House Dems about to ask for Trump tax returns

#926
#926
BowlBrother85 said:
My claim is that Trump used the foundation to buy a $10,000 portrait of himself so he could hang it in one of his own properties. That is just as irresponsible and self-serving as what the Clintons were doing. Trump also used the foundation to settle some legal obligations from some of his companies. That is misappropriation of funds. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Was he punished for these actions?
 
#927
#927
Obsessed said:
Was he punished for these actions?
Click to expand...
That depends on how you define "punished". Both sides agreed that the three adult Trump children who were officers of the foundation will undergo training in order to ensure they do not engage in similar improprieties. There were many restrictions placed on future charity foundations the Trumps will be allowed to establish. Your posts are claiming a full exoneration and that is simply not the case. The settlement that was reached included some very unsightly admissions on their part. That $10,000 portrait being one of the worst. He did steal from his foundation - to buy a painting of himself, so he could hang it in one of his hotels. If that doesn't sum up Trump in a nutshell, I don't know what does.
 
#928
#928
BowlBrother85 said:
That depends on how you define "punished". Both sides agreed that the three adult Trump children who were officers of the foundation will undergo training in order to ensure they do not engage in similar improprieties. There were many restrictions placed on future charity foundations the Trumps will be allowed to establish. Your posts are claiming a full exoneration and that is simply not the case. The settlement that was reached included some very unsightly admissions on their part. That $10,000 portrait being one of the worst. He did steal from his foundation - to buy a painting of himself, so he could hang it in one of his hotels. If that doesn't sum up Trump in a nutshell, I don't know what does.
Click to expand...

I do not claim to know the details, but they paid $20K and was for another non profit. It was slick but not as nefarious as you claim. In the end, they were forced to pay the additional $10K as the value of the painting was determined to be $20K by the court.

"Melania Trump and Creamer were bidding on the Trump portrait, and Creamer dropped out when the price got to $10,000; Schall convinced Melania Trump to bid against herself, "and there we were at $20,000,” he told The Post. "Big round of applause, and everybody was excited." Melania instructed Israel assistant Jody Young to send the painting to the Trump National Golf Club Westchester in Briarcliff Manor, New York — where Fahrenthold says he suspects it may still be (the club turned away a Post reporter).

In the end, the charity and Israel each got $10,000 of the money the Trump Foundation paid for the painting (2007 was the last year Trump put any of his own money into his foundation, according to tax records)."

Here's the story of Donald Trump's 6-foot-tall painting, paid for by his foundation
 
#929
#929
Orangeburst65 said:
I do not claim to know the details, but they paid $20K and was for another non profit. It was slick but not as nefarious as you claim. In the end, they were forced to pay the additional $10K as the value of the painting was determined to be $20K by the court.

"Melania Trump and Creamer were bidding on the Trump portrait, and Creamer dropped out when the price got to $10,000; Schall convinced Melania Trump to bid against herself, "and there we were at $20,000,” he told The Post. "Big round of applause, and everybody was excited." Melania instructed Israel assistant Jody Young to send the painting to the Trump National Golf Club Westchester in Briarcliff Manor, New York — where Fahrenthold says he suspects it may still be (the club turned away a Post reporter).

In the end, the charity and Israel each got $10,000 of the money the Trump Foundation paid for the painting (2007 was the last year Trump put any of his own money into his foundation, according to tax records)."

Here's the story of Donald Trump's 6-foot-tall painting, paid for by his foundation
Click to expand...
The bottom line is, as the link points out, the payment came from the Trump foundation. That is ridiculous. "not as nefarious as you claim"? Why would someone who is a billionaire ever need to do that? There isn't a good explanation for it.
 
#930
#930
BowlBrother85 said:
The bottom line is, as the link points out, the payment came from the Trump foundation. That is ridiculous. "not as nefarious as you claim"? Why would someone who is a billionaire ever need to do that? There isn't a good explanation for it.
Click to expand...

I just gave you the explanation. Only $10K came from the foundation to pay for the painting. They paid $10K out of their own pocket and held the painting for the cost. The problem was they artificially over valued the painting to give to charity.

And if you will notice it was Melania, not Donald. I will go with Occams Razor that a billionaire is not trying to swindle $10K when it was money from one charitable organization to another.
 
#931
#931
Orangeburst65 said:
I just gave you the explanation. Only $10K came from the foundation to pay for the painting. They paid $10K out of their own pocket and held the painting for the cost. The problem was they artificially over valued the painting to give to charity.

