Hey, my colleague David French missed the last few NR office conference calls… what's he been doing these past few days? Donald Trump and the Long-Delayed Million to Veterans On January 28, 2016, Donald Trump and his campaign issued the following statement. (New York, NY) January 28th, 2016 – Today Donald J. Trump hosted an event to raise money for Veterans organizations in Des Moines, Iowa. The GOP frontrunner spoke to a record crowd at Drake University and was joined by special guests, including Senator Rick Santorum and Governor Mike Huckabee, as well as Veterans, throughout the night. Mr. Trump personally contributed $1 million dollars to the cause and raised an additional $5 million before the one-hour event concluded, totaling more than $6 million dollars. Mr. Trump stated, "Our Veterans have been treated like third-class citizens and it is my great honor to support them with this $1 million dollar contribution – they are truly incredible people. We are going to strengthen our military, take care of our Vets and Make America Great Again." From those words, you might conclude that Trump had, you know, donated a million dollars to veterans' charities that night. You would be wrong. We now know Trump didn't write a check that night. Or the next night. Or the night after that. No money went from him, personally, to veterans groups for the next five months, until after reporters started asking Trump about the donation in interviews. More than a dozen big checks flowed out of New York last week, bound for veterans' charities from Donald Trump. On Tuesday, he announced he had made good on his promise of last January to give the groups millions of dollars from a highly publicized fundraiser. The announcement by the presumptive Republican presidential candidate came in the midst of a 40-minute rant against 'dishonest' and 'sleazy' reporters who have been pressing the issue. The largest donation, a $1 million check dated May 24 and drawn from Donald J. Trump's personal account, was addressed to a small Tuckahoe, N.Y., group that provides scholarships to the children of fallen Marines. And no, the checks weren't written in January and accidentally left sitting on a desk in the Trump organization somewhere. The Associated Press spoke or left messages with each of the organizations Trump named. Of the 30 groups that responded by Tuesday, about half said they had received checks from Trump just last week. Several said the checks were dated on or about May 24 — the date as Trump's interview with the Post — and shipped out overnight. Among them was the big check from Trump himself, written to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. Trump's campaign had previously told the newspaper that his promised $1 million personal donation had already been distributed. When Trump said that night in Iowa, "I refuse to be called a politician! Donald Trump gave $1 million, okay?' what he really meant was, "someday, I might give one million, if I get asked about this boast enough by reporters." Anybody can promise they're going to give a million dollars to veterans on some unspecified date in the future. You or I can do that. If you want to be credited for donating a million dollars to veterans, you have to actually donate one million to veterans. Yes, there are a lot of legitimate conservative complaints about a partisan, unfair, sneering media that reflexively treats them with disdain. But asking a guy who claims to make huge donations to charity for details about his donations isn't partisan or unfair or disdainful. It's basic fact-checking. And here's Sean Hannity last night: "Donald Trump is fighting back against liberal media attacks about how much money he has raised and donated to veterans charity groups." This is how spun we have become; now asking "which charities, and how much, and when?" is now considered a "liberal media attack" because it irks the candidate. Why should those questions be so vexing if the donations have been made? Because it implies Trump lied that night in Iowa? But the reporters were right! Trump hadn't made the donation! Yes, Let's Scrutinize Hillary Clinton's Charitable Donations, Too! "But the media never asks about or talks about the charitable donations of the Clintons!" Except they have. Way back in 1993, the media covered and in many cases mocked the Clintons' habit of itemizing their charitable donations for tax deductions, including Bill's used underwear: Clinton, on the other hand, has valued his underwear as high as $2 a pair. And a pair of long underwear, per Clinton on his 1988 return, is worth $15. A typically extensive document -- which apparently Clinton wrote out in his own hand for the tax return filed for 1986, when he was serving his third term as governor of Arkansas -- is titled 'Salvation Army 12/27' and lists items numbered 1 through 17, for which Clinton took a deduction of $555. Item No. 1 is 'Gabardine Suit -- Ripped pants -- $75.' No. 8 is 'Brown Sportscoat -- 100.' No. 10 is '6 pr. socks -- 9.' And No. 12 is '3 pr. underwear -- 6.' Here's Alana Goodman of the Washington Free Beacon pointing out that half of the Clintons' charitable deductions in 2014 were to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, which, among other things, pays for the travel expenses of… Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton. Here's the Wall Street Journal editorial board noting the same. Here's the Wall Street Journal reporting that the Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, allegedly a nonprofit in the charity business, steered a company owned by Clinton friends and helped it get federal grants: The Clinton Global Initiative, which arranges donations to help solve the world's problems, set up a financial commitment that benefited a for-profit company part-owned by people with ties to the Clintons, including a current and a former