The 2008 and 2012 elections are over, too. Did they matter?
Well good! Let’s hope they take him down!
President Mike Pence! Woohoo!
I still think that an incompetent Trump is better than a competent Pence. Though, I guess we’ll see in the coming months.
So let me get this straight… in Trump’s assessment, of all his real-estate holdings, scam universities, and other con jobs, his biggest conflict-of-interest liability was his charity? Not a good look.
The visuals. The hypocrisy of ragging on Hillary, claiming the Clinton Foundation was a “pay for play” scheme, then lobbyists and foreign govs start dropping money bombs on the Trump Foundation…might be a bit much, even for him.
If the people wanted incompetence instead of evil, they would vote Democrat every time.
Nah, it’s just that the Foundation is the easiest asset to dispose of since it serves no purpose in the world outside the Trump family.
The people are incompetent.
Why do you think he ragged so much on the Clinton Foundation in the first place? It’s a standard political trick: You attack your opponent on your own weaknesses first, so they look like copycats when they get around to attacking you. See also, for instance, the attacks on Clinton’s age and health, when she’s younger and healthier than Trump.
I been thinking about this: Actually I think that the end of trump charities will be a great benefit. Money will go to other worthy charities. This is the reason for laws and prosecutions around this issue, and why public good is affected.
So you think that people gave money to the Trump Foundation and to the Eric Trump Foundation thinking that the money would actually go to help people with illnesses, who were homeless, had drug addiction problems or were similarly disadvantaged and/or without resources of their own?
I take your point that this charity was a corrupt enterprise. But I think that some money will make its way to more worthy charities if it’s shuttered. I’m not in the non profit field, and I don’t know how much.
My main point is that that’s the reason they have laws and enforce them: To divert any charity monies away from corruption. Some will stop giving, some will give elsewhere.
Are you saying that every single trump donor will cease charitable giving? Wow. Just get a donor list and get the grand jury empaneled. Easy peasy.
Drag dog, I suspect what Snowboarder meant was that none of the Trump Foundation donators were under any illusions that it was a good charity and merely donated to curry favour with Trump. I am sure some donated to real charities as well and will continue to do so but the Trump money will go to some more politically motivated destinations.
Aye; this was what I was getting at. Also, there’s scant evidence that any scant amount of money went to any actual charities or were used for charitable purposes. The whole thing was a sham meant to benefit Mr. Trump.
I don’t know if Trump thought he could end the investigation (conducted by the New York attorney general’s office) by dissolving the foundation. Possibly he did think it would work that way. If so, he is mistaken.
But either way, what this does is offer Trump fans a way to change the subject away from the massive graft, corruption, and violations of the Emoluments Clause that is the essence of the Trump presidency. Wait and see how many Trump defenders answer ALL questions about Trump’s conflicts of interest with 'he dissolved his Foundation…problem solved!!!1!!! Now can we talk about something actually important?’
It will be trotted out, inanely and enthusiastically, in every discussion of Trump’s monumental loot-acquisition. 'He’s the most honest guy ever! He dissolved his Foundation! What more could you ask??’
That’s a little too extreme for me. I don’t think it could have been 100% devoid of any charity at all. It certainly wouldn’t be a good way to go about your scheme of corruption if you had one.
But I’ll be glad to hear that it was and that they are all going to court and losing. It’s the best case right now for america,
Anyway the law seems to be to stop these organizations and let the good ones do good work. If this one closes I can see a public good for other charities.
Those are very stupid arguments and I trust that any of us who hear them will be able to answer them quickly and devastatingly. We get more ammunition for this every single day and it will become an avalanche.
What I’m trying to say is let’s not be mind readers and decide how it’s going to go before we engage in the debate.
We’ve seen how Trump-defenders argue. They use the obvious tactics–outright mendacity, and deflecting to criticizing an opponent, being two of the most-seen standbys. But when they are pinned down in a discussion of an accusation against Trump, and have to come up with a comment that has nothing to do with Hillary or Obama or The Media, they tend to use ‘this one thing he said [or did] solves the entire so-called problem.’
For example:
When evidence of Trump appealing to racism is offered, the reply will be ‘he’s been completely welcoming and positive toward blacks; he said he has a great relationship with the blacks.’ And he did say that:
Trump: ‘Always Had a Great Relationship With The Blacks’ | Observer
Trump defenders against the charge that Trump appealed to racists for votes will also point out his Black Friend (sometimes Ben Carson; sometimes Kanye.) Having one or two Black Friends, under this style of defense, “proves” that Trump and his campaign could never have said and done things designed to please white supremacists.
This is the way Trump defenders argue. They pick some not-necessarily-relevant quote or incident or situation, and claim that it is a complete vindication of Trump against whatever is being charged.
So, yes: I believe that the ‘he dissolved his Foundation’ thing will be cited continually in defense of charges that Trump has colossal and substantial conflicts of interest. (For some reason this theory is bothering Drad Dog, and I haven’t been able to discern from post 36 why this is so; I’ll read with interest any further elaborations on the topic.)
Huh? I thought he can’t dissolve the foundation under investigation. So why are you writing the article now?
No theory bothers me. Why do you ask?
Just as Trump defenders, to this day, will say ‘he cleared up all the questions about his wife’s immigration status with the press conference he held’—about a press conference that was announced but never held—they will say ‘he cleared up all the questions about conflict of interest when he dissolved his Foundation’–even if that never happens.
That’s what I was arguing. (And I’ll look for supportive instances of this happening, to post, as they become available.)
On the Melania press-conference promise:
I just think you’re making up the plot before it happens, because we had a bad, unreal campaign and it looks terrible from here. I get it that this is irrational territory.
I really don’t care what morons say in terms of what happens in court, though, which is what I thought this was about. I don’t think such arguments play well with judges.
In any case I think we all should work on our rhetoric to prevent the debasement and loss of truth in our lives. We can start with our arguments here and work outward.