It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump Refused to Pay Winner of 1M Golf Contest Prize Used Charity Money to Settle

page: 25
65
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Annee

If accusations are fact, so is the title of this thread. - Trump refused nothing. It was those putting on the event who were renting the facilities.


Trump wrote the check from his charity Foundation.



So? We're going round in circles. Charities write cheques all the time, including to other charities.


If he didn't write this check (and the several other possible self-dealing situations), there would be nothing to investigate.

I'm not going 'round in circles.

I've stayed firmly planted in the same place. "check ---- self-dealing"


I know. You've been in a completely unsupported position the whole way through.
There is no evidence of self-dealing.


LOL - - - that is hilarious.



As I said , no evidence of self-dealing. Only your speculation. I am now wondering whether you even know what self-dealing is.


It isn't my speculation.

Read the article by David Fahrenthold.


I don't care whose speculation it is. It's speculation nonetheless, with no evidence of self-dealing or any wrong doing.
We can all speculate. It's easy.
I'd like some details from the investigation.


Trump the Innocent.

It's been declared.


Probably best to take that stance until some evidence of wrong doing proves he's guilty, don't you think?

I know it's a crazy thought


Feel free to take whatever position you want.

On this one my position is "where there's smoke there's fire"

He had to pay a penalty on the Bondi donation. That's one guilty.

Now we have 4 new situations with a similar pattern.


I see.

So how can you vote for someone who has murdered so many people that could expose her? The charge of murder is only a theory of course, but there is certainly smoke - ergo, there must be fire, right? There are more than 4 similar patterns in this case too...


You want to talk about Hillary - - start a Hillary thread.


OR, you could take the stance that there is no evidence and therefore the smoke is actually blowing out of your ass.


There is a check.


The point was about obvious hypocrisy on your part.
Yep, there is a cheque and no evidence such a cheque constitutes any wrong doing.
Doesn't matter which way you cut it, there are no facts that show anything wrong.




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Annee

If accusations are fact, so is the title of this thread. - Trump refused nothing. It was those putting on the event who were renting the facilities.


Trump wrote the check from his charity Foundation.



So? We're going round in circles. Charities write cheques all the time, including to other charities.


If he didn't write this check (and the several other possible self-dealing situations), there would be nothing to investigate.

I'm not going 'round in circles.

I've stayed firmly planted in the same place. "check ---- self-dealing"


I know. You've been in a completely unsupported position the whole way through.
There is no evidence of self-dealing.


LOL - - - that is hilarious.



As I said , no evidence of self-dealing. Only your speculation. I am now wondering whether you even know what self-dealing is.


It isn't my speculation.

Read the article by David Fahrenthold.


I don't care whose speculation it is. It's speculation nonetheless, with no evidence of self-dealing or any wrong doing.
We can all speculate. It's easy.
I'd like some details from the investigation.


Trump the Innocent.

It's been declared.


Probably best to take that stance until some evidence of wrong doing proves he's guilty, don't you think?

I know it's a crazy thought


Feel free to take whatever position you want.

On this one my position is "where there's smoke there's fire"

He had to pay a penalty on the Bondi donation. That's one guilty.

Now we have 4 new situations with a similar pattern.


I see.

So how can you vote for someone who has murdered so many people that could expose her? The charge of murder is only a theory of course, but there is certainly smoke - ergo, there must be fire, right? There are more than 4 similar patterns in this case too...


You want to talk about Hillary - - start a Hillary thread.


OR, you could take the stance that there is no evidence and therefore the smoke is actually blowing out of your ass.


There is a check.


The point was about obvious hypocrisy on your part.
Yep, there is a cheque and no evidence such a cheque constitutes any wrong doing.
Doesn't matter which way you cut it, there are no facts that show anything wrong.


I know what your point was. And you don't need Hillary to make it.

FACT: there is a check. Not speculation - - a real check.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Are you seriously this confused all the time?



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Anything beyond the fact that there was a check is speculation...



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Annee

Anything beyond the fact that there was a check is speculation...



Not really. There's enough in several of his actions to warrant suspicion.

Not just this one check.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Annee

Are you seriously this confused all the time?



I'm not confused at all.

There's a check.

There's a pattern of previous questionable actions.

There's the tax penalty he had to pay for the Bondi donation.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

So you agree that it's all speculation, yet here you are confident Trump has broken the law.
edit on 27-9-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Annee

If accusations are fact, so is the title of this thread. - Trump refused nothing. It was those putting on the event who were renting the facilities.


Trump wrote the check from his charity Foundation.



So? We're going round in circles. Charities write cheques all the time, including to other charities.


If he didn't write this check (and the several other possible self-dealing situations), there would be nothing to investigate.

I'm not going 'round in circles.

