jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (74 posts)

Donald “I am the king of debt” Trump

  1. IslandBites profile image85
    IslandBitesposted 2 months ago

    “I am the king of debt,” Mr. Trump once said on CNN. “I love debt.”

    A New York Times investigation into Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's US real-estate holdings revealed that companies he owns have at least $650 million in debt — twice the amount that Trump's public filings, made as part of his campaign, show.

    Among the lenders: the Bank of China, one of the largest banks in a country that Mr. Trump has railed against as an economic foe of the United States, and Goldman Sachs, a financial institution he has said controls Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee.

    As president, Mr. Trump would have substantial sway over monetary and tax policy, as well as the power to make appointments that would directly affect his own financial empire. He would also wield influence over legislative issues that could have a significant impact on his net worth, and would have official dealings with countries in which he has business interests.

    Yet The Times’s examination underscored how much of Mr. Trump’s business remains shrouded in mystery. He has declined to disclose his tax returns or allow an independent valuation of his assets.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 … rties.html

    Do you think that's why he won't release his tax returns? Will he do it before Nov? Do you think that's why he's running?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      I think most big business operates heavily in debt.  That's where their operating funds come from, not from mattresses stuffed with last year's income.  Neither his debt nor where it is bothers me - if he can get China to finance his (often failing) businesses it doesn't bother me a bit.

      Can't speak for Trump, but if I were him, with all those secret business plans and dealings, I wouldn't make my tax returns public either.  It sounds like a very good way to bankrupt most of them.  There is also the fact that if he does the general population will jump all over them without having a clue what they mean - we saw it with Obama's birth certificate and we would absolutely see it again.  "What? Trump only paid 10,000,000 in taxes??  That isn't near enough for a billionaire - he must be cheating and should be in jail!"

    2. Jackie Lynnley profile image78
      Jackie Lynnleyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Well I believe he said it was because he is being audited. I don't think any of us has forgotten Lois Lerner and that IRS and how they did things to people based on their party so I can understand that. I mean these people are yet to pay for all that corruption and I hope we get someone besides what we have now to make corruption stop for awhile, don't you? Look at all the play for pay Hillary has done. No two ways or doubts about it and she will only stop if we make her president! How long do we have to put up with this crap? Anything and anybody has got to beat that lying woman that would (if she hasn't already) sold America out for a dime!
      Anyone can have their doubts about Trump but we know for a fact what Hillary has done and will do! Terrorists own her and we want her for our leader? Not me, I would choose Pee Wee Herman over that traitor.


    3. Don W profile image81
      Don Wposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      The issue is not so much the debt, but the opportunity it provides to gain leverage over Trump. As a current presidential nominee, that's massively concerning.

      Trump's a CEO through and through. As a CEO he makes decisions based on what's in the best interests of his business. Sometimes those decisions (like outsourcing manufacturing to China, Mexico etc.) are not in the interests of the country(1)(2). But that's what CEOs do. It's not what presidents do though, and nothing Trump has done indicates he is able to switch from being CEO-Trump to Presidential-Trump. That's a big problem.

      If his business is in debt to those affiliated with foreign powers, there is every indication that CEO-Trump will make decisions to protect his business interests. I'm not concerned this will happen. I'm concerned that it is happening.

      Separate RNC officials have said Trump’s campaign pushed hard for a change in the GOP platform before the GOP convention. The change softened the GOPs position on Russian aggression in Ukraine. They said "apart from the Ukraine change, Trump’s campaign seemed generally uninterested in the platform altogether"(3).

      The concern is that Trump's foreign policy advisors are known to have strong business ties to Russia, and pro-Russian factions (his campaign director Paul Manafort resigned last week because of concerns about those ties)(4)(5). Donald Trump Jr. has also said: “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”(6) And this was his campaign director's response to a direct question asking if Trump had financial ties to Russian oligarchs. Are Trump's business interests in Russia behind the change his campaign requested to the GOP position on Russia? That's the question. And what has Trump done to indicate that he would sacrifice his business interests for the sake of the national interest?

      The typical answer from supporters is "yeah but . . . Clinton", which I think is a cop out. This is serious and needs to be addressed, and it can be. Examining Trump's tax returns would show to what extent he has financial ties to Russia, and alleviate concerns that Putin or other foreign affiliates have some financial leverage over Trump. Unfortunately, despite every Republican presidential nominee in the last nine cycles releasing their returns, Trump refuses to(7), which in itself only increases the concern.

      (1) http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps … -s-a-spin/
      (2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html
      (3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tru … 164c19e09?
      (4) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … explained/
      (5) http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c01989a4 … n-lobbying
      (6) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html
      (7) http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/d … rns-226531

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        "It's not what presidents do though, and nothing Trump has done indicates he is able to switch from being CEO-Trump to Presidential-Trump."

        Your fear then is that Trump will not switch his allegiance and become the "CEO" of the country, instead putting his own businesses the top priority as Clinton has done?  The comment that there is nothing showing he will do so is rather a red herring; not only is there nothing showing he won't, the only thing that would indicate that he would is to already have been President.  There is also the matter of conflict of interests and the law:

        "Initially, it should be noted that there is no federal statute which expressly requires that particular federal officials place assets into a “blind trust” upon entering public service with the Federal Government. Rather, the use of a “blind trust” is one of several methods of conflict of interest avoidance under federal law and regulation. There are now uniform statutory requirements for the establishment and maintenance of blind trusts, and federal officials
        who are to use such devices, either voluntarily or as a remedial measure for identified conflicts of interest, must receive from their supervisory ethics office prior approval of the proposed trustee and the trust instrument to qualify the blind trust for ethics purposes. "


        While I'm positive both his political AND business opponents would dearly love to get their greedy little hands on his tax returns, he would be an absolute fool to make his business dealings public.

        1. Don W profile image81
          Don Wposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          The law cannot resolve the conflict of interest:

          "In a 2014 report on conflicts of interest in the executive branch, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service noted that the criminal statute requiring officials to recuse themselves from government matters in which they have a financial interest 'expressly excludes the president and vice president.'" (1)

          "The US president and vice president are not subject to laws that apply to nearly all other federal officials."(2)

          "If Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, wins the general election in November, he would still be allowed to oversee operations and collect income from the more than 500 businesses he's listed in a personal financial disclosure form filed with the Federal Election Commission."(3)

          To see this in action: the lawyer for the Trump Organization sent a cease and desist letter to an organization that criticized Trumps policy positions. His lawyer said the letter “was the result of what we believe were certain misleading and outright false statements which we were concerned could potentially cause damage to Mr. Trump’s reputation and business interests.” (4)

          So the issue is not whether there would be a conflict of interests. The issue is whether Trump is able to resolve that conflict of interest in favor of the country rather than his business. It doesn't look promising:

          1. His overtures to Russia. There is a case to be made for normalizing relations with Russia, but suggesting Russia does not have troops in Ukraine goes way beyond that. Pandering to Putin as he invades neighbouring countries is not in the interests of the country, but it is in the interests of Trump's business empire. He's made no secret of his desire to do business in Russia.

          2. He put his presidential campaign on hold to go to Scotland and promote his personal business interests(6). Apparently running for president is not as important as promoting his business. While there he talked about Brexit mainly in relation to the benefits it would have on his business. That's not a good indicator of priorities.

          3. To my knowledge (and yours apparently) he has never done anything for the sake of public service. Nada. Nothing. I asked you previously if you were aware of anything in his life I had missed, and you replied "you haven't missed a thing". So has he shown any ability to change form? Any at all? He can't even reign in his mouth (to the frustration of his own campaign advisors). What is the likelihood he will suddenly develop a spirit of public service, which inspires him to sacrifice his business interests for the sake of the country? Slim to none if his current behaviour is anything to go by.

          You want to know what indicates he is likely to sell the country down the river for the sake of a "good deal"? Choose almost anything he has said or done.

          (1) http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-t … story.html
          (2) http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-donald- … 1467648595
          (3) https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles … -a-walmart
          (4) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli … /73409764/
          (5) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … tsche-bank
          (6) http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/23/polit … conflicts/

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            That a President doesn't have to distance himself from his (or her) business interests is troubling.  But at the same time, I guess we've lived with it for 200 years, so maybe it isn't the problem it seems.  The president does not, after all, make law.

            Trump has business in Russia - so what?  We don't complain about Clinton getting money from all over the world (including Russia) - why the concern about Trump?  Of course, we also don't use such loaded words as "pandering" in connection with Clinton - is that the difference?  Loaded words, insinuating what might or might not be there?

            Yep - he put it on hold, at least to some degree.  Just as actual Presidents have done for years when they go play golf or off on vacation.  Your point?  That he should be working on his election 24/7?

            Changing "form" isn't what you're asking for in putting the country over business.  It's what you want him to do, whether business concerns are operative or not, but has nothing to do with using his position to further his businesses.  A red herring, then - just another complaint on another matter.

            You're still wanting Trump to have already shown he will do as required, without his ever having been in the position to do so.  That seems just a trifle unrealistic, don't you think?  I will point out, though, that his recent trip to Louisiana shows promise.

            That he will build a wall shows making a personal good deal?  Dealing with the illegal alien problem?  Provide jobs nationwide?  Stop Obamacare?  I would say "No" to all of these.  So what has he said that indicates he is looking for a good business deal out of being President at the expense of the country - put the shoe on the other foot and YOU provide some conversations indicating that what you fear is likely to be actual.

            1. Sychophantastic profile image83
              Sychophantasticposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Did you donate to Trump? Are you at all disappointed that he is spending much of his campaign contributions on himself and his children? I'd be a bit peeved to donate to a candidate only to discover he was taking my money and enriching himself with it instead of using it to fight the other candidate.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                I presume you have sneaked a peak at the bookkeeping records of his campaign?  Or is that just more mud without any basis in truth?

                1. Sychophantastic profile image83
                  Sychophantasticposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  You can research it if you want.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Why?  I don't believe it - why would I put any real effort into it?

                2. Sychophantastic profile image83
                  Sychophantasticposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  The information is available in his public campaign filings.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Really?  His public campaign filings says he is taking contributions to entertain, or even feed, himself or his children?

                    I don't believe you.

            2. Don W profile image81
              Don Wposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

              It's very troubling. Donald Trump's business holdings represents the greatest conflict of interest of any presidential nominee in recent history.

              Having business in Russia is one thing. Praising Putin while he invades a neighbouring pro-democracy country is another. That's pandering. Softening the GOP platform which is traditionally hawkish on Russia (and rightly so in my opinion) is pandering. Announcing that you might not come to the aid of a NATO ally if it were attacked by Russia, is pandering. Describing the despot Putin as a "great leader" is pandering.

              He didn't just put his campaign on hold, he put it on hold so he could promote his business. So he can't even campaign for the presidency without stopping to promote his personal business interests. That says something about his priorities. It's something you would expect from a CEO. Not what you would expect (or want) from a presidential nominee. Again, it's massively concerning that all we see is CEO-Trump. The country does not need a president who is more interested in promoting his own business interests than the interests of the country. Unfortunately Trump is legally allowed to do exactly that.

              There are lots of ways to demonstrate public service without having been president. I'm asking for an example of where Trump has done that. The wall isn't one of them. Have you stopped to wonder why the CEO of a conglomerate that delivers massive building projects, is so keen on a policy that requires the delivery of a massive building project? A desire to do public service? But there is nothing Trump has done in his life, that I can see, that was not about self-promotion, or for the benefit of his business. Why should I, or anyone else, believe the Great Wall of America™ is not just another example of the wheeling and dealing he has done throughout his life for for the benefit of Donald J. Trump and his business interests? The most people can say is that they don't know whether Trump is suggesting such a wall for the sake of the country, or for the sake of his building businesses? Surely that's not acceptable.

              By running for office, Trump and his campaign are asserting that he would make decisions based on what is in the national interest (as is the president's responsibility), or as a minimum that he is capable of doing that. So the burden is on Trump to demonstrate those positive assertions, not on me to demonstrate the negative. There is no evidence that Trump is interested in anything other than his own business interests. I've asked for some, but so far no one has been able to produce any.

              1. Sychophantastic profile image83
                Sychophantasticposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                Very well articulated.

                The right wing has been coveting the crazies, uneducated, racists, and religious zealots. Trump has had to move over to that end to secure that vote.

                However, and to be less mean, Trump is the result of the GOP's worship of business. In other words (and this isn't necessarily a bad thing), many prefer a businessman, any businessman, to any politician. Given how politicians operate, I can see why. However, Gary Johnson is a businessman too, but not nearly so mean.

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                "Again, it's massively concerning that all we see is CEO-Trump."

                How easily you push aside the 99% of his time spent as Presidential Nominee, declaring that all there is is CEO.

                "Have you stopped to wonder why the CEO of a conglomerate that delivers massive building projects, is so keen on a policy that requires the delivery of a massive building project?"

                Probably because that's what he is most familiar with.  Rather than wheeling and dealing in the back rooms on the Hill, figuring how to keep himself in power, he does something.  A builder, not just a talker.

                1. ahorseback profile image54
                  ahorsebackposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this


                2. Don W profile image81
                  Don Wposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                  During the time he has been a presidential nominee he has not said or done anything that indicates he would put the national interest before his personal business interests.

                  Yes, he's most familiar with being a CEO. That wouldn't be a problem if he demonstrated he could switch from that to being a president, but he hasn't. All the pandering to Russia indicates he would not put the national interest before his business interests.

                  You haven't given a single good reason why anyone should believe Trump would put the country first if he were president. I can't understand why the massive conflict of interest is acceptable to you, or any Trump supporters. Is building a wall and deporting people really that important to you?

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 8 weeks ago in reply to this

                    And I repeat: Trump has done nothing to indicate he won't change the CEO cap for the President one.  He's never had the chance to do so, or even the cap of "representative".

                    And you haven't given a single good reason why anyone should believe Trump would NOT put the country first if he were president.  Just actions taken when he was NOT the president, and that's a whole different matter: few people do when they aren't on the hot seat.

                    It's acceptable because that's the law.  It's what every President has done.  If it's unacceptable to you then you need to organize to change the law, not make accusations you can't even start to back up.

                    And yes, building a wall and deporting (or reasonable facsimile of both) IS that important.  It is a major thorn in our side and causes major damage to the country and the people.  It's certainly more important than claiming Trump will put business before country and therefore should not be president, and doubly so when you can provide no reason to say it other than he has never had the opportunity to do otherwise.

  2. Alternative Prime profile image87
    Alternative Primeposted 2 months ago

    "Delusional Donald" also has EXPLICIT Plans to "Default" on the DEBT of the United States of AMERICA which would be nothing LESS than Catastrophic for the USA while very ADVANTAGEOUS for Vladimir Putin & Communist RUSSIA ~ EVERY Reputable FINANCIAL Expert has WARNED Against allowing Trump to get anywhere NEAR Our FINANCEs ~ Just take a good look at ALL his HIGHLY Leveraged FAILUREs such as the BANKRUPT "Trump Taj Mahal" in Jersey etc ~ D*A*N*G*E*R*O*U*S ~ sad

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/don … e9f0917fac

    Another VALID Reason as to WHY Donald is CONCEALING his TAX RETURNs from "We the PEOPLE" might be due to the FACT that he, Donald Junior & Ivanka have been NAMED in a Gargantuan $250 MILLION Tax Scam involving his Properties & who else but a CORRUPT Russian Individual ~ sad ~ U can't SCRIPT this in HOLLYWOOD though many have tried ~ Trumps' a 2-BIT Con Man LOSER & just about everyone on WALL Street knows this ~

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … -case.html

    1. Jackie Lynnley profile image78
      Jackie Lynnleyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Wow we are doomed then since that only leaves us with Hillary, an habitual liar that no doubt already has America sold out to the highest bidder in terror territory. We can guess at what Donald is but Hillary has been proven on paper and just because this corrupt government whose soul purpose has been to destroy America has not made her pay fro her crimes, does not make her one ounce less guilty! She does not even qualify to run for president. Who would have ever dreamed America would allow a criminal who has funded terrorist who scream "death to America!"  to even think about leading us to our demise? Which is exactly what it will be with her at the helm. God forgive you all who are upholding her and enabling her. You surely have been given blinders, unaware. What other reason could you have for doing this? You surely can't all be getting a free phone and college education.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image87
        Alternative Primeposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Unlike "Delusional Donald" & DESPITE what Right WING Nutjob Networks like FOX Loser & Breitbart FALSELY Claim over there in "Republican PRETEND-Land", you'll find very little in relation to COURT Documents FILED Against her because she has Committed NO TORTs nor Crimes ~

        In STARK Comparison, "Drumpfy" Trump & Family have been involved in a RECORD Number of LAW Suits, as REPORTED Approximately 3,500, some of which were Gargantuan "FRAUD" Cases which he was FORCED to SETTLE & one which includes a "RICO Attachment" for CORRUPTION that is Currently PENDING for Adjudication with a TRIAL Date set for NOVEMBER 28, 2016 ~ NOT to mention a Gigantic TAX Evasion SCAM where he & Children are NAMED ~

        Anyone Interested in who TRULY is the Pathological LIAR? Should have been Visiting "FACTCheck" Periodically to find the TRUTH ~ "Delusional Donald" has ACHIEVED that "Dubious HONOR" throughout his Pseudo-Campaign ~ sad

        P.S. ~ When U have Nefarious PLANs to INTENTIONALLY Default on the United States DEBT as Donald has according to REPORTs, you will ACCOMPLISH what Communist Russia & Terrorist ORGANIZATIONs have been Plotting for DECADEs ~ WHY do U think he's SINKING fast in the POLLs? It's not only his HATRED of Women & Minorities, Disdain for OUR Military & Veterans, or his OVERT Racism & Bigotry etc, it's ALSO his Dangerous PLANs to APPEASE Russia ~I would suggest that everyone do some RESEARCH on the Subject ~

        1. Jackie Lynnley profile image78
          Jackie Lynnleyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          When anyone claims Hillary after using devices with top secret information which it has been proven she did and the money she and Bill took from countries for favors she gave them tries to claim it did not happen then you are a liar just as clearly as she is and long words and big paragraphs does not change the facts. When she takes this country completely under and you along with it I hope you can remember the disservice you did covering for one of if not the most corrupt person in US government ever. May God prevent this evil from coming on this country although it could well be too late even if she loses. What all has she done or sold that we don't know about?
          What about Hillary taking money from Muslim countries who would just as soon kill a woman as look at her and rape children including boys. She loves them and takes their money and what do they get in return? Did this 400 million have anything to do with her? I would not doubt it and her running mate thinks we should be just like these Muslim women so I assume Hillary does too and they are down on the white race as if we are to blame for all racism and she is all for killing unborn babies all the way to the being born point not to mention the evil she did years ago to that little girl who was raped and she made her out to be a man lover desiring to be raped and got the man off and laughed about it later. She is evil not just bad or wrong, but evil to the core. I could have put this all in capital letters but since I am telling the truth I think it stands very stark against that woman I do not even consider human! She sold her soul somewhere far back and there is no real human in that body possibly why it spouts so many lies and has uncontrollable movement? Possession? It would not surprise me.   


          1. Sychophantastic profile image83
            Sychophantasticposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Do you realize you're a gullible idiot or is it the product of homeschooling? I mean, it's truly astonishing. And you, of course, realize that the ridiculous photo there with Hillary and Osama Bin Laden is photoshopped, right? In other words, it's a fake. But you believe it?

