So what is Trump doing with the money?

[RavenSky]

I am finally catching up on some news programs, and just saw a report on this on Rachel Maddow from 4/27:

the Trump folks collected from donors $107 million to put on this inauguration.

A lot of the funds were donated by oil execs with the Citgo company. Wadie Habboush, the son of the Citgo businessman who donated to Trump, was granted a meeting with the National Security Council where he presented a “detailed plan to improve political relations with Venezuela and lift U.S. sanctions in exchange for opening up the South American country to potential business opportunities with U.S.-based companies.”

In other words, Citgo paid for a meeting with the National Security Council...

THE 58TH PRESIDENTIAL Inaugural Committee, the campaign entity used to fund Donald Trump’s inauguration and related festivities, claimed in its official filing with the Federal Election Commission that it received a $25,000 donation from Katherine Johnson, the distinguished NASA mathematician and physicist. The filing listed her address at 1 NASA Drive in Hampton, Va., the location of NASA’s Langley Research Center. Johnson, who is retired at age 98, does not live at the research center.

Eugene Johnson, who described himself as a friend and power of attorney for Katherine Johnson, told The Intercept that the “donation is fake, she did not make that donation.”

Huffington Post investigative reporter Christina Wilkie noted on Twitter that other major donors do not appear to exist. The filing also lists an “Isabel T. John,” from Englewood, NJ who gave $400,000 for the inauguration. But, as Wilkie noted, John does not appear in public records databases, and the address for the donor matches a corporate parking lot. Wilkie asked the public to help her dig through the disclosure for similar inconsistencies.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/1/1657787/-Trump-Inaugural-Committee-Lists

I have not heard anything further about this. What gives?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Gotta admit, never thought of using a presidential campaign to launder money...

 

[whichphilosophy]

I am finally catching up on some news programs, and just saw a report on this on Rachel Maddow from 4/27:

A lot of the funds were donated by oil execs with the Citgo company. Wadie Habboush, the son of the Citgo businessman who donated to Trump, was granted a meeting with the National Security Council where he presented a “detailed plan to improve political relations with Venezuela and lift U.S. sanctions in exchange for opening up the South American country to potential business opportunities with U.S.-based companies.”

In other words, Citgo paid for a meeting with the National Security Council...

THE 58TH PRESIDENTIAL Inaugural Committee, the campaign entity used to fund Donald Trump’s inauguration and related festivities, claimed in its official filing with the Federal Election Commission that it received a $25,000 donation from Katherine Johnson, the distinguished NASA mathematician and physicist. The filing listed her address at 1 NASA Drive in Hampton, Va., the location of NASA’s Langley Research Center. Johnson, who is retired at age 98, does not live at the research center.

Eugene Johnson, who described himself as a friend and power of attorney for Katherine Johnson, told The Intercept that the “donation is fake, she did not make that donation.”

Huffington Post investigative reporter Christina Wilkie noted on Twitter that other major donors do not appear to exist. The filing also lists an “Isabel T. John,” from Englewood, NJ who gave $400,000 for the inauguration. But, as Wilkie noted, John does not appear in public records databases, and the address for the donor matches a corporate parking lot. Wilkie asked the public to help her dig through the disclosure for similar inconsistencies.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/1/1657787/-Trump-Inaugural-Committee-Lists

I have not heard anything further about this. What gives?

This is probably because Rachael didn't produce anything newsworthy that was worth following up.
He so called breaking news about Trump's taxes was a bit of a non-event.

 

[RavenSky]

This is probably because Rachael didn't produce anything newsworthy that was worth following up.
He so called breaking news about Trump's taxes was a bit of a non-event.

That's funny - the story was "newsworthy" enough for the Trump inauguration people to announce they were going to revise and refile the statement because of all of the *errors* (like attributing a bunch of donations to non-existent people).

A few sources, like Huffington Post, did expand on the story and found more *errors*, but my point is that the story is being completely ignored by Congress.

Just like Trump's continued refusal to publish his tax returns has been completely ignored by Congress.

The old adage "follow the money" applies.