I've stayed firmly planted in the same place. "check ---- self-dealing"


I know. You've been in a completely unsupported position the whole way through.
There is no evidence of self-dealing.


LOL - - - that is hilarious.



As I said , no evidence of self-dealing. Only your speculation. I am now wondering whether you even know what self-dealing is.


It isn't my speculation.

Read the article by David Fahrenthold.


I don't care whose speculation it is. It's speculation nonetheless, with no evidence of self-dealing or any wrong doing.
We can all speculate. It's easy.
I'd like some details from the investigation.


Trump the Innocent.

It's been declared.


Probably best to take that stance until some evidence of wrong doing proves he's guilty, don't you think?

I know it's a crazy thought


Feel free to take whatever position you want.

On this one my position is "where there's smoke there's fire"

He had to pay a penalty on the Bondi donation. That's one guilty.

Now we have 4 new situations with a similar pattern.


I see.

So how can you vote for someone who has murdered so many people that could expose her? The charge of murder is only a theory of course, but there is certainly smoke - ergo, there must be fire, right? There are more than 4 similar patterns in this case too...


You want to talk about Hillary - - start a Hillary thread.


OR, you could take the stance that there is no evidence and therefore the smoke is actually blowing out of your ass.


There is a check.


The point was about obvious hypocrisy on your part.
Yep, there is a cheque and no evidence such a cheque constitutes any wrong doing.
Doesn't matter which way you cut it, there are no facts that show anything wrong.


I know what your point was. And you don't need Hillary to make it.

FACT: there is a check. Not speculation - - a real check.


There are literally thousands of cheques. I am sure the Trump foundation has cut cheques to several people/ organisations.

edit on 27/9/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Annee

You do realize you keep making assumptions right?


I'm presenting facts.

There's a check.

There's a pattern of previous questionable actions.

There's the tax penalty he had to pay for the Bondi donation.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Annee

If accusations are fact, so is the title of this thread. - Trump refused nothing. It was those putting on the event who were renting the facilities.


Trump wrote the check from his charity Foundation.



So? We're going round in circles. Charities write cheques all the time, including to other charities.


If he didn't write this check (and the several other possible self-dealing situations), there would be nothing to investigate.

I'm not going 'round in circles.

I've stayed firmly planted in the same place. "check ---- self-dealing"


I know. You've been in a completely unsupported position the whole way through.
There is no evidence of self-dealing.


LOL - - - that is hilarious.



As I said , no evidence of self-dealing. Only your speculation. I am now wondering whether you even know what self-dealing is.


It isn't my speculation.

Read the article by David Fahrenthold.


I don't care whose speculation it is. It's speculation nonetheless, with no evidence of self-dealing or any wrong doing.
We can all speculate. It's easy.
I'd like some details from the investigation.


Trump the Innocent.

It's been declared.


Probably best to take that stance until some evidence of wrong doing proves he's guilty, don't you think?

I know it's a crazy thought


Feel free to take whatever position you want.

On this one my position is "where there's smoke there's fire"

He had to pay a penalty on the Bondi donation. That's one guilty.

Now we have 4 new situations with a similar pattern.


I see.

So how can you vote for someone who has murdered so many people that could expose her? The charge of murder is only a theory of course, but there is certainly smoke - ergo, there must be fire, right? There are more than 4 similar patterns in this case too...


You want to talk about Hillary - - start a Hillary thread.


OR, you could take the stance that there is no evidence and therefore the smoke is actually blowing out of your ass.


There is a check.


The point was about obvious hypocrisy on your part.
Yep, there is a cheque and no evidence such a cheque constitutes any wrong doing.
Doesn't matter which way you cut it, there are no facts that show anything wrong.


I know what your point was. And you don't need Hillary to make it.

FACT: there is a check. Not speculation - - a real check.


There are literally thousands of cheques. I am sure the Trump foundation has cut cheques to several people.


After 25 pages I have to specify which check?



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

And? None of those facts have anything to do with illegal activity. The legal part is speculation because we don't have all the facts.

Questionable actions are not the same as illegal actions. Just because you think something is unethical doesn't make it illegal.

I could present the fact the cow # burns good, so the sun is made of cow #.

The fact that cow # burns good can't be argued...



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Annee

If accusations are fact, so is the title of this thread. - Trump refused nothing. It was those putting on the event who were renting the facilities.


Trump wrote the check from his charity Foundation.



So? We're going round in circles. Charities write cheques all the time, including to other charities.


If he didn't write this check (and the several other possible self-dealing situations), there would be nothing to investigate.

I'm not going 'round in circles.

I've stayed firmly planted in the same place. "check ---- self-dealing"


I know. You've been in a completely unsupported position the whole way through.
There is no evidence of self-dealing.


LOL - - - that is hilarious.



As I said , no evidence of self-dealing. Only your speculation. I am now wondering whether you even know what self-dealing is.