Democratic official and a close friend of former President Bill Clinton. The $2 million commitment was placed on the agenda for a September 2010 conference of the Clinton Global Initiative at Mr. Clinton's urging, according to a document from the period and people familiar with the matter. Mr. Clinton also personally endorsed the company, Energy Pioneer Solutions Inc., to then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu for a federal grant that year, said people with knowledge of the endorsement. The company, whose business plan was to insulate people's homes and let them pay via their utility bills, received an $812,000 Energy Department grant. Mr. Chu, now a professor at Stanford University, said he didn't remember the conversation. Here's the Huffington Post pointing out that donations to the Clinton Foundation and Trump Foundation may not qualify as charitable gifts, as the organizations claim: Millions of dollars in donations to two charitable foundations associated with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump may not meet the legal standard for charitable gifts, four tax law experts tell The Huffington Post. Clinton and Trump command hundreds of thousands of dollars for their speeches and appearances. But not all of this money goes to them. Significant portions of it are directed to the charitable foundations bearing their names. To qualify as true charitable gifts, donations made to the Donald J. Trump Foundation or the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation must come with no strings attached. As the Internal Revenue Service puts it, they must be made "<a data-cke-saved-href='https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr99-44.pdf' href='https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr99-44.pdf' blank'='' target='_blank'>out of detached and disinterested generosity." Here's the New York Times, pointing out the Clinton Foundation's close work with Rwandan President Paul Kagame, a controversial figure: Mr. Clinton and Mr. Kagame have met on each of Mr. Clinton's six postpresidential trips to Rwanda, and Mr. Kagame is a regular at the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting. At the 2009 session, Mr. Clinton presented him with the foundation's Clinton Global Citizen Award, calling him a "brilliant man" who "freed the heart and the mind of his people." But on a geopolitical level, the foundation's intertwining with Rwanda has become increasingly awkward as the United Nations, the State Department and members of Congress have accused the Kagame government of disregarding human rights, aiding armed rebels in the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo and suppressing political opponents and the media, at times violently. Here's the Washington Post, reporting on the Clinton Foundation getting a subpoena from the State Department's Inspector General back in February. Here's the New York Times pointing out that any family connection to Clinton Foundation operations would represent a giant conflict of interest in a Hillary Clinton presidency: "If Bill seeks to raise large sums of money from donors who also have an interest in U.S. policy, the public will rightly question whether the grants affected United States foreign policy," said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert at New York University School of Law. Ethics rules, he notes, are "not merely to prevent bad behavior but to foster public trust in the integrity of government choices." He's open, however, to the idea of their daughter, Chelsea Clinton, running the foundation. But others say any connection is unacceptable. Joel Fleishman, who ran a foundation and has written a book on philanthropy, says the Clintons have to "sever the relationship completely and put it in the hands of independent trustees." Mr. Fleishman says the Clintons have to pick a leader of "impeccable integrity and let it go its own way in raising money." "Why not ask about Hillary?" doesn't get Trump off the hook for boasting of donations that haven't occurred yet. Early Polls Looking Pretty Encouraging for Libertarian Gary Johnson The new polls out this morning are pretty good for Trump. Quinnipiac: A titanic clash of the sexes leaves Democrat Hillary Clinton with a small 45 – 41 percent lead over Republican Donald Trump in the race for president, according to a Quinnipiac University National poll released today. When third party candidates are added to the mix, Clinton gets 40 percent with Trump at 38 percent, too close to call, the independent Quinnipiac University Poll finds. Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson gets 5 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein gets 3 percent. A new survey of Michigan voters, from the Detroit News and WDIV-TV shows Trump trailing in that traditionally Democratic state, but not by much: In a head-to-head general election match-up, presumptive Democratic nominee Clinton led presumptive Republican nominee Trump 43 percent to 38.5 percent, according to the poll released exclusively to The Detroit News and WDIV-TV. The survey of 600 likely voters found 4 percent saying they'll vote for someone else and 12 percent remaining undecided. When surveyed voters were offered a third choice in Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, the support for both Clinton and Trump eroded. Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico, received 11.5 percent support, while Clinton held a 4-percentage point lead over Trump, 37 percent to 33 percent. ADDENDA: I'm scheduled to appear on CNN this morning around 11 a.m., where I have a feeling they'll ask me if I know about any coworkers having any big summer and autumn projects planned.  | 
Megyn Kelly -> Pete Hegseth responds to 2017 rape accusation. 🔥 vol. 3, issue 13 | December 6, 2024 Quick Hits All the news you need in...
No comments:
Post a Comment