 

[Elixir]

This is probably because Rachael didn't produce anything newsworthy that was worth following up.
He so called breaking news about Trump's taxes was a bit of a non-event.

That's funny - the story was "newsworthy" enough for the Trump inauguration people to announce they were going to revise and refile the statement because of all of the *errors* (like attributing a bunch of donations to non-existent people).

A few sources, like Huffington Post, did expand on the story and found more *errors*, but my point is that the story is being completely ignored by Congress.

Just like Trump's continued refusal to publish his tax returns has been completely ignored by Congress.

The old adage "follow the money" applies.

There's a lot more cash to be found by following the trail of dead Russians.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's funny - the story was "newsworthy" enough for the Trump inauguration people to announce they were going to revise and refile the statement because of all of the *errors* (like attributing a bunch of donations to non-existent people).

A few sources, like Huffington Post, did expand on the story and found more *errors*, but my point is that the story is being completely ignored by Congress.

Just like Trump's continued refusal to publish his tax returns has been completely ignored by Congress.

The old adage "follow the money" applies.

There's a lot more cash to be found by following the trail of dead Russians.

Is he running a funeral parlour?

 

[braces_for_impact]

I was reading a piece awhile ago on campaign finance, and how loose the rules really were for left over campaign money. I'll have to see if I can remember where I saw it. It wouldn't surprise me if the money from the inauguration was funneled into the 2020 campaign, which is already raking it in as we speak. You're welcome for the depressing news.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There's a lot more cash to be found by following the trail of dead Russians.

Is he running a funeral parlour?

If he opened one, people would stop dying.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is probably because Rachael didn't produce anything newsworthy that was worth following up.
He so called breaking news about Trump's taxes was a bit of a non-event.

That's funny - the story was "newsworthy" enough for the Trump inauguration people to announce they were going to revise and refile the statement because of all of the *errors* (like attributing a bunch of donations to non-existent people).

A few sources, like Huffington Post, did expand on the story and found more *errors*, but my point is that the story is being completely ignored by Congress.

Just like Trump's continued refusal to publish his tax returns has been completely ignored by Congress.

The old adage "follow the money" applies.

I don't think there has ever been a great deal of interest.

Clinton received payments from Saudi and the UAE according to the NYT and other media

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/...inton-presidential-campaign-charity.html?_r=0

he kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated more than $10 million. Through a foundation, so did the son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president whose government was widely criticized for corruption and the murder of journalists. A Lebanese-Nigerian developer with vast business interests contributed as much as $5 million.

For years the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation thrived largely on the generosity of foreign donors and individuals who gave hundreds of millions of dollars to the global charity. But now, as Mrs. Clinton seeks the White House, the funding of the sprawling philanthropy has become an Achilles’ heel for her campaign and, if she is victorious, potentially her administration as well.

Assage said this a bit colourfully

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...oney-saudi-arabia-qatar-funding-a7397211.html


So various people have their snouts in the trough. I think the interest may have been more towards governmental policies.

- - - Updated - - -

Is he running a funeral parlour?

If he opened one, people would stop dying.

That wouldn't be good for business though.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So various people have their snouts in the trough. I think the interest may have been more towards governmental policies.

But since FFvC never divested his interests, his 'governmental policies' benefit his business to a much greater degree of 'snout in trough' than we generally are prepared to tolerate. Thus the interest in finding out just what troughs his snout is in, how deeply, and who is it that's pouring the slop.

We just want to know how badly he's bilking the American People. With that knowledge, we can decide if it is or isn't just 'business as usual at the white house.'

 

[starwater]

To quote Bill Maher:

The democrats have to stop being so nice.

If roles were reversed, impeachment would be in progress.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So various people have their snouts in the trough. I think the interest may have been more towards governmental policies.

But since FFvC never divested his interests, his 'governmental policies' benefit his business to a much greater degree of 'snout in trough' than we generally are prepared to tolerate. Thus the interest in finding out just what troughs his snout is in, how deeply, and who is it that's pouring the slop.

We just want to know how badly he's bilking the American People. With that knowledge, we can decide if it is or isn't just 'business as usual at the white house.'

