Trump Awards G-7 Summit To His Own Resort

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#22
Please provide your source for:
A. The amount each room will be charged
B. The total expenses incurred by the resort for the event.

The admin has said the event will be non-profit. If you’re claiming otherwise, give us the facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think Donald Trump is the best person to define what non-profit entails.

I don't know anyone who's been such a grifter that their children are banned from being involved with charities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...r-deal-with-ny-attorney-general-idUSKBN1OH1TH

POLITICS
DECEMBER 18, 2018 / 8:27 AM / 10 MONTHS AGO
Trump charity to dissolve under deal with N.Y. attorney general

Brendan Pierson
3 MIN READ

(Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s namesake charitable foundation has agreed to dissolve under court supervision, partially resolving a New York state lawsuit claiming he misused it to advance his 2016 presidential campaign and his businesses, the state attorney general said on Tuesday.

The lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation also seeks to recoup $2.8 million and ban Trump and his three eldest children from leadership roles in any other New York charity.


The agreement, which must be approved by a New York state judge, would give state Attorney General Barbara Underwood the power to vet the charities that receive the foundation’s remaining assets.

Underwood said in a statement that the foundation had served as “little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests,” and called the agreement “an important victory for the rule of law.”


Alan Futerfas, a lawyer for the Trumps, responded in a statement that the lawsuit had delayed the foundation’s plan to dissolve after Trump won the U.S. presidential election in November 2016.

He added that over the past decade, the foundation had distributed about $19 million, including $8.25 million of Trump’s personal money, to over 700 charitable organizations.

Trump, a Republican, has previously said on Twitter that Underwood’s lawsuit was a concoction by “sleazy New York Democrats.” In their motion to dismiss the case, the Trumps said it reflected Underwood’s “pervasive bias” against them.

The new agreement came less than a month after Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan rejected the motion to dismiss.

The motion had argued that the U.S. Constitution immunized Trump from Underwood’s claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty, improper self-dealing, and misuse of assets belonging to the Foundation.

Underwood sued Trump and his adult children Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka on June 14, after a 21-month probe that she said uncovered “extensive unlawful political coordination” between the foundation and Trump’s campaign.

Underwood alleged, among other things, that Trump wrongly ceded control to his campaign of about $2.8 million donated to the foundation in a 2016 Iowa fundraiser for military veterans. Other challenged expenses included $100,000 to settle a dispute involving Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, and $10,000 for a portrait of Trump that was later hung at one of his golf clubs.
Yeah, like Trump will be involved in the bookkeeping. Liberal morons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#23
It's been said that is for no profit. What is wrong with that? The optics dont look great or legal if he made a profit. If he is making no profit that would me it's less expensive. Where is the problem with that?
Wow, I really didn't think the discussion would go this route. Profit, free publicity, the ability to break even for a month with a property that has lost 70% of its profit margin since Trump became president, a write off on taxes... He is helping himself financially with this deal no matter how you want to frame it.

And this isn't covering his other properties internationally that he has housed military personnel and other foreign diplomats. If you really need me to bring up articles on his DC hotel, or Scottish property, let me know, but I never thought there would be so much push back on the obvious fact that he has benefitted personally on these transactions.

But that really wasn't the point of this thread. What I wanted to know is how do you feel about the president (any president) making money off his position of power while in office? For example, some people feel it is a liability, because foreign nationals can try to buy favor with Trump, by using his resorts for conferences or other meetings. What are your thoughts on that?
Yeah, like any golfer has never heard of Doral.
Okay Mr CPA genius, how does Trump benefit financially if he does not make a cash profit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Dec 9, 2013
520
183
593
49
#24
So you’re worried about what Trump might make on the deal, all the while he’s taking no salary.

It’s really simple. They’ll escrow all receipts while they accumulate all costs. Once there’s a complete accounting, they’ll either donate or refund any excess.

You Dems and the media are complete mental midgets at times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kinda like they did w the inauguration $.

Instead of trying to be funny how about you go read the actual text of the constitution that deals w this and then let me know what’s wrong w your thought process.

I like how you can’t engage in any discussion wo resorting to insults.
 
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#25
So you’re worried about what Trump might make on the deal, all the while he’s taking no salary.

It’s really simple. They’ll escrow all receipts while they accumulate all costs. Once there’s a complete accounting, they’ll either donate or refund any excess.

You Dems and the media are complete mental midgets at times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kinda like they did w the inauguration $.

Instead of trying to be funny how about you go read the actual text of the constitution that deals w this and then let me know what’s wrong w your thought process.

I like how you can’t engage in any discussion wo resorting to insults.
At first I thought you were a little dim. Now it appears you’re a complete moron.

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.[4]”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Dec 9, 2013
520
183
593
49
#28
At first I thought you were a little dim. Now it appears you’re a complete moron.

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.[4]”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Now that you’ve mastered copy and paste read your original post.

