Trump caught again using charity funds for himself

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Holy crap for once in your misbegotten life can you please stop being a damn hack? Pay for play doesn't mean you need a direct 100% payoff to you personally. It can be to your reelection committee, your business partner, spouse, foundation, etc. - the key distinguishing elements are that (A) preferred access is granted to someone (B) based upon a financial transaction that the person would not have otherwise made and (C) was done either at the direction or with the tacit understanding of the person in power who grants the favorable access that the particular destination is where you wanted that transaction to be directed.

So the Clintons shouldn't have created a charity that helps some of the world's poorest people because desperate right wingers could use scurrilous accusations to make them look bad? Shouldn't have put in millions of their own money?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
So the Clintons shouldn't have created a charity that helps some of the world's poorest people because desperate right wingers could use scurrilous accusations to make them look bad? Shouldn't have put in millions of their own money?

Just admit you were wrong on the definition of pay-to-play and then you can debate the merits of whether those charges are actually accurate in the case of the Clinton Foundation. In my original post mentioning this I was responding to fskimospy and didn't say anything about whether the charges are true but merely stated that it's the most common charge made against the Clintons. That seems to me to represent a non-controversial fact about the relative distribution of allegations.

The Clintons aren't typically accused of self-dealing but rather pay-for-play
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Just admit you were wrong on the definition of pay-to-play and then you can debate the merits of whether those charges are actually accurate in the case of the Clinton Foundation. In my original post mentioning this I was responding to fskimospy and didn't say anything about whether the charges are true but merely stated that it's the most common charge made against the Clintons. That seems to me to represent a non-controversial fact about the relative distribution of allegations.

Pay to play Is an utterly inaccurate descriptor of what the Clinton Foundation represents. The Clintons are not beholden to contributors in the same way that politicians are beholden to campaign contributors & bundlers nor to supportive PACs & politicized 501(c)4 non-profits.

If Clinton Foundation contributors demonstrate altruism in order to gain access it's a better way of doing it than what I describe above. It's also a much looser relationship. Big money contributors can ruin political careers simply by withholding funding. Clinton Foundation donors don't have the same power.

The whole thing shows the enormous contrast between Clinton & Trump. The Clintons put together billions to actually help people. Trump put together whatever he put together in the name of charity to commission life sized portraits of himself, make potentially damaging investigations go away & pay off business fines. How much actually went to help anybody other than Donald is indeterminate.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,613
47,222
136
The biggest scandal from the Clinton foundation was Bill Clinton asking the state department for passports and getting denied. ie: the system working the way it should.

So far we have Trump looting his charity that's funded by other people's money to buy paintings of himself, Tim Tebow gear, and hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid legal bills. For all intents and purposes he's stealing their money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeeJay1952

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Pay to play Is an utterly inaccurate descriptor of what the Clinton Foundation represents. The Clintons are not beholden to contributors in the same way that politicians are beholden to campaign contributors & bundlers nor to supportive PACs & politicized 501(c)4 non-profits.

If Clinton Foundation contributors demonstrate altruism in order to gain access it's a better way of doing it than what I describe above. It's also a much looser relationship. Big money contributors can ruin political careers simply by withholding funding. Clinton Foundation donors don't have the same power.

The whole thing shows the enormous contrast between Clinton & Trump. The Clintons put together billions to actually help people. Trump put together whatever he put together in the name of charity to commission life sized portraits of himself, make potentially damaging investigations go away & pay off business fines. How much actually went to help anybody other than Donald is indeterminate.

Not to mention that Trump has a long history of claiming credit for giving money to charity when in fact the money being given was not out of his own pocket but merely other people's money passed through the Trump Foundation or money directly paid by third parties.

One has to almost be unconscious to not recognize what a total sleaze Trump is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perknose

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,061
1,459
126
Just admit you were wrong on the definition of pay-to-play and then you can debate the merits of whether those charges are actually accurate in the case of the Clinton Foundation. In my original post mentioning this I was responding to fskimospy and didn't say anything about whether the charges are true but merely stated that it's the most common charge made against the Clintons. That seems to me to represent a non-controversial fact about the relative distribution of allegations.
Jesus, glenn1, we get it. You're trying to find some reason, any reason, to distract from the clearly and provably wrong and illegal thing Trump did by linking to highly questionable and unproven with virtually no evidence accusations that Clinton did something wrong. It's the "sure, I murdered 10 people, but that person over there might have robbed a store so focus on them not me" argument. We get it, you want people to believe the lie that Clinton is as bad or worse than Trump, but I'm sorry to tell you, outside of a few alt-right pieces of human refuse this board has, no one is dumb enough to believe that bullshit.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Jesus, glenn1, we get it. You're trying to find some reason, any reason, to distract from the clearly and provably wrong and illegal thing Trump did by linking to highly questionable and unproven with virtually no evidence accusations that Clinton did something wrong. It's the "sure, I murdered 10 people, but that person over there might have robbed a store so focus on them not me" argument. We get it, you want people to believe the lie that Clinton is as bad or worse than Trump, but I'm sorry to tell you, outside of a few alt-right pieces of human refuse this board has, no one is dumb enough to believe that bullshit.

You do realize the OP (fskimospy) was the one who first brought up the Clinton angle in this thread and not me? I responded to the post below (#3 in the thread) and clarified that self-dealing wasn't the typical charge leveled at the Clintons. Maybe if you want to not "distract from the clearly and provably wrong and illegal thing Trump did" then your side shouldn't bring up the distraction to begin with.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...rity-funds-for-himself.2486960/#post-38479457


It is kind of funny that conservatives have repeatedly accused the Clintons of abusing their charity to enrich themselves despite there being no evidence that has happened. They claim to think this is VERY SERIOUS evidence of their corruption. Trump has literally been caught several times now doing exactly what they accuse the Clintons of and they don't care.

I for one am truly shocked at the hypocrisy. Shocked I say!
 
  • Like
Reactions: gamervivek

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You do realize the OP (fskimospy) was the one who first brought up the Clinton angle in this thread and not me? I responded to the post below (#3 in the thread) and clarified that self-dealing wasn't the typical charge leveled at the Clintons. Maybe if you want to not "distract from the clearly and provably wrong and illegal thing Trump did" then your side shouldn't bring up the distraction to begin with.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...rity-funds-for-himself.2486960/#post-38479457

Mention of the Clintons was made to show contrast, at which point you introduced the false equivalency inherent in the notion that both are worthy of investigation.

Every media outlet, particularly the right wing media, has tried to crawl right up the Clinton's bungholes over their foundation & haven't established more than scurrilous innuendo in the process, innuendo instantly integrated into conservative faith in truthiness. Conservatives believe it's shady just because they think everything that the Clintons do must be shady, by definition.

Meanwhile, I doubt you'll find any mention of Trump's shenanigans at Drudge, Breitbart, the American Thinker or any similar outfits, which is apparently what a lot of conservatives depend on for their so-called News.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Mention of the Clintons was made to show contrast, at which point you introduced the false equivalency inherent in the notion that both are worthy of investigation.

Every media outlet, particularly the right wing media, has tried to crawl right up the Clinton's bungholes over their foundation & haven't established more than scurrilous innuendo in the process, innuendo instantly integrated into conservative faith in truthiness. Conservatives believe it's shady just because they think everything that the Clintons do must be shady, by definition.

Meanwhile, I doubt you'll find any mention of Trump's shenanigans at Drudge, Breitbart, the American Thinker or any similar outfits, which is apparently what a lot of conservatives depend on for their so-called News.

Sure, whatever. We now return this thread to talking about what Trump did wrong instead of the Clintons. That is unless one of your team continues to bring her up.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Just admit you were wrong on the definition of pay-to-play and then you can debate the merits of whether those charges are actually accurate in the case of the Clinton Foundation. In my original post mentioning this I was responding to fskimospy and didn't say anything about whether the charges are true but merely stated that it's the most common charge made against the Clintons. That seems to me to represent a non-controversial fact about the relative distribution of allegations.

So because Trump has glaring acts of malfeasance concerning *his* charities?/pocket money! ( none of his money found to be there). The Clintons must be doing something much worse 'cause no evidence can be found?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
So because Trump has glaring acts of malfeasance concerning *his* charities?/pocket money! ( none of his money found to be there). The Clintons must be doing something much worse 'cause no evidence can be found?