And if you will notice it was Melania, not Donald. I will go with Occams Razor that a billionaire is not trying to swindle $10K when it was money from one charitable organization to another.
Click to expand...
Not a damn dime should have come from that foundation for that painting. That is not how you run a charity. Any idiot knows that. Once again, there is not a good explanation for this crap.
 
#932
#932
BowlBrother85 said:
Not a damn dime should have come from that foundation for that painting. That is not how you run a charity. Any idiot knows that. Once again, there is not a good explanation for this crap.
Click to expand...

They paid $10K out of pocket, the true value of the painting and kept the painting. It was money from one charity to another. As executors they are endowed to send this money to other charities of their choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#933
#933
Orangeburst65 said:
They paid $10K out of pocket, the true value of the painting and kept the painting. It was money from one charity to another. As executors they are endowed to send this money to other charities of their choice.
Click to expand...
There is not a good explanation for this. A billionaire purchasing a $10K asset for himself, using funds from his charity foundation. Sorry, but it doesn't wash. You are acting as if this is something regular and it's not.
 
#934
#934
BowlBrother85 said:
There is not a good explanation for this. A billionaire purchasing a $10K asset for himself, using funds from his charity foundation. Sorry, but it doesn't wash.
Click to expand...

Come on BB. I just gave you the explanation. The reason it does not make sense is because you are using bias. Plenty of other stuff to complain about but this is nothing. They used $10K from the foundation to pay for a $10K painting, but paid $20K with $10K of their own money and kept the painting. In retrospect, they should of spent the $10K from their own account and kept the painting and wrote another $10K from their foundation as a donation.
 
#935
#935
Orangeburst65 said:
Come on BB. I just gave you the explanation. The reason it does not make sense is because you are using bias. Plenty of other stuff to complain about but this is nothing. They used $10K from the foundation to pay for a $10K painting, but paid $20K with $10K of their own money and kept the painting. In retrospect, they should of spent the $10K from their own account and kept the painting and wrote another $10K from their foundation as a donation.
Click to expand...
This last sentence I can agree with... but nothing else.
 
#937
#937
lawgator1 said:
Mnuchin tells Congress he'll comply with the law on releasing Trump tax returns - CNNPolitics

Mnuchin won't give a straight answer, there's a shock. But obviously he will resist it.

Aside from the legalities, Trump repeatedly promised to release them, and has not. I think you would have to be a pretty big fool not to suspect there is something in them. At this point, I'm thinking they would not square up with the financials he submitted to banks. So either he defrauded the banks or engaged in tax evasion. Maybe both.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I would be much more interested in them, both sides of the isle, having to, in detail, list and account for every contract or legislation that benefited them or any other family member or friend to the cent and make it public. That would be of much more benefit and use to the American public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#938
#938
KB5252 said:
Honestly, I would be much more interested in them, both sides of the isle, having to, in detail, list and account for every contract or legislation that benefited them or any other family member or friend to the cent and make it public. That would be of much more benefit and use to the American public.
Click to expand...

Agree
 
#945
#945
NorthDallas40 said:
I think that was their intention with regards to obvious over reach.
Click to expand...

Which part was "obvious" over reach again? The part where trump usurped congressional power by withholding aid or when he did so to dig up dirt on a political rival?
 
#946
#946
Velo Vol said:
Just like the Founders intended.
Click to expand...

Remember how the right used to bellyache about Obama doing sht that they thought made him look like a dictator/king?


5776MyF.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#947
#947
Septic said:
Which part was over reach again? The part where trump usurped congressional power by withholding aid or when he did so to dig up dirt on a political rival?
Click to expand...
I thought we were talking about legislative over reach in forcing an individuals private tax returns be turned over to congress without a valid predicated basis while there is no law requiring such action to occur. And yes I am aware of their bull **** strong arm basis never before used reasoning.

“You promised” is not a valid predicated basis.
 
#950
#950
NorthDallas40 said:
I thought we were talking about legislative over reach in forcing an individuals private tax returns be turned over to congress without a valid predicated basis while there is no law requiring such action to occur. And yes I am aware of their bull **** strong arm basis never before used reasoning.

“You promised” is not a valid predicated basis.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're right - I assumed incorrectly without looking back at the context of your statement. However, I think if his tax returns are required as part of a legal process as ordered by a judge - then it would be a valid basis. No?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top