How Donald Trump's Company Violated The United States Embargo Against Cuba

This morning's story on Trump comes from a number of sources and is a good example of his "I follow the laws when I want to."

As President, he's sworn to uphold the laws. Mind you, as a dictator he could make or break them as he liked but not if he's the leader of the free world.

From NEWSWEEK

A company controlled by Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president, secretly conducted business in Communist Cuba during Fidel Castro’s presidency despite strict American trade bans that made such undertakings illegal, according to interviews with former Trump executives, internal company records and court filings.
Documents show that the Trump company spent a minimum of $68,000 for its 1998 foray into Cuba at a time when the corporate expenditure of even a penny in the Caribbean country was prohibited without U.S. government approval. But the company did not spend the money directly. Instead, with Trump’s knowledge, executives funneled the cash for the Cuba trip through an American consulting firm called Seven Arrows Investment and Development Corp
Source

In fact, Trump's campaign manager admits it (don't expect to see Trump admitting it, though..

source
Donald Trump’s campaign manager appeared to unwittingly confirm an explosive Newsweek story on Thursday, telling ABC’s The View that a Trump company did indeed spend money in Cuba in 1998, in violation of a longstanding U.S. embargo that Trump has vociferously defended.
Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald reported on Thursday that Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts spent at least $68,000 in 1998 in Cuba, “at a time when the corporate expenditure of even a penny in the Caribbean country was prohibited without U.S. government approval.” The story notes that “with Trump’s knowledge, executives funneled the cash for the Cuba trip through an American consulting firm.” After the consultants traveled to Cuba and spent the funds, the consultants instructed Trump’s company on “how to make it appear legal by linking it after the fact to a charitable effort.”

So the man who's going to tell us how we're to be taxed is using his own charity to help him break the laws... while he was talking about how GREAT the embargo was.

Oh. He still thinks it's great, apparently.

Trump shifts on Cuba, says he would reverse Obama's deal
Miami (CNN)Donald Trump said Friday that he would reverse the deal President Barack Obama struck to reopen diplomatic relations and re-establish some trade with Cuba unless the Cuban regime meets his demands to restore political freedoms and free political prisoners.

While Trump has said the US should have struck a better deal with Cuba, his new position was an apparent shift from his past statements that he supported the reopening of diplomatic relations after more than 50 years.

Now he's saying the US won't trade with them unless Cuba meets his demands?

So what's actually the current position held by the US? From CNN:

The two countries officially restored full diplomatic relations in July 2015, more than 50 years after the two countries cut diplomatic relations amid Cold War tensions. The US embargo on Cuba still remains officially in place, but Obama loosened a series of regulations to allow more US companies to sell their products in Cuba. Obama has also argued that the reopening would help make Cuba a freer society by helping open the country to the world.

Historically, this kind of trade contact is usually a good one for the bigger economic power (Japan's opening of trade to the rest of the world) but it does cause profound changes in the smaller society... which I think would be a good one.

I think the consulting firm had permission.

originally posted by: xuenchen
I think the consulting firm had permission.

Care to bother proving that or should we just take your word for it?

I think Hillary Clinton is innocent because nearly every entity she's involved with says so.

Position of authority logical fallacies are my favorite. Because consulting firms and/or presidential candidates NEVER lie.

a reply to: Byrd

There's addtional information including an image of one of the key documents in the thread I authored the night before the story was published:

Today's Newsweek Trump Cover Story: The Castro Connection

a reply to: RomeByFire

Yes you should.

It will save you lots of aggravation later when nobody can prove anything else.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: RomeByFire

Yes you should.

It will save you lots of aggravation later when nobody can prove anything else.

That's not how burden of proof works. Work a real job that's not in retail or fast food and you'll realize real fast that, in the real world, one cannot just simply make # up without any proof and hope it sticks.

You're a troll, and you're very poor at it. I seriously suggest you hit up 4chan or Reddit because the trolls there are actually entertaining and quite annoying.

Trump supporters are SJW's, too - they want to manipulate poll data and brag about it lol.

They whine and bitch about "rigged elections," so they then go and rig online polls.

What a bunch of hyper-sensitive politically correct hipocritical chumps. They whine and complain when Hillary does it - but they expect no ramifications when they do it.