            1. Jackie Lynnley profile image78
              Jackie Lynnleyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Where do you live that you know nothing about what Hillary has been up to? Home school may be better than government brainwashing although I am a little old for home school; I do highly recommend it.
              You know all I have said is true but you like most liberals just think if you like Hillary lie long enough it will soon all be under the rug but many of us, and some ex-liberals like myself, will not lie for her. If she is the best there is for the Democrats then it is time for another choice.
              Now they are finding voter fraud that Obama should not even have been in the running and I am sure they will uncover what Hillary is up to in that venue now with her little illegals running around pulling another scam. I just hope it all unloads in time to save this country from her.


              1. Sychophantastic profile image83
                Sychophantasticposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                You've been duped by your so-called information so many times that you'd think you'd start to question its validity. Obama made the pledge of allegiance illegal! Massive voter fraud! Obama is a Muslim! Hillary is dying!

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  As a liberal, I believe in every adult person's right to vote, but as a flawed human being, sometimes I wish we had to display a minimum level of critical thinking ability and knowledge of civics in order to vote.

                  Ah, but if only.  big_smile

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Will never happen.  Liberals would instantly lose 90% or their voter base.  If they can't keep up the fiction that violating the 2nd amendment will save lives and that wealth redistribution will solve poverty they haven't much to offer.

                  2. gmwilliams profile image84
                    gmwilliamsposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    I agree, there are many who neither have the discernment nor intellectual ability to vote.  There also should be IQ & LOGIC tests to assess voting ability.

                2. Jackie Lynnley profile image78
                  Jackie Lynnleyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  So right and now Hillary is trying to blame Colin Powell for her using illegal devices for US top secret material but he is not backing her up! Good for him to call her the liar she is!


                  1. Sychophantastic profile image83
                    Sychophantasticposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Both Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice used private email servers. The problem is something endemic to the State Department. And, it was not illegal. And she didn't send top secret material.

            2. gmwilliams profile image84
              gmwilliamsposted 2 months ago in reply to this


              JL simply loves conjecture & hyperbole.  Logic & reason  are Yakut to her.   She is quite adept at conjecture & hyperbole, in fact, she has a Ph.D. in these subjects.............................

    2. ahorseback profile image54
      ahorsebackposted 2 months ago

      If this  were true  -  "I am the King of debt  ", he would fit right into OBAMA"S  spending frenzy  with adding more debt to the country than ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDNTS COMBINED  !

      Liberals  actually critique   anything about political  economics ?     WOW !

      1. Sychophantastic profile image83
        Sychophantasticposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Like Reagan, you mean?

        The debt statistic is only meaningful relative to GDP.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Oh my, don't introduce too much nuance.  It's confusing!  LOL

    3. Alternative Prime profile image87
      Alternative Primeposted 8 weeks ago

      BOTTOM Line ~ The INVESTIATION Uncovered the FACT that "Delusional Donald" has Accrued at LEAST 650 MILLION in DEBT ~ This is a Minimum LIABILITY & It could be Much MORE given his HISTORY of RECKLESS & Incompetent Business Practices~ sad ~

      Still don't think Donald is a 2-Bit CON-Man ?? sad ~ What will it take for Y'all to see the LIGHT ?? sad  ~ And Yup, still NO Tax Returns to be FOUND nor PROOF of his "IRS AUDIT"~ Gee, I wonder WHY ?? ~

    4. 60
      shonesaji11posted 7 weeks ago

      Please check my hub and I will check yours

    5. IslandBites profile image85
      IslandBitesposted 4 weeks ago

      Trump used family charity to settle lawsuits against his businesses

      On four occasions, The Donald J. Trump Foundation cut checks to settle suits -- a controversial and potentially illegal tactic given that the Foundation is funded primarily with other donors' money, not his, according to the Post review of legal documents and interviews.

      Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses.

      In one case, from 2007, Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club faced $120,000 in unpaid fines from the town of Palm Beach, Fla., resulting from a dispute over the size of a flagpole.

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

      In another case, court papers say one of Trump’s golf courses 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 Trump Foundation, according to tax records.

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

      Or, rather, another portrait of himself.

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