You are so close.
 
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#30
At first I thought you were a little dim. Now it appears you’re a complete moron.

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.[4]”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Now that you’ve mastered copy and paste read your original post.

You are so close.
I don’t know what comic book you’re reading, but if Trump doesn’t enjoy a financial benefit, no problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oct 30, 2007
3,573
3,118
1,743
#31
I've never seen this discussed here and am genuinely interested in this forum's views on Trump using the office of President to enrich himself. What are your thoughts?

Here is an article on this newest development...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1b32d6-ef52-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html
It's incredible how many politicians use their office to enrich themselves. Most politicians exit office exponentially wealthier than they when they took office. Trump may be the first president in a long time to exit office with less wealth than when he was inaugurated. I don't have any problem with him doing this as long as it truly is being provided at cost, or if the profits are donated to charity.

1571512298781.png
 
Dec 9, 2013
520
183
593
49
#32
I don’t know what comic book you’re reading, but if Trump doesn’t enjoy a financial benefit, no problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not correct on several levels. But if we go by your thought of financial benefit then Trump would definitely be cooked. A financial benefit would be the mere fact that in June Doral runs at less than 50% capacity and by hosting G7 he would be at near capacity. Even if he runs at cost he is still financially benefitting bc normally he runs at a deficit in June.

Keep trying though.
 
Dec 9, 2013
520
183
593
49
#33
And he caved.

Reports are that Rs were starting to line up against him on this and Pelosi had threatened to not only whold funding on G7 but also on govt spending at Trump properties in general.

Here’s where this starts to get dangerous for Trump. Trump has built his political image on being a fighter and controlling the spin. This one got away from him as even Rs were speaking out against. He lost the ability to lie his way through it. Now he’s been out maneuvered by Pelosi again.

Worse he looks like he’s growing tired of the fight at the time he needs to fight the most. If the 30% that support him no matter what see him losing the fight or worse the will to fight do the Rs in Congress become less worried about that 30% in potential primaries.
 
Last edited:
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#34
I don’t know what comic book you’re reading, but if Trump doesn’t enjoy a financial benefit, no problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not correct on several levels. But if we go by your thought of financial benefit then Trump would definitely be cooked. A financial benefit would be the mere fact that in June Doral runs at less than 50% capacity and by hosting G7 he would be at near capacity. Even if he runs at cost he is still financially benefitting bc normally he runs at a deficit in June.

Keep trying though.
What pray tell are the levels MSNBC is telling you? Lol

The intent of the emoluments clause is to prevent undue foreign influence. What planet do you have to be from to conclude undue foreign influence if Trump did not make a profit? It’s even a stretch to conclude any undue foreign influence whatsoever even if Trump did make a profit charging market rates.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#35
And he caved.

Reports are that Rs were starting to line up against him on this and Pelosi had threatened to not only whold funding on G7 but also on govt spending at Trump properties in general.

Here’s where this starts to get dangerous for Trump. Trump has built his political image on being a fighter and controlling the spin. This one got away from him as even Rs were speaking out against. He lost the ability to lie his way through it. Now he’s been out maneuvered by Pelosi again.

Worse he looks like he’s growing tired of the fight at the time he needs to fight the most. If the 30% that support him no matter what see him losing the fight or worse the will to fight do the Rs in Congress become less worried about that 30% in potential primaries.
Wrong.

He just realized he gave up control of his businesses when he took office so he can’t now direct the entity currently operating the resort to host the conference for no profit.

Further, if Pelosi truly thought it would be unconstitutional for Trump to hold the conference at Doral, she wouldn’t have to threaten him.

Trump was a dumbass for not realizing he cannot control his assets. The Dems were equally dumb for not pointing it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Dec 9, 2013
520
183
593
49
#36
Wrong.

He just realized he gave up control of his businesses when he took office so he can’t now direct the entity currently operating the resort to host the conference for no profit.

Further, if Pelosi truly thought it would be unconstitutional for Trump to hold the conference at Doral, she wouldn’t have to threaten him.

Trump was a dumbass for not realizing he cannot control his assets. The Dems were equally dumb for not pointing it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And Mexico is going to pay for the wall
 
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#37
Wrong.

He just realized he gave up control of his businesses when he took office so he can’t now direct the entity currently operating the resort to host the conference for no profit.

Further, if Pelosi truly thought it would be unconstitutional for Trump to hold the conference at Doral, she wouldn’t have to threaten him.

Trump was a dumbass for not realizing he cannot control his assets. The Dems were equally dumb for not pointing it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And Mexico is going to pay for the wall
Impressive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
727
136
593
60
Breckenridge, CO
#40
Impressive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Look if you believe that Trump actually gave up control of his business then there is nothing he says you won’t believe.
You want proof he’s not running his businesses?
Show me where the Dems are trying to impeach him because he hasn’t given up control.
Just another stupid Liberal claim with no real evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited: