President Donald Trump has been ordered by a New York State judge to pay $2 million to a group of nonprofit organizations as part of a settlement in a civil lawsuit stemming from persistent violations of state charities laws.
The payment is the final resolution to a case brought by the New York attorney general’s office after the Trump Foundation held a fundraiser for military veterans during the 2016 campaign.
“Our petition detailed a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation — including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more,” then-Attorney General Barbara Underwood alleged in a statement late last year.
In her seven-page ruling, New York Supreme Court Justice Salliann Scarpulla wrote, “Mr. Trump’s fiduciary duty breaches included allowing his campaign to orchestrate the Fundraiser, allowing his campaign, instead of the Foundation, to direct distribution of the Funds, and using the Fundraiser and distribution of the Funds to further Mr. Trump’s political campaign.”
Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka were also named in the lawsuit.
Update: See also Talking Points Memo and Rolling Stone for more details.
Here’s a more recent Trump scam:
The pettiest grift of Trump’s presidency may be a scheme that was recently uncovered by Popular Information’s Judd Legum. As Legum notes, the Trump campaign has held at least 15 online contests in which the winner was promised a meal with Trump. Many of them also promised travel accommodations. All supporters had to do to enter the contests, which were promoted heavily on social media, was donate to the campaign. “I just saw the most recent list of Patriots who have contributed to win a trip to meet me in Chicago on October 28th, and I noticed you STILL haven’t entered,” read one email regarding a contest for a supporter and a guest to have lunch with Trump in Chicago.
This may sound great for Trump supporters, but there’s one problem: despite the untold sums of money raised off the contests, no one appears to have actually sat down for a meal with the president. …
… The campaign certainly hasn’t been able to provide any proof. After Legum’s original piece on the potential scam published, Trump campaign Communications Director Tim Murtaugh tweeted that “[p]eople win the contests each time,” but offered no additional evidence. Nor have any of the “top supporters” and “patriots” who entered any of the 15 contests come forward with pictures or other proof that they sat down for a meal with Trump. It does appear some people have met the president before rallies as a result of winning contests, but the promise of grabbing breakfast, lunch, or dinner with him seems to be a sham.
I swear, he can’t help himself. Grifters gonna grift.
Yeah, now they can spend the next 20 years trying to collect their money. When money goes into Trump's coffers it's the same a matter going into a black hole.
I guess the only bright spot is the fact that Trump's corruption and sleazeball tactics just gets a little more exposure. Every little bit helps in showing the world what a corrupt bag of shit Trump is.
Swami – G U L A G is gonna bill you a buck for back-to-back posting.
Yeah, Gulag is getting as bad as Trump with his tweets.*
The truth is that some days Trump offensiveness gets to the point where I feel compelled to get my disgust for him off my chest by lacing out in multiple comments. He's just a big bag of shit.
Just this morning I read where Trump is wanting to flip the narrative of his upcoming impeachment by calling Biden and his son to testify. Even though he was caught red handed in an impeachable offense, he still wants to extract as much political damage to Biden as is possible..I think they call that totally unrepentant.
* I just have to point out that Gulag has a good sense of humor and can pick up on the fun, but I'm unsure how a comparison to Trump will be received. I know if I made a comparison or noted a similarity of Gulag to say Ted Bundy or Adolf Hitler he would see the humor in it, but when it comes to Trump I could be pushing it into the realm of a totally unacceptable comment.
That's what we're here for.
re "the hits keep coming"
It's going to be an explosive holiday season, with
1) the public impeachment hearings – I read somewhere that good old Bill Moyers ran a full page ad trying to get PBS to broadcast them gavel to gavel, as they did with Watergate
2) the circus that Republican congresspeople will try to create in response to the damning testimonies
3) the bogus investigate the investigators "report"/distraction mob lawyer Bill Barr is wrapping up
4) the new book, "A Warning" by Anonymous is coming out in a couple weeks. Rachel teased us with excerpts last night
In the Wapo's comments section someone made the claim that Anonymous is KellyAnne Conway, and that whole crazy, good cop bad cop act between her and her husband is a deliberate attempt to deflect attention away from her. The argument was like a weird missing piece of the puzzle, that makes sense their crazy relationship.
In the Wapo's comments section someone made the claim that Anonymous is KellyAnne Conway.
LMAO! Considering all the craziness it makes perfect sense. I keep going back to the idea that the NYT's vouched for the reality that Anonymous is a real person in the position they claim to be in. Accepting that notion as true would put Anonymous at ground zero in the White House. I did wonder if possibly the NYT's or some element of leadership in the NYT's hatched a plot and created Anonymous to introduce some paranoia into the Trump camp just to expedite the eventual collapse of the Trump administration.
Regardless of who Anonymous is or how they came to be, I'm glad to see the tradition and spirit of Publius of the Federalist Papers fame is still serving the American people.
Tear that clown up, Anonymous! Whoever you be.
Double, Double, comments are trouble, Swami stirs and vitriol bubbles. He does well at moral outrage, which is much is in order here.
So Bloomberg is ready to jump in the fray. This has Yang on a yin as he would drop to second place in the rich status. It would not surprise me if Bloomberg did not just become the favorite. As an anyone but Trump supporter, I have pledged to support whoever is the nominee, deep pockets or not. He does have several advantages, not the least of which are name recognition and ability to get his message out.
Bloomberg represents the more honorable side of capitalism, while Trump the con artist grifter side. All the candidates are a bit of a pill to swallow, He is no exception. We will see.
I'm positive about Bloomberg, hoping he has the gravitas/the cojones the others don't quite have to demolish Trump. It's like getting excited about an upcoming prize fight, that finally someone strong enough is stepping into the ring. I mean, Sleepy Joe Biden, really?
It's not enough to have good ideas – which the Dems always have in abundance, what's called for is an accomplished fighter.
Bloomberg vs Trump coming to pay TV soon. Trump's training is exclusively on low blows. So far no one can be found to be the referee. The obey me at all times instruction is useless without a backup Taser they say.
I'm not seeing anybody get excited about Bloomberg. It's like, yeah, another rich guy. Yawn. Also, he's very short. I bumped into him once, literally, and he's no taller than I am. I am 5'4". There’s information on the web saying he’s 5’8″; do not believe it. The short guy never wins.
Trump's relentless lawlessness concerning money isn't unique. As the Panama Papers and Paradise Papers imply, there's probably not a billionaire anywhere in the world who doesn't hide income from taxation at the very least. It's also true that what rich individuals and corporations can get away with legally is a crime in itself.
We already have Tom Steyer essentially buying a vanity presidential campaign. He's the "liberal" "environmentalist" billionaire who not only has hidden money offshore, but has invested in private prisons and coal mining.
While Bloomberg might be cleaner, he's trying to enter the race because he's concerned that the Democratic nominee might want to restore some progressivism to the tax system. Oh, the horror.
Also whining in is Bill Gates, claiming Liz Warren's tax plan would cost him $100 billion. Warren says that's not true, but even if it were, poor little Bill would still have at least $6 or $7 billion left to somehow get through life.
The rich are different. The very rich certainly seem to have a sense of entitlement. We don't a Democratic Ross Perot to serve as a spoiler. And we definitely don't need another Trump.
So it's not a perfect world. I don't automatically disparage the rich, recall that FDR betrayed his class. Nobel got rich from dynamite and created the highly esteemed prize that bears his name. Steyer for all his warts has done great good by mobilizing young people to vote; now if he would only get off the stage.
On balance there are any number of "good" billionaires who could use their wealth and influence to rid us of the amoral one we're presently stuck with.
Money is an amplifier. In the hands of good people, great and wonderful things can happen. In the hands of evil people, the opposite occurs.
I happened to visit Disneyland recently – my company rewarded us with a day at the park for reaching some important milestone. Yes, it's a gigantic money sucking distraction machine, but it also creates a great deal of joy and happiness, magic if you will, that I genuinely felt when I was there. I dropped my judgments against it, accepting the good with the bad.
… now if he would only get off the stage …
Exactly. You might have noticed I didn't complain about Andy Yang. He actually has interesting things to say and doesn't appear to be a hypocrite.
I don't think we should eat the rich, if for no other reason than the danger of Kuru disease. However, I don't believe there are a significant number above some income level, probably a few billion, who don't take advantage of their wealth to make society less fair and ultimately less productive. The good things they sometimes contribute are undeniable. That doesn't qualify them to be presidents.
Isn't Bloomberg more likely to peel votes off Biden? Isn't that why Bloomberg thinks he can run – Biden is stagnant and the establishment is terrified? If Bloomberg peels 4-5 points off Biden, that puts Liz and Bernie out front.
Bloomberg has unlimited money to stay in the race – Biden has an unlimited sense of entitlement, so he won't bow out. Unless Bloomberg can peel off significant progressive votes, this strikes me as good news.
My young nephew just sent me an article from one of his Gurus, of the business world. A professor Galloway.
Those are two seriously intense paragraphs. Hang on.
Shades of Trump University. "Students" paid up big for top-tier status perks like "Have your picture taken with Trump." It turned out to be with a life-size cardboard-cutout of the Grifter in Chief.