We have been discussing the serious allegations against Donald Trump’s charitable foundation, which have been used in transactions that are linked to Trump’s businesses rather than charities. — which has been sustained for years by donors outside the Trump family — has never obtained the certification that New York requires before charities can solicit money from the public, according to the state attorney general’s office. Now, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) has made the surprising allegation that the Donald J. Trump Foundation does not have the necessary registration and annual audit to operate as a large foundation. I have been critical of Schneiderman in his investigation of climate change skeptics. However, the failure to obtain this necessary registration and comply with basic auditing is quite surprising. Once again, I am unclear how any attorneys representing Trump could continue to maintain the charity without satisfying such basic legal requirements, particularly one (the auditing) designed to prevent the very type of intermingling of funds that been raised by critics.
Any charity that solicits more than $25,000 a year from the public must obtain this registration before raising money and submit to annual audits to assure that no money is used to benefit the officers through self-dealing. Schneiderman could move to enjoin the charity and even force the return of past money raised by Trump. What is known is that the Trump Foundation took in at least $1.67 million through Trump’s website. Trump has reportedly given at least $5.4 million between 1987 and 2006.
In Trump’s defense, two points should be raised. First, there is still a considerable amount of money given to charity from this foundation, even if you consider the couple of controversies that we discussed earlier. Second, for much of its history, Trump was the only donor. That would allow him to claim the minimal level of reporting and certification under Estates, Powers and Trusts Law. His attorneys did in fact file annual reports during that period in compliance with the law and there was likely no required independent audit.
The key period will be the last decade when the Foundation began to solicit donations from third parties. The gradual change may have blindsided Trump’s attorneys but it should not have. At some point, the charity had change to a major solicitor of charitable funds.
This is a serious matter because courts treat these requirements as straightforward and unrelenting standards. There is little room for interpretation. That would place the New York attorney general in a commanding position unless the certification and auditing allegations are proven false.
190 thoughts on “New York Attorney General Moves Against Trump Foundation”
Celeb family feud
Clinton / Trump
Election 2016 is a BIG LIE!
The ultimate planetary irony is Judy Miller on Fox News reporting on Donald Trump.
It’s not last one to leave grab the flag, it’s last one to leave please wipe your chin.
We are truly doomed.
Autumn, October 2, 2016 at 11:10 am
“re: ‘Why do Hillary supporters hate women?’ Hillary supporters hate themselves because they know they are supporting a candidate with a hideous past and future agenda.”
Based on what I’ve heard and seen from very many female Hillary supporters, it’s a matter of their being seriously ignorant of both her past and her future agenda, even though the evidence of both is readily available to those who can bestir themselves to find and examine it.
And I have to say that, for those traditionally Democratic and Independent voters whose propagandized imaginations are limited to the choices proffered by the US National Security State’s binary political system, her having an opponent in the Republican wing of the War Party like The Donald, tends to discourage if not virtually preclude thoughtful research into the motives and record of “We Came, We Saw, He Died” Clinton.
In other words, apathy and ignorance, i.e., having a relatively clean brain thanks to the 24/7 laundry service of the federal government’s propaganda arm, the Corporate Media, as well as the narcissistic and misogynistic oafishness of her competitor for the crown, are the primary factors in the selective bipartisanship of HRC’s female supporters, rather than self-hatred.
Besides, I think we should reserve “self-hatred” for aptly describing the psychological state of Jewish people who do not support with all their hearts and minds and entrails the ethnic-cleansing agenda of the Zionazoids. 🙂
You make some excellent points my friend. But I respectfully disagree re: self haters for HRC. To be sure many are ignorant however I reserve that description for the majority of Hilbots I know – these are well-educated women, many of them 3rd gen fems – who CHOOSE to do pretzel logic and purposely ignore the facts.
BTW did you see SNLs hilarious skit “Actress Round Table”?
So vote for Jill Stein does not have any corruption issues.
From The Guardian
“YOUTH IN THE DUSTBIN
I lived in Italy in the 80’s and 90’s and it was incredibly difficult for most young people to get a job. Kids would live with their parents into their 30’s, and some would never leave, just wait for mom to die and that’s their house.
Today Southern Europe is much much worse. Can you imagine living in Greece where you can’t even flip burgers or sweep the floors. There’s just nothing for half the young people. Spain, Portugal, Italy, Croatia, Slovakia, even France and Finland are above 21% without jobs.
Europe has long consigned the younger generation to the dust bin. What can you build on if you finally get a job with no work experience for decades.
What have Our Two political parties offered. You can get a student loan, and then with College you’ll be a sure winner. SURE.
Libertarians want to cut corporate and other taxes to zero. Of course nothing will be left of government services. This is a bet that the private sector will save us. It’s my belief that the last thing a company wants is to hire someone. What have most of the big corporations done with profits for 35 years? Have they expanded, hired, shared profits, done research. NO! They simply buy back their own stock. Then the remaining shares have a higher earnings and the CEO exercises more of his stock options.