Oh - and just TRUST me.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Byrd

There's addtional information including an image of one of the key documents in the thread I authored the night before the story was published:

Today's Newsweek Trump Cover Story: The Castro Connection

What's been interesting is that the media seems to be not very interested in pursuing this one - or maybe it's just the sources that my news aggregator is pulling. I had thought that the news media was going to quit treating him with kid gloves after his "birther stunt" but that doesn't seem to have made huge sweeping changes in their reporting.

Or has it? The story's new.

This Belongs in the "I HATE TRUMP" forum, next to "HILLARY FOR PRISON"...

a reply to: manuelram16

Care to address the accusations or are you just like every other TJW?.

If these nefarious accusations are true and I were selected to sit on a jury in a criminal trial, I'd push for jury nulification.

Anyway, if they used loopholes to do it quasi-legally, those loopholew were put there by the gov't. Fuss about the gov't that made the rules, not the people who used them.

originally posted by: incoserv
If these nefarious accusations are true and I were selected to sit on a jury in a criminal trial, I'd push for jury nulification.

Anyway, if they used loopholes to do it quasi-legally, those loopholew were put there by the gov't. Fuss about the gov't that made the rules, not the people who used them.

This logic is absolutely insane... So, he's smart for evading taxes and it's not his fault he did something against federal law. All because there may be a loophole or slightly weirdly worded document that he found a way to exploit... I'm losing my mind over here.

a reply to: TheGlitchyNinja

I fill out a 1040 every year. I take every legal exemption and credit that the IRS tax code and the US gov't laws afford me. If I can legitimately get out of giving a portion of my hard earned money to the gov't, I will do that.

I'd bet a bucket of money that you'd do the same.

Somehow, it's evil if a wealthy man does the same?

If his company had a chance to turn a profit dealing with Cuba and the letter of the law left open the possibility of doing that, explain why they should not do it?

Or, maybe - like Hillary Clinton - he just wasn't aware of the law and had no malintent in doing what he did, so that makes it ok. Yeah, I do have a problem following that line of reasonsing.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Byrd

There's addtional information including an image of one of the key documents in the thread I authored the night before the story was published:

Today's Newsweek Trump Cover Story: The Castro Connection

What's been interesting is that the media seems to be not very interested in pursuing this one - or maybe it's just the sources that my news aggregator is pulling.

It's corruption fatigue with Trump.

at this stage news could break that he made his money selling crack coc aine and prostitutes and Trump would snort "smart business" and the media would shrug and say "of course".

In other news...a congressional hearing has been scheduled to examine if Hillary Clinton adhered to proper grammar during the Presidential debate. They have subpoenaed transcripts claiming at one point she left a dangling modifier.


..In all seriousness, I am beginning to believe after the hot spotlight scrutiny of the Presidential Campaign, the only way Trump survives the oncoming legal Typhoon from the now disclosed frauds, criminal activity and tax evasion is for him to become president. It's all or nothing for him now. So much illicit activity has been exposed, that being POTUS might be the only way he can have a hope of squashing it.

originally posted by: incoserv
a reply to: TheGlitchyNinja

I fill out a 1040 every year. I take every legal exemption and credit that the IRS tax code and the US gov't laws afford me. If I can legitimately get out of giving a portion of my hard earned money to the gov't, I will do that.

Me too...

Have you ever started a charitable foundation, covertly directed business income to that organization and used that account as you personal spending account while cooking the books to cover it up to avoid paying taxes?

The only thing I'm surprised by here is it took three days for this story to hit ATS.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: incoserv
a reply to: TheGlitchyNinja

I fill out a 1040 every year. I take every legal exemption and credit that the IRS tax code and the US gov't laws afford me. If I can legitimately get out of giving a portion of my hard earned money to the gov't, I will do that.

Me too...

Have you ever started a charitable foundation, covertly directed business income to that organization and used that account as you personal spending account while cooking the books to cover it up to avoid paying taxes?

Oh, like the Clintons?

No, I haven't.

originally posted by: ObjectZero
The only thing I'm surprised by here is it took three days for this story to hit ATS.

When I post here, I try to post stories that are found in a mainstream source and are not from blogs or op-eds or fake news sites. I had seen the story before, but the headline was sensationalized and the source wasn't one I considered unbiased - it was a left-wing site and although I'm a liberal, I prefer to wait and check to see if the story shows up someplace other than the TreeHuggerTimes.