It isn't my speculation.

Read the article by David Fahrenthold.


I don't care whose speculation it is. It's speculation nonetheless, with no evidence of self-dealing or any wrong doing.
We can all speculate. It's easy.
I'd like some details from the investigation.


Trump the Innocent.

It's been declared.


Probably best to take that stance until some evidence of wrong doing proves he's guilty, don't you think?

I know it's a crazy thought


Feel free to take whatever position you want.

On this one my position is "where there's smoke there's fire"

He had to pay a penalty on the Bondi donation. That's one guilty.

Now we have 4 new situations with a similar pattern.


I see.

So how can you vote for someone who has murdered so many people that could expose her? The charge of murder is only a theory of course, but there is certainly smoke - ergo, there must be fire, right? There are more than 4 similar patterns in this case too...


You want to talk about Hillary - - start a Hillary thread.


OR, you could take the stance that there is no evidence and therefore the smoke is actually blowing out of your ass.


There is a check.


The point was about obvious hypocrisy on your part.
Yep, there is a cheque and no evidence such a cheque constitutes any wrong doing.
Doesn't matter which way you cut it, there are no facts that show anything wrong.


I know what your point was. And you don't need Hillary to make it.

FACT: there is a check. Not speculation - - a real check.


There are literally thousands of cheques. I am sure the Trump foundation has cut cheques to several people.


After 25 pages I have to specify which check?



It doesn't matter which cheque. The Trump foundation has written thousands of them I am sure.
That's your only fact - his foundation cut a cheque.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Annee

And? None of those facts have anything to do with illegal activity. The legal part is speculation because we don't have all the facts.



Is the investigation factual?

Would there be investigating without probable cause (or whatever correct terminology is).

When is the results of an investigation presented? After its over.

I get that you want to erase it and make it go completely away by claiming speculation. Not gonna happen.

We wait.

edit on 27-9-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

How long do we wait? Months? It's already been that long. You fell for bench politics.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I'm out - - until there is some knowledge of the investigation.

Ridiculous got passed several pages back.

David A. Fahrenthold
Reporter — Washington, D.C.
www.washingtonpost.com...

edit on 27-9-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
New info - regarding $10,000 painting hanging in bar at Trump National Doral, outside Miami.



An adviser to Donald Trump on Tuesday offered a new explanation for why a portrait of Trump — paid for by the Republican nominee's charitable foundation — wound up on display at a Trump-owned golf resort in Florida. Trump, the adviser said, was actually doing his charity a favor, by "storing" its painting on the wall of a bar at Trump National Doral, outside Miami.

Experts said that the Internal Revenue Service had actually ruled on a similar issue in 1974, in a case where a major donor to a private foundation took paintings belonging to that foundation and hung them in his home. (The rules against "self-dealing" apply to both major donors and to foundation officers, like Trump.) The IRS determined that this was, indeed, self-dealing — because the homeowner was using the foundation's assets to benefit himself.

In this case: "If [the portrait] were gathering dust in a closet​, and neither Trump nor the businesses were charging for the storage, that would probably be fine," Lloyd Mayer, a professor of tax law at the University of Notre Dame, said in an email.

"The same reasoning [as in the 1974 case] would apply to displaying a private foundation's paintings in a business owned by a foundation insider," Mayer wrote. "So definitely still self-dealing." www.washingtonpost.com... -wall-his-adviser-says/


edit on 27-9-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Swing and a miss. Trump was already audited. In fact, he is audited almost every year. If he was Self Dealing an Auditor would have found it.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Trump Foundation Lacks Certification to Operate as Charity:

By AARON KATERSKY DAVID CAPLAN 9-29-2016



The Trump Foundation, which is under investigation by the New York Attorney General's office, never obtained the necessary certification to solicit money from the public during its nearly 30-year existence, an investigation by the state's attorney general's office has found, a source briefed on the investigation tells ABC News.

New York State law requires any charity that solicits more than $25,000 a year from the public to obtain a specific kind of certification.

The allegation about the Donald J. Trump Foundation's lack of certification, first reported by the Washington Post, comes about two weeks after New York State attorney general Eric Schneiderman announced he had opened a broad inquiry into the foundation. abcnews.go.com...

edit on 30-9-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

You do realize this has been a known issue for YEARS right? People have always had issue with that. This is a rehash of old news because the DA is in love with Hilary. This goes all the way back to 400k donated to the foundation by Comedy Central in 2011. It didn't stick then, and it won't stick now. This is what you call a Media Leak to make people think something will happen, when in fact it won't.

Edit: By your logic, you should take every charge Sherriff Arpaio has brought against Obama very seriously...oh wait, the Sherriff is also a partisan hack.


edit on 30-9-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
65
<< 22  23  24   >>

log in

join