As I said, "That is unless one of your team continues to bring her up."
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,578
1,622
136
A comment over at Balloon Juice caught my eye. The writer has come up with the perfect way to get Trump supporters outraged about him and his self-dealing 'charity'...

Say it was Clinton and her foundation:

Hillary Clinton spent more than a quarter-million dollars from her charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the former Secretary’s consulting and speech-making business, according to interviews and a review of legal documents.

Those cases, which together used $258,000 from Clinton’s charity, were among four newly documented expenditures in which Clinton 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, Clinton faced $120,000 in unpaid fines from the town of Martha’s Vineyard., resulting from a dispute over the height of a flagpole.

In a settlement, Martha’s Vineyard agreed to waive those fines — if Clinton made a $100,000 donation to a specific charity for veterans. Instead, Clinton sent a check from the Clinton Foundation, a charity funded almost entirely by other people’s money, according to tax records.

In another case, court papers say Clinton’s PR agency 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 Clinton Foundation, according to tax records.

The other expenditures involved smaller amounts. In 2013, Clinton used $5,000 from the foundation to buy advertisements touting her speeches in programs for three events organized by a D.C. preservation group. And in 2014, Clinton spent $10,000 of the foundation’s money on a portrait of herself bought at a charity fundraiser.

Or, rather, another portrait of herself.

Several years earlier, Clinton used $20,000 from the Clinton Foundation to buy a different, six-foot-tall portrait.

Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) railed against Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton from the Senate floor Sept. 20. McConnell accused Clinton of being “incapable of making money honestly.” (  / C-SPAN)
If the Internal Revenue Service were to find that Clinton violated self-dealing rules, the agency could require her to pay penalty taxes or to reimburse the foundation for all the money it spent on her behalf. Clinton is also facing scrutiny from the New York attorney general’s office, which is examining whether the foundation broke state charity laws.

More broadly, these cases also provide new evidence that Clinton ran her charity in a way that may have violated U.S. tax law and gone against the moral conventions of philanthropy

lol!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
A comment over at Balloon Juice caught my eye. The writer has come up with the perfect way to get Trump supporters outraged about him and his self-dealing 'charity'...

Say it was Clinton and her foundation:



lol!

It's pointless outside of maybe humor for liberals because trump supporters are inherently incapable of self-reflection. That's why support for him goes towards zero as intellect & education attainment increases.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,629
2,355
126
I think this shows the reason why Trump refuses to release his tax returns. Under audit he has a small group of IRS employees looking for certain things. If he releases the tax returns then he will have thousands of reporters and experts searching through every aspect of his returns looking for proof of wrongdoing. Given the malfeasance and outright corruption the media has turned up already from a review of the public aspects of the Trump Foundation, I'd say we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

This is the fresh voice the Trump voters want? God save us.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,613
47,222
136
I think this shows the reason why Trump refuses to release his tax returns. Under audit he has a small group of IRS employees looking for certain things. If he releases the tax returns then he will have thousands of reporters and experts searching through every aspect of his returns looking for proof of wrongdoing. Given the malfeasance and outright corruption the media has turned up already from a review of the public aspects of the Trump Foundation, I'd say we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

This is the fresh voice the Trump voters want? God save us.

I mean his son gave away the game a week or two ago, he specifically said they wouldn't be releasing Trump's tax returns because they would hurt him politically.

I imagine they would show all sorts of embarrassments. He's probably much less wealthy than he claims, he likely pays very little in taxes, and he probably gives nothing to charity, which would expose his lies on the subject.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,194
14,863
136
I mean his son gave away the game a week or two ago, he specifically said they wouldn't be releasing Trump's tax returns because they would hurt him politically.

I imagine they would show all sorts of embarrassments. He's probably much less wealthy than he claims, he likely pays very little in taxes, and he probably gives nothing to charity, which would expose his lies on the subject.

Oh its worse than that. We already know he took 9/11 money that he wasn't qualified for. I'm sure there are even more tax breaks he's taken advantage of that he didn't qualify for.

Everything the right claims they hate about Hillary is at least 10 times worse with trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeeJay1952