I want to know how much dirty money has been laundered to build "his" towers.

 

[whichphilosophy]

But since FFvC never divested his interests, his 'governmental policies' benefit his business to a much greater degree of 'snout in trough' than we generally are prepared to tolerate. Thus the interest in finding out just what troughs his snout is in, how deeply, and who is it that's pouring the slop.

We just want to know how badly he's bilking the American People. With that knowledge, we can decide if it is or isn't just 'business as usual at the white house.'

I want to know how much dirty money has been laundered to build "his" towers.

In the event dirty money is confirmed as having been used, if follows the amount can then be confirmed.

 

[Elixir]

There's a lot more cash to be found by following the trail of dead Russians.

Is he running a funeral parlour?

Not that I know of. He might simply be supporting them.

 

[Deepak]

So various people have their snouts in the trough. I think the interest may have been more towards governmental policies.

But since FFvC never divested his interests, his 'governmental policies' benefit his business to a much greater degree of 'snout in trough' than we generally are prepared to tolerate. Thus the interest in finding out just what troughs his snout is in, how deeply, and who is it that's pouring the slop.

We just want to know how badly he's bilking the American People. With that knowledge, we can decide if it is or isn't just 'business as usual at the white house.'

More specifically - known contributions from foreign entities to the Clinton Foundation are not comparable to presidential campaign contributions that are unaccounted-for or were made from shell addresses. I mean, we're talkin' malfeasance here

 

[whichphilosophy]

So various people have their snouts in the trough. I think the interest may have been more towards governmental policies.

But since FFvC never divested his interests, his 'governmental policies' benefit his business to a much greater degree of 'snout in trough' than we generally are prepared to tolerate. Thus the interest in finding out just what troughs his snout is in, how deeply, and who is it that's pouring the slop.

We just want to know how badly he's bilking the American People. With that knowledge, we can decide if it is or isn't just 'business as usual at the white house.'

They may even have their snouts in the same trough from time to time. It's whether or not their snouts were legally immersed.
You have to establish if bilking was done before calculating the sum total. Anyway Bill immersed more than his snout where it should not have gone and that didn't stop him winning his election

 

[whichphilosophy]

But since FFvC never divested his interests, his 'governmental policies' benefit his business to a much greater degree of 'snout in trough' than we generally are prepared to tolerate. Thus the interest in finding out just what troughs his snout is in, how deeply, and who is it that's pouring the slop.

We just want to know how badly he's bilking the American People. With that knowledge, we can decide if it is or isn't just 'business as usual at the white house.'

More specifically - known contributions from foreign entities to the Clinton Foundation are not comparable to presidential campaign contributions that are unaccounted-for or were made from shell addresses. I mean, we're talkin' malfeasance here

Was any malfeasance established?
What was the total apart from Palmer Lucky?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

More specifically - known contributions from foreign entities to the Clinton Foundation are not comparable to presidential campaign contributions that are unaccounted-for or were made from shell addresses. I mean, we're talkin' malfeasance here

Was any malfeasance established?

Unknown. We do know that he shuffled lots of donated campaign money into his own companies.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Is he running a funeral parlour?

Not that I know of. He might simply be supporting them.

Did you ever watch the X-Files?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But since FFvC never divested his interests, his 'governmental policies' benefit his business to a much greater degree of 'snout in trough' than we generally are prepared to tolerate. Thus the interest in finding out just what troughs his snout is in, how deeply, and who is it that's pouring the slop.

We just want to know how badly he's bilking the American People. With that knowledge, we can decide if it is or isn't just 'business as usual at the white house.'

They may even have their snouts in the same trough from time to time. It's whether or not their snouts were legally immersed.
You have to establish if bilking was done before calculating the sum total. Anyway Bill immersed more than his snout where it should not have gone and that didn't stop him winning his election

Well, Bill's not in office right now.

Hillary's not in office.

This is kind of a really poor 'tu quoque' fallacy.

It seems very clear that FFvC needs to be scrutinized very closely, no matter how he ends up in comparison with anyone else.