a tax-exempt foundation to further your personal interests is an illegal use of the foundations assets.
 
Re: Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on ‘self-dealing,’ new filing to IRS sho


Let's think about this for a minute. One of the allegations is that Trump used the foundation to buy a Tim Tebow autographed helmet for $12k. Anybody can buy one online for less than $1000. That begs the question of why ANYONE would pay $12k. The answer? It was purchased at a charity auction for the Susan G Komen Foundation. The contention is that this deal somehow "enriched" Trump personally. Please explain to me how paying $12k for something only worth $1k amounts to "enriching" yourself or your organization. If the Trump Foundation paid for the helmet then it belongs to the Trump Foundation, not Donald Trump. Maybe...possibly....perhaps if Trump took the helmet and displayed it in his own trophy room it might be considered to be "self dealing" but even then at a value of less than $1000 it's not much of a deal.

As far soliciting donations from others and then passing those donations on to others goes that isn't the least bit unusual. Have you ever heard of the United Way? That's what they do. The difference is that the United Way keeps 10% or so of the money you send them and the Trump Foundation doesn't.

Regarding the flag pole dispute, here's the story - Trump settles dispute over flag - tribunedigital-sunsentinel
The fines were waived with the agreement to make a donation to a veteran's charity. That's true. What's also true and isn't cited in the absurdly biased article you linked to is that Trump also dropped his $25M suit against the city. That seems pretty fair to me.

With regard to using charity funds to buy portraits of himself, these are all charity events. There's no "enrichment". When you buy a $250 painting for $5000 the only one being enriched is the charity that's selling the painting and that's the way it's supposed to work!

OK, I knew there was one I was forgetting. Trump contracts to give a speech then waives fees as long as the organization he's speaking to makes a donation in the amount of those fees to a charitable foundation. The organization chooses the Trump Foundation. The contention there is that Trump should have to pay tax on that fee even though it went directly to the charity. As long as Trump didn't say "you have to donate to my charity" and as long as he didn't then use the donated funds for his own purposes that's perfectly legal. In fact, if you parse out the 800 paragraphs of innuendo you get these two paragraphs

Under tax law, these kind of arrangements are called “assignment of income.” A person is owed money, but instead of accepting the money, directs that it be given to another person or a charity.

That’s allowed.

As long as Trump never had constructive receipt of the funds and as long as he never dictated where those funds go he didn't do anything wrong.
 
Re: Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on ‘self-dealing,’ new filing to IRS sho

Let's think about this for a minute. One of the allegations is that Trump used the foundation to buy a Tim Tebow autographed helmet for $12k. Anybody can buy one online for less than $1000. That begs the question of why ANYONE would pay $12k. The answer? It was purchased at a charity auction for the Susan G Komen Foundation. The contention is that this deal somehow "enriched" Trump personally. Please explain to me how paying $12k for something only worth $1k amounts to "enriching" yourself or your organization. If the Trump Foundation paid for the helmet then it belongs to the Trump Foundation, not Donald Trump. Maybe...possibly....perhaps if Trump took the helmet and displayed it in his own trophy room it might be considered to be "self dealing" but even then at a value of less than $1000 it's not much of a deal.

As far soliciting donations from others and then passing those donations on to others goes that isn't the least bit unusual. Have you ever heard of the United Way? That's what they do. The difference is that the United Way keeps 10% or so of the money you send them and the Trump Foundation doesn't.

Regarding the flag pole dispute, here's the story - Trump settles dispute over flag - tribunedigital-sunsentinel
The fines were waived with the agreement to make a donation to a veteran's charity. That's true. What's also true and isn't cited in the absurdly biased article you linked to is that Trump also dropped his $25M suit against the city. That seems pretty fair to me.

With regard to using charity funds to buy portraits of himself, these are all charity events. There's no "enrichment". When you buy a $250 painting for $5000 the only one being enriched is the charity that's selling the painting and that's the way it's supposed to work!

OK, I knew there was one I was forgetting. Trump contracts to give a speech then waives fees as long as the organization he's speaking to makes a donation in the amount of those fees to a charitable foundation. The organization chooses the Trump Foundation. The contention there is that Trump should have to pay tax on that fee even though it went directly to the charity. As long as Trump didn't say "you have to donate to my charity" and as long as he didn't then use the donated funds for his own purposes that's perfectly legal. In fact, if you parse out the 800 paragraphs of innuendo you get these two paragraphs



As long as Trump never had constructive receipt of the funds and as long as he never dictated where those funds go he didn't do anything wrong.

Holy crap, I can buy myself toys with charity money as long as I buy the toys from other charities? This is awesome!
 
Back
Top Bottom