Only one candidate talks to the youth. Dr. Jill Stein of the Greens and with several positive programs that will affect every young person.
Public college is to be made tuition free. If you can’t afford private University, you still get educated.
Student debt is no more. Not paid as a spending bill through taxes on the rich. These debts will be absorbed by the Federal Reserve.
Your current debt payments will be freed up for making a better lifestyle and buying a few things which will stimulate the economy.
The Green party will treat drugs as a medical problem not a legal problem. End the war on drugs and release 100’s of thousands from Jail.
Shut down the private jailer business and re-write the criminal justice laws to put in the justice.
Save money by closing some half of the foreign military bases (currently 950) and bring our soldiers home.
Arms embargo to all of the Middle East. No more weapon sales to both sides of every conflict.
The Green New Deal is an amazing bold step. Infrastructure, roads, water systems, waste water, power grids, everything we depend on will get projects through small and medium business to upgrade and modernise. “NEW DEAL” refers to the emergency projects of FDR during the great depression in the 1930’s. With some small government guarantee, most of this work can be done with private investment and municipal bonds, not government spending.
Take on climate change by writing fast tract approval of wind farms and all renewable energy projects. Seed money and financing would be made available.
With this many projects, YOUNG PEOPLE ARE THE KEY PLAYERS.
It all can happen in this election.”
Get out of your basement girl!!! You know we don’t have the money for alternative energy, education and good infrastructure, along with health care for all! We are in the process of building a new drone base in Africa. Where are your priorities? You know we need that drone base and we need more drones. We also need more surveillance. We need to buy some more non functional aircraft! Our war contractors and banking executives are practically starving! If those people don’t get work putting down peaceful protesters and laundering some more money soon, this nation will go to h#ll in a handbasket!
Jeesh. I cannot believe you think we don’t need another drone base. Where is that money coming from? I don’t know and I don’t care! We need it, we get the money, but only for the right purposes!!!
Damn Jill – thanks for jerking me back to reality. It gets rather dark here in the basement and sometimes I begin hallucinating about a better world.
Is Trump a Putin agent? “There’s absolutely no question,” said Evan McMullin. Evan McMullin is another option for conservative voters.
Evan is back? I thought he had returned to Planet Mars.
This issue does not need the “Hillary did it too”, let alone Benghazi because it is very simple. If you plan to set up a tax-exempt charitable foundation and you have access to an army of lawyers and do not consult them about the fine print you are stupid. If these lawyers did not read the fine print and gave you the wrong information they are stupid.
This is a civil and not criminal case which, if true, can be easily settled by Mr. Trump out of court.
I am often ashamed by the miserable level of political as well as historical analysis and discussion which my “Great Depression Generation” leaves our children and grandchildren. I hope that they will eventually rebel and send all of us to the garbage can of history.
Why do Hillary supporters go crazy over Trump being nice to a Miss Universe who was breaking her contract while excusing Bill Clinton who rapes women? Why do Hillary supporters hate women?
re: “Why do Hillary supporters hate women?” Hillary supporters hate themselves because they know they are supporting a candidate with a hideous past and future agenda.
Lol Is that the Roger Ailes memo on how to win the women’s vote?. Somehow, I don’t think women are falling for this Ailes propaganda this election. Women should trust there own instincts not Trump’s Roger Ailes.
they certainly are – that’s why they are voting for Jill, Trump, Johnson.
“Clinton leads among women (+20 points), non-whites (+66), and voters under age 45 (+8). She gained with each of those groups since the debate. Compared to two weeks ago, her advantage among women increased by 7 points, by 15 points among non-whites, and 8 among voters under age 45 (the candidates were tied in mid-September). ” From the new Fox poll.
I think it is a measure of propaganda that so many women support Clinton. She ridicules rape victims and has killed so many women and their children. Most women don’t understand what she has done, but others know exactly what she has done and they really don’t care. This shows a profound lack of ethics. Any person who sincerely cares about women could not, if they were aware of the facts, vote for Clinton.
There isn’t any ethical basis to your criticism of women who vote for Trump. You are voting and stumping for a woman who has killed women and children via drone strikes and “welfare reform”. You are voting for and stumping for a woman who has been abusive towards rape victims. The support of Clinton while knowing what she has done to other women really isn’t a shinning moment for the self identified liberal woman.
Actually there really is no good candidate. Stein and Johnson are also disappointing but especially Johnson.
I would say that both Johnson and Stein are way better than Clinton or Trump. There are other candidates if you care to look into it.
The Secretary of State does not order drone strikes so blame Obama. As to the rest of your post,it sounds like it is right out of the Roger Ailes playbook.
Actually, she did order drone strikes, from her cell phone! “FBI criminal investigation emails: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says”
Saying that my post sounds like it’s out of Ailes playbook is just a personal attack. You need to meet my argument head on. If Roger Ailes told me to write it and I did, then you still need to counter my actual argument with your own argument.
I often think you sound right out of Correct the Record. It doesn’t make any difference what I think about that. I need to take on your argument, even if you are a paid poster with multiple identities. It just doest’ matter.
The Secretary of State can approve or disapprove of a drone strike but he or she cannot actually order a drone strike. Only the president can.
Have to put this info here as there isn’t a reply button under your last post: “An explosive new report reveals just what it is that the FBI is looking to: emails in which then-Secretary of State Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations in Pakistan with her cellphone.
From 2011 on, the State Department had a secret arrangement with the CIA, giving it a degree of say over whether or not a drone killing would take place.” That’s from the article I reference below.
“…and has killled so many women and their children…”
Please elaborate. What is your basis for this claim? Just what facts are you referring to when you claim that “Any person who sincerely cares about women could not …. vote for Clinton.”?
peltonrandy – Bill Clinton has raped several women and been to bed with (by some counts) over 4000 women. Hillary Clinton is complicit in these. She brought these women to the Rose Law Firm to frighten them, which she did. She, and her minions, have attempted to destroy anyone who claims to have been raped by Bill. Now, I ask you, how can women trust such a woman? How could a woman trust such a woman as a friend?
Paul Schulte — None of which addresses the comment about Hillary Clinton having killed women and children. Secondly, only a fool would believe that Clinton or any other male on the planet has been to bed with 4000 women. Hundreds, I could probably believe. But not 4000. Even Hugh Heffner, probably the most sexually active male on the planet, estimates that he has slept with only a little more than 1000 women (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2299324/Hugh-Hefner-reveals-hes-slept-thousand-women.html). I very much doubt that Bill can lay claim to any more than Heffner
Now surely you don’t mean to imply that Hillary brought 4000 women to the law firm and intimated all of them. As I recall – there were somewhere in the neighborhood of a dozen or fewer women who were approached and ended up signing documents stating that the alleged affairs or sexual assaults did not happen.
As to your question about how can women trust such a woman, I suggest you ask the literally millions of women who voted for her in the primaries and plan to do so again in November. As to how could a woman trust such a woman as a friend, I suggest you ask the numerous women who are her actual friends. It is not my place to speak for any of them and offer up the reasons why they trust her.
peltonrandy – cannot remember who the basketball star was, but he estimated he had been to bed with 10,000 women. Heffner is a little repressed, BTW.
This is just beautiful:
Lester Holt’s “…questions…” I woldn’t want anyone who wisely avoided watching the debate to think that Lester had only one question for the agonists behind the podia.
And speaking of podia, I found interesting all the attention visited on Hillary’s after the debate, whilst people were milling about, with some seeming to place themselves between video cameras and her podium:
Democracy Now! has creatively worked around the corruptly monopolizing Presidential Debate Commission by allowing Jill Stein (Gary Johnson was invited, but couldn’t make it) to answer Lester Holt’s question as though she were at the debate at Hofstra U. .I don’t know how many people will view this more inclusive post-debate debate, but kudos to Goodman and her people for thinking of and executing this over-ride of the PDC pukes: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/27/expanding_the_debate_jill_stein_debates
Collateral accidents? The rest of the world knows. So do the MSM propagandists. Ours is surely the last generation that is uninformed and “believes” things that are patently absurd.
Please tell me not one of these incidents warranted getting Condi or Colin in front of a Senate subcommittee. Not one of them warranted an investigation:
Dec. 15, 2001: Unidentified assailants gunned down a Nepalese security guard of the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu, Nepal.
Jan. 22, 2002: Two assailants attacked the American Center in Calcutta, India. Five policemen died, and 15 others were injured in the attack.
March 20, 2002: A car bomb exploded near the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru, killing nine people and injuring 32. The U.S. State Department reported no American casualties, injuries, or damage.
June 14, 2002: A suicide bombing in front of the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, left 12 dead and 51 injured.
Nov. 9, 2002: The security supervisor for the U.S. embassy in Nepal was shot dead at his house in Kathmandu. Maoist rebels claimed responsibility for the incident.
May 12, 2003: In a series of attacks, suicide bombers blew themselves up in a truck loaded with explosives in a complex that housed staff working for U.S. defense firm Vinnell in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (The contractors worked out of the U.S. embassy.) At least eight Americans were killed in the incident. Al-Qaida was suspected responsible for the incident. This was one of three attacks, involving at least nine suicide bombers and suspected to have involved 19 perpetrators overall.
July 30, 2004: Two people, including a suicide bomber, were killed and one person was injured as a suicide bomber set off an explosion at the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The Israeli Embassy and the Uzbekistan Prosecutor General’s Office in Tashkent were also attacked in related incidents.
Oct. 24, 2004: Edward Seitz, the assistant regional security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, died in a mortar or possible rocket attack at Camp Victory near the Baghdad airport. An American soldier was also injured. He was believed to be the first U.S. diplomat killed following the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
Nov 25, 2004: Jim Mollen, the U.S. Embassy’s senior consultant to the Iraqi Ministers of Education and Higher Education, was killed just outside the Green Zone in Baghdad.
Dec. 7, 2004: Gunmen belonging to al-Qaida in the Arabian Penninsula stormed the U.S. Consulate in Jedda, Saudi Arabia, triggering a bloody four-hour siege that left nine dead. One American was slightly injured in the assault.
Jan. 29, 2005: Unknown attackers fired either a rocket or a mortar round at the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad. The strike killed two U.S. citizens and left four others injured.
Sept. 7, 2005: Four American contractors employed with a private security firm supporting the regional U.S. embassy office in Basra, Iraq, were killed when a roadside bomb exploded near their convoy. Three of the contractors died instantly, and the fourth died in a military hospital after the bombing.
March 2, 2006: An unidentified driver detonated a car bomb while driving past the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing a himself, a U.S. Consulate worker and at least three others.
Sept. 12, 2006: Islamic militants attacked the U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria, with hand grenades, rifles, and a vehicle rigged with explosives. One guard and the four attackers died.
July 8, 2007: Two Iraqi U.S. Embassy workers were killed when the wife went to deliver a ransom for her husband who had been kidnapped in Baghdad. One of the couple’s bodyguards was killed in the failed ransoming.
Jan. 14, 2008: A bomb hidden on a north Beirut highway hit a U.S. Embassy vehicle, killing at least three Lebanese bystanders. The car’s Lebanese driver and an American at a nearby school were wounded.
March 18, 2008: Al-Qaida’s wing in Yemen, Jund Al-Yemen Brigades, fired between three and five mortar rounds toward the U.S. embassy, but instead they hit a girls’ school nearby, killing a guard and a schoolgirl and injuring 19 others in Sanaa, Yemen.
July 9, 2008: Four unknown gunmen killed three Turkish police at the U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.
Sept. 17, 2008: Suspected al-Qaida militants disguised as security forces detonated vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, fired rocket propelled grenades, rockets and firearms on the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen. A suicide bomber also blew himself up at the embassy. Six Yemeni police, four civilians (including an American civilian), and six attackers were killed while six others were wounded in the attack.
Nov. 27, 2008: A Taliban suicide car bomber targeted the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing four civilians in addition to the suicide bomber and wounding 18 others. The embassy was hosting a Thanksgiving Day event as Americans and other foreigners were arriving at the venue at the time of the attack.
It’s relatively rare for American embassies or consulates to be overrun, or destroyed, in attacks.
That’s why those security failures result in high profile investigations.
If Congress wished to investigate every attack on embassy personell, or the structure itself, they could.
For obvious reasons, the priority is given by Congress to the attacks where an embassy is captured or demolished.
There is a similar pattern of Congressional involvement/ investigations (or lack of it) in high profile, devastating attacks on military bases.
The 1983 Bierut barracks bombing is a prime example of where Congress will investigate, witnesses will testify, etc.
But every attack on every soldier, or group of soldiers, is not likely to result in Congressional action.
If you think that should change, write to your Congressman the next time a foreign service worker, embassy employee, or American soldier is killed.
Instead of focusing on the largest attacks, Congress can investigate every individual on every American or, or every attack on Afghan, Iraqi, Lebanese, etc. citizen employed by the U.S.
Debunked, How many American died in those attacks? What Youtube video was blamed by the Bush Administration for those attacks?
The Benghazi attack happened in 2012, over 3 years after Bush left office.
NSA Susan Rice was front and center with “the video” story.
That story was immediately floated by Hillary after the Benghazi attack, but Susan Rice was the main stooge who kept repeating that story.
The 1983 barracks bombing hearing focused on the bombers and looking into improving security. I don’t remember anyone grilling Secretary Schultz or President Reagan. Or anyone for that matter. It was about “lessons learned”, finding the perpetrators and retaliation, although it wasn’t clear who we got to execute whom. The link to Iran and Reagan’s deal to trade arms for hostages and god knows what else he did, were never pursued. Because we didn’t do this back then, even though 220 marines and soldiers were killed.
But of course, Benghazi was WAY worse because Democrats were in power.
And please don’t try to spin that it was the cover up, because Reagan covered up so much more about Beirut, funding the Contras in Nicaragua, and a very long list of other things.
It’s politics all the way now and the Republicans have no shame whatsoever.
But really, let’s get back to Donald and his crimes and misdemeanors. . The misuse of charity funds to bribe and AG, the giant scam that is Trump University, the alleged rape of a 13-year-old, all the business failures and people he screwed out of paying, the way he is bilking his own campaign of millions of dollars after promising he wouldn’t need other people’s money. And stay tuned, brothers and sisters, there is more coming!
I don’t remember if Sec. Schultz gave Congressional testimony after the Beirut barracks bombing.
Congress could have requested his testimony; I don’t know if they did.
The Marine commanders were criticized for lax security, for essentially positioning those Marines as “sitting ducks”.
The guards weapons were not loaded. When one general testified that, in his professional opinion, M-16s could not have stopped the truck bomber, a Congressman countered that we’ll never know, but that we do know that an unloaded M-16 is ineffective.
I don’t know what, if any action, was taken against those Marine commanders.
The distinction (from the Benghazi attack) is that in one case there were catatrophic failures at the Beirut Marine base, and the commanders were responsible for on- site security of those Marines.
The Benghazi consulate was not a military base, but
a State Dept. facility.
The difference is that there was exactly ONE Congressional hearing on the Beirut barracks bombing and at minimum six hearings about Benghazi. The other difference was that although the President and Congress were both held by opposite majorities in both cases, the Dems didn’t go after anyone in the Reagan White House over Beirut. The focus was on learning lessons and preventing future attacks. No one hung Shultz out to dry. No one went after Reagan. And there was an election pending so they certainly could have. They criticized the military command for not having loaded rifles, while acknowledging that it wouldn’t have stopped a truck bomb.
The main difference is that back in ’83, they blamed the bombers and went looking for the people who backed them. Now they blame the State Department and the Secretary rather than the terrorists who carried out the attack. That’s what’s really different.
Even factcheck.org has to report they cannot reach a conclusion about what happened here. Clinton issued multiple conflicting statements, as did other people at State, as did Obama. Factcheck isn’t a right wing site. It’s MSM all the way. They admit they have to keep changing their writing about it based on new information.
The information about what happened in Benghazi isn’t finished coming out, even as yet. As new information emerges, if we are going to be intellectually committed to the truth, that new information needs to be taken into account. Someone has to hold hearings and examine what happened in the light of new evidence. Tnash has been giving you a lot of information that is known so far. As more information continued to occur and will further emerge, this necessitates further evaluation. That’s just using an evidence based way of finding out what happened.
The other option would be to have been completely forthcoming but that isn’t what Obama, State or Clinton chose to do.
There are still :”facts” coming out about the Kennedy assassination, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Lusitania.
We still haven’t sorted out the war in Iraq. Or 9/11. Or the Iran/Contra business.
But none of those are the partisan witch hunt that is Benghazi.
Blame all the Benghazi hearings on the Obama administration if you wish, but to anyone with a clear eye, it’s very clear that there’s no “there” there, and it’s nothing more than Republicans trying to keep Hillary from becoming president. That’s all its’ ever been.
Ready for this crazy old white guys campaign to end. Think about putting Trump, Ailes, Hannity, Bannon Christie, Gingrich and Giuliani in power. Of course they are all superior to the demon woman.
You think in binary. There are other candidates who are superior to Clinton and to Trump.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed the crazy old white guys Clinton has surrounded herself with, lots of them from GWB’s administration. I’m really not certain Trump has things locked up in that category! If this is a real objection than you can’t vote for Clinton or Trump.
I gave you an example of a MSM site which cannot decide what happened. They aren’t evil Republicans! Everyone who wants to know about what happened isn’t an evil Republican. Some of us like to understand what is actually going on with the government.
If you want to examine all the other things you mentioned, I think that’s a great idea! Jeremy Scahill is a pretty informed person and he says he maybe knows about 3% of what’s happening. That should worry citizens.
It’s not true that “nobody went after Reagan” after the Beirut barracks bombing.
Walter Mondale ( running against Reagan in 1984) said that Reagan had allowed Lebanese terrorists to push us around, kill our troops, etc.
Tip O’Neill blamed Reagan, and accused Reagan of finding scapegoats to take the blame.
The criticism of Reagan didn’t “stick”, as far as causing any long term political damage to him.
The political scene wasn’t as partisan back then as it is now.
But the Democrats didn’t exactly give Reagan a pass over the Beirut bombing.
You are really laying out a well analyzed and thoughtful discussion of this situation.
– Thanks. But if the analysis gets to be too much work, I’m going to ditch it and go “non-analytical”. 😊😉
The allegation of the New York Attorney General against the Trump Foundation aren’t serious at all. The only reason this is in the news is because Trump is not favored by the MIC — the military industrial complex — and the presstitutes that work for the MIC. Otherwise, it’s a non-event consisting of trumped up charges (literally and figuratively).
What WOULD be an event would be an investigation and prosecution of the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation for their traitorous activities. But, of course, that’s not going to happen, for a similar reason to that I’ve provided above. The MIC supports the Clintons, as do the pressitutes that work for the MIC. So the Clintons are safe.
Are we clear on reality? Or is this too deep for the non-thinkers here to comprehend?
It’s not too deep for the NPR crowd ( I DO listen to PHC ) – rather; it would require an admission too painful. ” Eyebe wrong ’bout supporting the MIC – ’cause trickle down don’t trickle down to us.”
It appears the die is cast. The deep state will not permit Trump to become President. If it becomes necessary to steal the election like the did in 2000 and 2004, they will. They know a liberal when they see one, and Hillary is no liberal. She’s as reliable as Billy was.
Trump’s run will be rewarded with new business opportunities that will be so lucrative, he may decide to pay his suppliers and workers almost all that he owes them.
I think you’ve got this correct! Trump v Clinton is a win-win for the oligarchy and for the candidates. It’s a terrible loss for everyone else and for the environment. I don’t believe I have ever seen the US population so manipulated as I am seeing at this time.
Since the issues of “60 embassy deaths” was brought up yet again, a review of those deaths shows that there are key differences between the Benghazi, Kenya, and Tanzania embassy bombings.
It is more difficult to protect embassy employees from roadside bombs, suicide bombers, armed “hit men”, etc. when they are outside of the embassy compound.
Just as it soldiers are more vulnerable when they are patrolling outside the protection a miltary base provides.
Most of the “embassy deaths” cited were the roadside/ suicide etc. bombings away from,the embassies.
Embassy employees were generally safe within the embassy. There were occasionally successful rocket attacks inside of “The Green Zone” in Iraq, but the casualties from those rockets were not the result of an armed group overrunning the embassy.
These facilties are supposed to be “hardened targets”. And it is also more likely that there will he more warning signs and advanced intel involving an embassy attack, that an attack on the street by a suicide or rosdside bomber.
The Benghazi attacks on the British, the Red Cross, and the previous attack on that same American consulate in Benghazi all occurred shortly before the attack in 2012.
All of these attacks occurred before “the video” caused some unrest and tantrums in the Middle East.
It is not true that “nobody cared about the 60 embassy deaths during the Bush years.”
Given the nature of the attacks on embassy employees on the roads of Iraq, Lebanon, etc., protecting those embassy (or consulate) employees was difficult.
The expection was, and is, that adequate resources be available to provide a high level of security at U.S. embassies and consulates.
tnash is obviously a complete and total substitute for Congressional hearings.
Thanks for taking that on. You are right of course, ALL the embassy deaths on Bush’s watch were unavoidable, unforeseeable and no one’s fault but the terrorists. Benghazi had nothing to do with the massive cuts in embassy security funding by Republicans, or by the fact that the ambassador himself was convinced that the Libyans were his buds and he waived off extra help. Whatever happened is totally Hillary’s fault even though $100Million worth of hearing proves otherwise.
As I said above, reality and facts have a clear liberal bias, and you are the proof to that point.
What I actually said was that it is far more difficult to protect Americans….whether the are embassy employees or soldiers..
.. from attacks like roadside bombs and suicide bombers….than to protect them in facilities like embassies and consulates.
I also said that there were numerous warning signs leading up to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the Benghazi consulate.
The Red Cross and the British completely pulled out of Benghazi prior to that 9-11-2012 attack on our consulate.
The consulate itself had been attacked a few months before.
Assessing the threats to that consulate and predicting that it was a likely future target is more doable than trying to figure out where a suicide and roadside bombing might hit.
There were attempts to protect both civilian employees and military from the roadside/suicide bombings; those attempts did not necessarily involve congressional hearings.
The trial balloon of “the video caused it”…..that the Benghazi attack was an anti-video demonstration that got out of hand..
added to the Benghazi controversy.
Given that Obama/ Clinton were still basking in the “success” of the Arab Spring, they wanted to continue understate the chaos they had unleashed.
At least until the November 2012 election.
Keeping a lid on the scope of the post-Gaddafi jihadist threat was a priority, and at its most extreme we had “the video story”.
There wasn’t much coverage of the July 2012 Egyptian welcome for Sec. Clinton, either.
When the Egytians threw tomatoes and shoes at her motorcade, and chanted “Monica, Monica” it might be undercut the “Arab Spring is a success” myth that was being peddled in an election year.
Understating the significance and causes of the Benghazi attack “politicized” that issue every bit as much as the subsequent GOP response.
Keep putting out the RNC talking points. The Republicans very own hearing proved all this to be incorrect. Yet you somehow act informed and keep promoting false information.
Ambassador Stevens was largely responsible for his own demise. He thought his long history in Libya gave him some advantage and he thought more security would be a bad thing. Furthermore the Republicans HAD cut embassy security funding. And on the night in question there was no getting there in time to save anyone. Those are the facts as “uncovered” by the neverending hearings the Republicans held. Hoisted on their own petard is the expression, I believe.
You can keep presenting the old talking points, but it does not, and will never change the truth.
The most prominent of “the old talking points” you mentioned was actually “the video caused Benghazi”.
The disasterous fallout of the Arab Spring initiative is not merely a “GOP talking point”.
Nor is the disasterous fallout from Gulf War II a Democratic point talking point.
It does take a certain amount of objectivity to evaluate policy decisions with resorting to talking points.
When an administrations tries out talking points to mask failures, it invites blowback,on those talking points.
CIA director Petraus would probably had played a greater role in the Benghazi investigations, but he seemed to be largely sidelined by legal consequencesof mishandling classified material.
There was at least one request for additional security received by the State Dept. about a month before the Sept. 11, 2012 attack.
I think Hillary’s position was that she never read that request.
In view of the escalating attacks in the months preceding the attack on the Benghazi consulate, I don’t think Amb. Stevens was foolish enough to ignore the warning signs.
We have a clear timeline, photograghs of the situation room, etc. relating to the mission to take out Bin Laden.
As far as the military and CIA assets and responses to Benghazi, the picture is muddled.
There are still conflicting accounts about the assets in the area that might have been deployed, how fast they might be able to reach Benghazi, and whether certain assets were ordered to “stand down” during the attack.
Given that Benghazi was a known “hot spots”, I thought that the focus on “rapid deployment forces” would have included nearby offshore aircraft and special op forces, capable of arriving at the scene within a couple of hours.
I think DOD said the closest forces capable of response were in Italy, and would have never have arrived in time.
It’s less clear about the capabilities for timely response of CIA, private American security contractors, and other resources that were closer to Benghazi.
According to the latest information, there were around 600 separate written requests for additional security at the embassy. Hillary Clinton claimed not a single one made it to her. Since her job is overseeing our embassies, ignoring 600 requests from an ambassador who was later killed, and lacking any plan to retrieve him in the predicable case of an attack, is a pretty serious failure on the job.
Pretty much what one would expect from those behind Black Hawk Down.
Karen – we know that Obama has claimed executive privilege for a bunch of emails covering Benghazi. Maybe some include those 600 requests to Hillary. Also there are 15000 more emails to be released. They will be released regardless of who wins to Presidency. Hillary could be impeached before she was in office.
So why did Republican congressmen CUT embassy protection funding????????????????????????
They didn’t. There’s been a lot of finger pointing since the Bemghazi attack, and the lie that Republicans cut embassy security funding is widely believed.
The Washington Post dealt with this claim, perpetuated early on by Sen. Barbara Boxer.
See “Barbara Boxer’s claim that GOP budget cuts hampered Benghazi security”. – MAY 16, 2013 Washington Post
They might not have technically “cut” funding. It’s just that, with the exception of 2009, Congress never fully funded the President’s request for security funding for the State Department. Here are the numbers:
Request Enacted ifference
FY 2008 $2,138.70 $2,127.70 ($11.60)
FY 2009 $3,404 $3,519.50 $115.50
FY 2010 $3,562.60 $3,420.80 ($141.80)
FY 2011 $2,761.30 $2,576.60 ($184.70)
FY 2012 $4,395.50 $4,076.20 ($319.30)
Charlene Lamb, assistant to the Sec. of State who specialized in security for foreign diplomats and facilities, was ask by the Benghazi Committes if budget consideration, budget shortfalls, contributed to the security shortfall at Benghazi.
She testified that budget considerations or constraints were not a factor in the level of security at Benghazi.
There are any number of “spending cuts” which are actually the gaps between what a president initially requests, and what Congress and the President approve in the final budget.
Year over year spending for a program may actually increase, but an administration might claim that Congress “cut” spending.
Every time a liberal/progressive compares Hillary’s email “scandal” to Bush’s email scandal, or wonders why Republicans are SO upset about Benghazi when no one cared about the 60 embassy deaths during the Bush years, the conservatives go NUTS proclaiming it’s Bush Derangement Syndrome, or that one thing has NOTHING to do with the other.
Now that we finally have the good professor posting something about Trump’s corruption, the conservatives just can’t help but to go for
BUT…BUT…BUT…SHE DID IT TOO!
Chickens coming home to roost anyone? Sauce for the goose? Sweet sweet irony?
phillyT – you are mixing examples. Hillary’s email does not equate to Bush’s email, etc. If nothing else, Hillary should have learned from them. As it is now, any person in government who wants a home-brew server can have one according to Comey. After Comey retires, who knows.
Yes, my post was all about mixing examples. That WAS my entire point. So glad you got it.
Don’t compare Progressive to Liberals. Liberals are the delusional HRC supporters. Progressives support Jill Stein — and in some cases Trump. We are Independents – some are former Demoncrats who are appalled at what the DNC did to Bernie and have left the party (Demexit)
Progressives are against the TPP and fracking. Liberals are pro TPP and pro fracking.
Don’t think that is entirely true as Jill Stein is garnering about 2 percent of the vote. Hopefully there are more progressives than that. Why would a progressive vote for a climate change denier like Trump? The protection of planet earth is probably the most important issue to the majority of progressives.
The TPP will do more to damage the environment than fracking. And undermine national sovereignty. I think Jill will better than the MSM polls indicate. At least so next time we will have a viable third party in the general (s)election.
I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. Stein is very unlikely to get anywhere near a high enough vote count to transform the Green Party into a viable third party. If the Green Party wants to become a viable third party then it needs to build the necessary political infrastructure so that it can begin to have the kind of electoral success it needs at the state and national level. It has in all its years of existence made no serious effort to do this. Furthermore, if this party wants to be taken seriously by a larger share of the electorate then it needs to find candidates who have at least some credible demonstrated record of actually governing. Jill Stein, a complete political neophyte when it comes to actual experience at governing, in the White House, heading the executive branch of one of the largest nations of the modern world? To this political pragmatist, which is what I believe any progressive ought to be, this scenario is a joke at best. You really should read David Niose’s book Fighting Back the Right. He too is a progressive and suggests an approach to advancing a progressive agenda that is much more likely to meet with success than the approach you are advancing. Finally, who the hell designated you as the arbiter of who is and is not a progressive? There can’t be any variation among progressives? They all have to comply with what you insist is the correct position on every issue or they are not a progressive? Do you insist on ideological purity? Sounds to me like you are advocating for a beehive mentality.
Very funny. Delusional people support Jill Stein because they think someone who has never been able to be elected to anything more than a village council seat either should be or could ever be elected President. Stein is a borderline kook wearing a tin-foil doctor’s hat.
I’m appalled at what happened to Bernie, and supported him 100%. But supporting Jill Stein means that Donald Trump might even possibly be elected, and that insults Bernie more than anything. Bernis supports Hillary and so do I.
Liberals do not support the TPP or fracking. You’re thinking of Republicans.
TPP = Obama, HRC and Kaine
Ah, I see you are a fan of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Even more bizarro is the fact that Trump and his current wife have appeared in porn movies. 🙂
SWM – do you have proof they have appeared in porn movies or just made a sex tape?
They are both online. Both were made prior to to their marriage.
His is just ta soft porn Playboy film. lol
SWM – Slyvester Stallone made a soft porn early in his career called “The Italian Stallion.” Sly offers parts in his movies to porn actors to move them into legit movies.
SWM – you did not answer the question.
Bill Clinton rapes women
Just a couple things here: “Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.
A list of 40 registered lobbyists that the Clinton camp disclosed to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed a number of Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports.”
Hillary is not pro environment. If you’re actually serious about climate change you can’t vote for her or for Trump.
Also, if you are serious about the harm that porn causes and want to support women’s rights, Hillary excusing her husband’s rapes and attacking his victims isn’t pro-woman. If you speak sincerely, that you are truly and deeply and ethically against harm towards women, neither Trump nor Clinton would be your candidate.
Donald Trump, up at 3AM encouraging Americans to watch more porn.
Make America Great Again! Watch More Porn.
I heard it’s going to be a new campaign slogan!
“no one cared about the 60 embassy deaths during the Bush years,”
I am ashamed to admit I was not paying close enough attention. I did not start paying attention, really, until the CPSIA passed and TARP passed. Then I started getting angry retrospectively.
Democratic Party Attorneys Admit DNC Is Corrupt
In a desperate attempt to get the class action lawsuit alleging election fraud by the Democratic National Committee thrown out of court, DNC attorneys have admitted that the Democratic party is corrupt and attempted to prove that Bernie Sanders donors knew this all along and therefore cannot sue them.
This unexpected move by the DNC attorneys follows their attempts earlier this month to get the class action lawsuit thrown out on a technicality.
These actions suggest that the DNC understands the case against them has
Mitch, Mitch, Mitch.
The gifted aren’t used to being called out on their stupidity when it’s related to their ostrich like fealty.
All we can hope for is that Donald goes after the transcripts of her Wall St. speeches in the next debate and doesn’t let go until she is exposed as a fraud.
Hopefully Wiki leaks will come thru with the content of those speeches as well.
Thanks for sharing.
What connection has this to the subject of JT’s original post which is about the Trump Foundation?
But Trump is the corrupt one?
You are STUPID STUPID STUPID people
Comments are closed.