A radical turkey is in the interest of no one. Not of Europe who prefers a friendly and stable Turkey, not in the interest of Israel that does not want yet another country with whom it is at odds, nor for the USA who need the bosphorus in the hands of an ally, nor for Russia who is an historic ennemy of Turkey and you just can't write off history (especially with fundamentalist regimes), nor for Iran who doesn't need another islamic competitor and definitely nor for Saudi as historically Turks are interested in the Oumma only if they are at the head of it.
Can't help you there. Maybe if you read up on the political climate of the Balkans and the US involvement over the years regarding Turkey you can get a clearer picture. My family and I had lived it for years and know first hand the manipulation in that region by the U.S.
Clearly the US has had major influence in the past - and I agree with you by the way that they've used Turkey for much of their 'dirty tricks'. However, that influence is far less in the region than it used to be. That's partly by choice, e.g. the decision to concede primacy to Russia in Syria, but also reflects the fallout from their past interventions in the area (in Turkey as well as Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria).
For years, even the slightest hint of not being super-patriotic has been used as a cudgel against the left. But Trump saluting a North Korean General will get a pass. Imagine if this was Obama. We all know what the narrative would be. All I think this proves is that Trump is a massive doofus who frankly acts really weird. But my god, Obama was excoriated for merely shaking the hand of Raul Castro at Nelson Mandela's funeral.
But my god, Obama was excoriated for merely shaking the hand of Raul Castro at Nelson Mandela's funeral.
That and bowing to the "king of the muslims"
Salute a North Korean General, but a black athelete better not respectfully kneel during the the national anthem. Point being, if you are going to use jingoistic nationalism as much as Trump does to fuel his popularity, you don't get a pass on something like this.
Interesting article, suggesting that Trump's demagoguery sometimes strikes at the weak points of the present political system. Not that Trump necessarily has a workable solution, but his braggadocio strikes a chord with many voters because he occasionally tilts at targets off limits to many conventional politicians.
And if you are using Twitter, why are you only tagging one person you are suing and not all of them?
Is this how the New York AG is going to announce all of its cases?
I know the president does it, but it seems unprofessional and more of a “look at me” than a serious charge.
And if this does make the main stream media news look for the federal investigation into the Clinton Foundation to be announced within 48 hours.
The argument against that would be that the Clinton Foundation is a legitimate multi-national charity that has been under a microscope for years, and that according to the NY AG's office, the Trump Foundation was a slush fund.
As for Twitter, I mean, yeah.....Trump started this. It's where everything is announced now. You'd be crazy not to put something on Twitter if you want alot of people to know about it. 90% of the news stories and articles I end up coming across wouldn't be on my radar if they didn't pop up in my Twitter feed. And I really don't know if it was officially "announced" on Twitter per se, it's just where I saw it and tweets are an easy way to imbed links about news into an internet thread.
Regardless, at this moment Trump seems to be having a total meltdown over this on.......Twitter!!!
And if you are using Twitter, why are you only tagging one person you are suing and not all of them?
Is this how the New York AG is going to announce all of its cases?
I know the president does it, but it seems unprofessional and more of a “look at me” than a serious charge.
And if this does make the main stream media news look for the federal investigation into the Clinton Foundation to be announced within 48 hours.
This did make the main stream media news so after there's a clinton foundation investigation announced expect it to be followed by a investigation into Benghazi and one into the Clinton email server scandal.
Hmm state charges, those aren't pardonable Trump. But it looks like it's a civil case, no? That lawsuit seeks less than 3 million. Ivanka and Jared grifted $82 million last year alone in profiteering. I'm sure they'd love to just pay the fine and move on. Doubt they'll be able to do that.
And if you are using Twitter, why are you only tagging one person you are suing and not all of them?
Is this how the New York AG is going to announce all of its cases?
I know the president does it, but it seems unprofessional and more of a “look at me” than a serious charge.
And if this does make the main stream media news look for the federal investigation into the Clinton Foundation to be announced within 48 hours.
This did make the main stream media news so after there's a clinton foundation investigation announced expect it to be followed by a investigation into Benghazi and one into the Clinton email server scandal.
Hmm state charges, those aren't pardonable Trump. But it looks like it's a civil case, no?
It looks like a civil case now, but I just read they have referred portions of this to the IRS for criminal violations. Regardless, this article has the full-41 page filing at the bottom. They have receipts. Alot of them:
I'm sure @Grond0 could translate that into layman's terms by noon or so. He seems to be able to parse out the technical aspects of most issues fairly quickly.
And if you are using Twitter, why are you only tagging one person you are suing and not all of them?
Is this how the New York AG is going to announce all of its cases?
I know the president does it, but it seems unprofessional and more of a “look at me” than a serious charge.
And if this does make the main stream media news look for the federal investigation into the Clinton Foundation to be announced within 48 hours.
This did make the main stream media news so after there's a clinton foundation investigation announced expect it to be followed by a investigation into Benghazi and one into the Clinton email server scandal.
Hmm state charges, those aren't pardonable Trump. But it looks like it's a civil case, no?
It looks like a civil case now, but I just read they have referred portions of this to the IRS for criminal violations. Regardless, this article has the full-41 page filing at the bottom. They have receipts. Alot of them:
I'm sure @Grond0 could translate that into layman's terms by noon or so. He seems to be able to parse out the technical aspects of most issues fairly quickly.
As if Trump's IRS is going to prosecute his kids, right? Nepotism for the win. And even if it did, daddy would just pardon them. #brokenusa
The timing is suspicious--only a few months before November elections. I smell a highly-partisan "gotcha" at work here because, not surprisingly, she is a registered Democrat who was first appointed to her first Solicitor General job by Janet Reno back in 1998. I am not saying that the Trumps are innocent, mind you, only that this lawsuit is politically motivated.
If the "illegal activity" had been going on for more than a decade (or nearly two, since some of the allegations go back to 1999) then why is the lawsuit happening only now? Does anyone seriously believe that it took them this long to compile enough evidence to bring a suit? No, Ms. Underwood is using this as a stunt, probably to jump-start the next phase of her own political career by being the Solicitor General who "got" Trump, but also to hinder Republican candidates in upcoming elections.
As if Trump's IRS is going to prosecute his kids, right?
Do you mean the same IRS which spent much of Obama's Administration targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny? No, the IRS (as an organization) is no fan of Trump.
I'm sure @Grond0 could translate that into layman's terms by noon or so. He seems to be able to parse out the technical aspects of most issues fairly quickly.
I can't say it's a subject that interests me much, but I had a quick look through the filing. That seemed to be just amplification of the points made in the Talking Points article. The main issues are: - seeking payment of up to $2.8m in respect of inappropriate use of Foundation funds (that's double the misused funds, so pretty small beer, although Trump has already made a series of repayments relating to this sort of thing). - dissolving the foundation. - barring Trump (but not his children) from leading any other non-profit organization in New York for 10 years. - those are all civil issues, but quite apart from the tax implications I did also note the suggestion that Trump was guilty of perjury in relation to a number of false declarations. Assuming New York has a standard perjury law that's a felony punishable by up to 5 years in jail.
I agree with @Mathsorcerer that this appears to be a politically motivated prosecution. Even if it goes forward I doubt if more than a minimal fine would result, although closing the Foundation would be a good thing in itself. I would be surprised though if much more serious financial wrong doings are not eventually exposed by the Mueller investigation.
If the "illegal activity" had been going on for more than a decade (or nearly two, since some of the allegations go back to 1999) then why is the lawsuit happening only now? Does anyone seriously believe that it took them this long to compile enough evidence to bring a suit? No, Ms. Underwood is using this as a stunt, probably to jump-start the next phase of her own political career by being the Solicitor General who "got" Trump, but also to hinder Republican candidates in upcoming elections.
I'm guessing that the Trump Foundation is coming under pressure now because it's more important and more visible than it was in the past. A random real estate tycoon's foundation is naturally going to be subject to less scrutiny than the foundation of the President of the United States.
If Nate Paul or Donald Bren, two other major real estate tycoons, had become president, they'd probably be subject to the same pressures--and it would be just as reasonable if it were them instead of Trump.
There's also a Catch-22 here. If Underwood were to hold off on this, or keep the matter quiet, in order to avoid looking partisan, she could end up with the same problem Comey had: having both sides accuse her of being biased in favor of the other team... which would especially bad if the Trump Foundation had broken the law. Would you want to be the Solicitor General who let Trump off the hook?
There is no "right time" to do this--why not a month later, so people would remember it more during the election, or a month sooner, to make it look less partisan? Wouldn't the "gotcha" stage be right before the election, instead of 3 months in advance?
It's not obvious to me that the Trump Foundation is being exposed to more scrutiny than it's supposed to. As always, the alternative to prosecuting an alleged crime is to not prosecute an alleged crime.
The timing is suspicious--only a few months before November elections. I smell a highly-partisan "gotcha" at work here because, not surprisingly, she is a registered Democrat who was first appointed to her first Solicitor General job by Janet Reno back in 1998. I am not saying that the Trumps are innocent, mind you, only that this lawsuit is politically motivated.
If the "illegal activity" had been going on for more than a decade (or nearly two, since some of the allegations go back to 1999) then why is the lawsuit happening only now? Does anyone seriously believe that it took them this long to compile enough evidence to bring a suit? No, Ms. Underwood is using this as a stunt, probably to jump-start the next phase of her own political career by being the Solicitor General who "got" Trump, but also to hinder Republican candidates in upcoming elections.
As if Trump's IRS is going to prosecute his kids, right?
Do you mean the same IRS which spent much of Obama's Administration targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny? No, the IRS (as an organization) is no fan of Trump.
The final part here is just a flat-out myth that is accepted as fact because of how hard conservative media pushed that narrative for years on end. When the facts came out, it turned out the IRS was simply scrutinizing political groups in general, regardless or party or partisan affiliation:
And frankly, political groups claiming to be non-profits SHOULD be scrutinized more than usual. But in the end, this was another in the endless string of conservative "scandals" that was only "true" because of how often the narrative was repeated. From the article:
To receive nonprofit status a group must be “primarily engaged in the promotion of social welfare,” according to I.R.S. rules. Such organizations can engage in some political activity “so long as, in the aggregate, these nonexempt activities are not its primary activities.”
Organizations that were flagged by the I.R.S. as potentially political had to undergo intensive requests for information about any legislative activities.
There is certainly an argument to made from a libertarian perspective that the IRS is way outside it's bounds here depending on your political beliefs. But it was not being used as a political hammer, because if that were the case, the Obama Administration would have shielded the left-leaning groups from the same tactics.
Do you mean the same IRS which spent much of Obama's Administration targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny? No, the IRS (as an organization) is no fan of Trump.
That is wrong. The IRS was not just targeting crooked Conservatives. The correction was not given on Conservative media because they wanted to remain aggrieved.
A investigation into a corrupt charity when there's no right time to launch the case is over the line, huh. That's partisan.
Mitch McConnell denied Obama a Supreme Court Justice, no big deal right compared to the outrage over an investigation into a sham charity run by the President along with his kids? Mitch McConnell has canceled the August recess so Senate Democrats seeking re-election can't go home and campaign, that kind of partisanship is a-ok.
The President does nothing except campaign and attack Democrats - that is OK? He won't take an interview that isn't on Fox Propaganda channel, no problem? He will hold campaign rallies and lie his ass off and blame democrats, anthem kneelers, illegal immigrants for everything while refusing to admit he's ever done anything wrong. Fine with that?
The other point remains, though: this lawsuit is based on politics, not actual criminal activity (even though some criminal activity probably took place). The reason to file it now is so that it can possibly be coming to trial about the time elections are happening. Now that I think about it, this lawsuit may also be an oblique attempt to gain access to Trump's tax filings--many people have been trying to gain access to these for a couple of years now.
I am of the opinion that the time to file a lawsuit is the moment you have evidence of a crime being committed. If you have receipts which show illegal use of money then you file right away. If you have evidence in a mugging which points to a suspect then you file charges right away. This is also true for cases related to MeToo--if a man sexually assaults a woman then the victim needs to press charges right away, not wait 10 or 20 years before saying something.
The other point remains, though: this lawsuit is based on politics, not actual criminal activity (even though some criminal activity probably took place). The reason to file it now is so that it can possibly be coming to trial about the time elections are happening. Now that I think about it, this lawsuit may also be an oblique attempt to gain access to Trump's tax filings--many people have been trying to gain access to these for a couple of years now.
I am of the opinion that the time to file a lawsuit is the moment you have evidence of a crime being committed. If you have receipts which show illegal use of money then you file right away. If you have evidence in a mugging which points to a suspect then you file charges right away. This is also true for cases related to MeToo--if a man sexually assaults a woman then the victim needs to press charges right away, not wait 10 or 20 years before saying something.
"WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's charitable foundation, which last year admitted violating federal rules on "self-dealing," is in the process of dissolving, according to newly filed documents reviewed by NBC News. ... New York's attorney general ordered the foundation to stop soliciting contributions in October 2016. .... Amy Spitalnick, said the foundation can't close just yet, however. "As the foundation is still under investigation by this office, it cannot legally dissolve until that investigation is complete," said Spitalnick. ... "
It seems the investigation took another 6 months. Prossibly delayed as well due to Schneiderman having to step down due to scandal.
I am surprised that the story did not make more noise than it did, then--I do not recall that being mentioned anywhere. It was probably "page six" news, alongside human interest and obituaries.
For the record, the reason why the IRS scrutinizes political groups is because non-profit organizations can only claim tax breaks if their activities are non-political. It's illegal for a political organization to claim non-profit status to get tax breaks. Churches and religious organizations also benefit from those tax breaks, but only if they stay out of politics. Once you get involved in politics, you lose access to that tax break.
The Tea Party, of course, was a political movement from the get-go. Many of its members went on to become politicians. Hence, a Tea Party group could not legally claim that tax break.
The IRS is required to figure out an organization's purpose before it gives out any tax breaks.
If the "illegal activity" had been going on for more than a decade (or nearly two, since some of the allegations go back to 1999) then why is the lawsuit happening only now? Does anyone seriously believe that it took them this long to compile enough evidence to bring a suit? No, Ms. Underwood is using this as a stunt, probably to jump-start the next phase of her own political career by being the Solicitor General who "got" Trump, but also to hinder Republican candidates in upcoming elections.
I'm guessing that the Trump Foundation is coming under pressure now because it's more important and more visible than it was in the past. A random real estate tycoon's foundation is naturally going to be subject to less scrutiny than the foundation of the President of the United States.
If Nate Paul or Donald Bren, two other major real estate tycoons, had become president, they'd probably be subject to the same pressures--and it would be just as reasonable if it were them instead of Trump.
There's also a Catch-22 here. If Underwood were to hold off on this, or keep the matter quiet, in order to avoid looking partisan, she could end up with the same problem Comey had: having both sides accuse her of being biased in favor of the other team... which would especially bad if the Trump Foundation had broken the law. Would you want to be the Solicitor General who let Trump off the hook?
There is no "right time" to do this--why not a month later, so people would remember it more during the election, or a month sooner, to make it look less partisan? Wouldn't the "gotcha" stage be right before the election, instead of 3 months in advance?
It's not obvious to me that the Trump Foundation is being exposed to more scrutiny than it's supposed to. As always, the alternative to prosecuting an alleged crime is to not prosecute an alleged crime.
The reason I suggested it's politically motivated is: - as referred to above, the level of scrutiny shown here is much greater than would be expected for a Foundation not operated by the President. That doesn't necessarily make the prosecution party political (though I suspect that is part of it as well), but it's certainly political in the wider sense. - in my previous post I noted that Trump had already repaid various sums when faced with evidence that the original payments were not charitable. Continuing that process would have been an option rather than going for a prosecution. That could have been tied in with the earlier demand for the Foundation to close. - the prosecution asks to ban Trump from charitable activities for the next 10 years. I haven't tried to research that, but my guess is that is not a common penalty in New York. Seeking this as a penalty seems to me to be designed to make Trump fight the case rather than settle - in order to generate the maximum publicity possible for the personal purposes of the New York AG.
Just to note that I don't disagree in principle with either the prosecution or the penalties being asked for. Given the choice though I think the resources dedicated to this could have been better spent investigating other aspects of Trump's activities.
I am surprised that the story did not make more noise than it did, then--I do not recall that being mentioned anywhere. It was probably "page six" news, alongside human interest and obituaries.
The noise caused by outrage over Trumps Twitter and disdain for the truth drowns out a lot. This is an intentional strategy.
The other point remains, though: this lawsuit is based on politics, not actual criminal activity (even though some criminal activity probably took place). The reason to file it now is so that it can possibly be coming to trial about the time elections are happening. Now that I think about it, this lawsuit may also be an oblique attempt to gain access to Trump's tax filings--many people have been trying to gain access to these for a couple of years now.
I am of the opinion that the time to file a lawsuit is the moment you have evidence of a crime being committed. If you have receipts which show illegal use of money then you file right away. If you have evidence in a mugging which points to a suspect then you file charges right away. This is also true for cases related to MeToo--if a man sexually assaults a woman then the victim needs to press charges right away, not wait 10 or 20 years before saying something.
Just because you have evidence doesn’t mean you have enough evidence to gain a conviction.
Your mugging example, the victim might be able to ID the culprit, but waiting until you can get DNA or that video from the business across the street might help solidify the case even more.
Just because you have the receipts doesn’t mean that they all need to be investigated first to make sure they aren’t legitimate, and with a civil case, make sure that you actually have them all.
In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution can not take more than 20 months to bring a person to trial after pressing charges. This maybe another reason why it may take awhile for charges to actually be pressed now at least in Canada.
HOWEVER,
It being announced on Twitter to me sounds political. As I asked, is the AG going to post all of her civil cases on Twitter or just Trump’s? News outlets can still get their information the old fashion way by email blast press releases.
The big takeaway from the watchdog report on James Comey today was that #1). Nothing he did was politically motivated and #2). Once again, the only person who got screwed in the lead-up to the election was Hillary Clinton:
The tent city location for the immigrant children appears to be Dyess Air Force Base in Texas (I can't believe I am typing this). Despite the fact that this is going to be done on a military base, I did a cursory Google search of the average summer temperature in Abilene, Texas (since presumabley a tent city will in fact be outdoors). That temperature is between 90-95 degrees.
Anyone remember when Trump decided to deploy military troops to the border?? Turns out, they aren't actually protecting the border at all, doing such menial work as (no joke) shoveling out manure from the stalls of the border patrol's horses. But the other takeaway is that they don't appear to actually be anywhere near the border at all:
Everything Trump does is surface deep for the cameras and headlines in the moment. In this case, he uprooted the lives and routines of troops for no reason other than making a move to please his anti-immigrant base.
Correction: the site chosen seems to now be Tornillo, Texas, near a border patrol facility, not a military base. The average outside temperature in the summer is basically the same. Upwards of 90-95 degrees each day.
Comments
^^
You can't make this crap up
For years, even the slightest hint of not being super-patriotic has been used as a cudgel against the left. But Trump saluting a North Korean General will get a pass. Imagine if this was Obama. We all know what the narrative would be. All I think this proves is that Trump is a massive doofus who frankly acts really weird. But my god, Obama was excoriated for merely shaking the hand of Raul Castro at Nelson Mandela's funeral.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/trump-nafta-g7-sunset-clause-trade-agreement
And if you are using Twitter, why are you only tagging one person you are suing and not all of them?
Is this how the New York AG is going to announce all of its cases?
I know the president does it, but it seems unprofessional and more of a “look at me” than a serious charge.
And if this does make the main stream media news look for the federal investigation into the Clinton Foundation to be announced within 48 hours.
As for Twitter, I mean, yeah.....Trump started this. It's where everything is announced now. You'd be crazy not to put something on Twitter if you want alot of people to know about it. 90% of the news stories and articles I end up coming across wouldn't be on my radar if they didn't pop up in my Twitter feed. And I really don't know if it was officially "announced" on Twitter per se, it's just where I saw it and tweets are an easy way to imbed links about news into an internet thread.
Regardless, at this moment Trump seems to be having a total meltdown over this on.......Twitter!!!
Hmm state charges, those aren't pardonable Trump. But it looks like it's a civil case, no? That lawsuit seeks less than 3 million. Ivanka and Jared grifted $82 million last year alone in profiteering. I'm sure they'd love to just pay the fine and move on. Doubt they'll be able to do that.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/new-york-attorney-general-suit-trump-foundation-illegal-conduct
I'm sure @Grond0 could translate that into layman's terms by noon or so. He seems to be able to parse out the technical aspects of most issues fairly quickly.
If the "illegal activity" had been going on for more than a decade (or nearly two, since some of the allegations go back to 1999) then why is the lawsuit happening only now? Does anyone seriously believe that it took them this long to compile enough evidence to bring a suit? No, Ms. Underwood is using this as a stunt, probably to jump-start the next phase of her own political career by being the Solicitor General who "got" Trump, but also to hinder Republican candidates in upcoming elections. Do you mean the same IRS which spent much of Obama's Administration targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny? No, the IRS (as an organization) is no fan of Trump.
- seeking payment of up to $2.8m in respect of inappropriate use of Foundation funds (that's double the misused funds, so pretty small beer, although Trump has already made a series of repayments relating to this sort of thing).
- dissolving the foundation.
- barring Trump (but not his children) from leading any other non-profit organization in New York for 10 years.
- those are all civil issues, but quite apart from the tax implications I did also note the suggestion that Trump was guilty of perjury in relation to a number of false declarations. Assuming New York has a standard perjury law that's a felony punishable by up to 5 years in jail.
I agree with @Mathsorcerer that this appears to be a politically motivated prosecution. Even if it goes forward I doubt if more than a minimal fine would result, although closing the Foundation would be a good thing in itself. I would be surprised though if much more serious financial wrong doings are not eventually exposed by the Mueller investigation.
If Nate Paul or Donald Bren, two other major real estate tycoons, had become president, they'd probably be subject to the same pressures--and it would be just as reasonable if it were them instead of Trump.
There's also a Catch-22 here. If Underwood were to hold off on this, or keep the matter quiet, in order to avoid looking partisan, she could end up with the same problem Comey had: having both sides accuse her of being biased in favor of the other team... which would especially bad if the Trump Foundation had broken the law. Would you want to be the Solicitor General who let Trump off the hook?
There is no "right time" to do this--why not a month later, so people would remember it more during the election, or a month sooner, to make it look less partisan? Wouldn't the "gotcha" stage be right before the election, instead of 3 months in advance?
It's not obvious to me that the Trump Foundation is being exposed to more scrutiny than it's supposed to. As always, the alternative to prosecuting an alleged crime is to not prosecute an alleged crime.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting-tea-party-liberals-democrats.html
And frankly, political groups claiming to be non-profits SHOULD be scrutinized more than usual. But in the end, this was another in the endless string of conservative "scandals" that was only "true" because of how often the narrative was repeated. From the article:
To receive nonprofit status a group must be “primarily engaged in the promotion of social welfare,” according to I.R.S. rules. Such organizations can engage in some political activity “so long as, in the aggregate, these nonexempt activities are not its primary activities.”
Organizations that were flagged by the I.R.S. as potentially political had to undergo intensive requests for information about any legislative activities.
There is certainly an argument to made from a libertarian perspective that the IRS is way outside it's bounds here depending on your political beliefs. But it was not being used as a political hammer, because if that were the case, the Obama Administration would have shielded the left-leaning groups from the same tactics.
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555975207/as-irs-targeted-tea-party-groups-it-went-after-progressives-too
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/debunked-irs-scandal-shows-theres-no-sane-wing-of-the-gop.html
Mitch McConnell denied Obama a Supreme Court Justice, no big deal right compared to the outrage over an investigation into a sham charity run by the President along with his kids? Mitch McConnell has canceled the August recess so Senate Democrats seeking re-election can't go home and campaign, that kind of partisanship is a-ok.
The President does nothing except campaign and attack Democrats - that is OK? He won't take an interview that isn't on Fox Propaganda channel, no problem? He will hold campaign rallies and lie his ass off and blame democrats, anthem kneelers, illegal immigrants for everything while refusing to admit he's ever done anything wrong. Fine with that?
The other point remains, though: this lawsuit is based on politics, not actual criminal activity (even though some criminal activity probably took place). The reason to file it now is so that it can possibly be coming to trial about the time elections are happening. Now that I think about it, this lawsuit may also be an oblique attempt to gain access to Trump's tax filings--many people have been trying to gain access to these for a couple of years now.
I am of the opinion that the time to file a lawsuit is the moment you have evidence of a crime being committed. If you have receipts which show illegal use of money then you file right away. If you have evidence in a mugging which points to a suspect then you file charges right away. This is also true for cases related to MeToo--if a man sexually assaults a woman then the victim needs to press charges right away, not wait 10 or 20 years before saying something.
11-20-2017
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-shutting-down-his-charitable-foundation-n822636
"WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's charitable foundation, which last year admitted violating federal rules on "self-dealing," is in the process of dissolving, according to newly filed documents reviewed by NBC News.
...
New York's attorney general ordered the foundation to stop soliciting contributions in October 2016.
....
Amy Spitalnick, said the foundation can't close just yet, however. "As the foundation is still under investigation by this office, it cannot legally dissolve until that investigation is complete," said Spitalnick.
... "
It seems the investigation took another 6 months. Prossibly delayed as well due to Schneiderman having to step down due to scandal.
The Tea Party, of course, was a political movement from the get-go. Many of its members went on to become politicians. Hence, a Tea Party group could not legally claim that tax break.
The IRS is required to figure out an organization's purpose before it gives out any tax breaks.
- as referred to above, the level of scrutiny shown here is much greater than would be expected for a Foundation not operated by the President. That doesn't necessarily make the prosecution party political (though I suspect that is part of it as well), but it's certainly political in the wider sense.
- in my previous post I noted that Trump had already repaid various sums when faced with evidence that the original payments were not charitable. Continuing that process would have been an option rather than going for a prosecution. That could have been tied in with the earlier demand for the Foundation to close.
- the prosecution asks to ban Trump from charitable activities for the next 10 years. I haven't tried to research that, but my guess is that is not a common penalty in New York. Seeking this as a penalty seems to me to be designed to make Trump fight the case rather than settle - in order to generate the maximum publicity possible for the personal purposes of the New York AG.
Just to note that I don't disagree in principle with either the prosecution or the penalties being asked for. Given the choice though I think the resources dedicated to this could have been better spent investigating other aspects of Trump's activities.
Your mugging example, the victim might be able to ID the culprit, but waiting until you can get DNA or that video from the business across the street might help solidify the case even more.
Just because you have the receipts doesn’t mean that they all need to be investigated first to make sure they aren’t legitimate, and with a civil case, make sure that you actually have them all.
In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution can not take more than 20 months to bring a person to trial after pressing charges. This maybe another reason why it may take awhile for charges to actually be pressed now at least in Canada.
HOWEVER,
It being announced on Twitter to me sounds political. As I asked, is the AG going to post all of her civil cases on Twitter or just Trump’s? News outlets can still get their information the old fashion way by email blast press releases.
Anyone remember when Trump decided to deploy military troops to the border?? Turns out, they aren't actually protecting the border at all, doing such menial work as (no joke) shoveling out manure from the stalls of the border patrol's horses. But the other takeaway is that they don't appear to actually be anywhere near the border at all:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/14/trump-ordered-troops-to-the-border-but-theyre-doing-busywork-218821
Everything Trump does is surface deep for the cameras and headlines in the moment. In this case, he uprooted the lives and routines of troops for no reason other than making a move to please his anti-immigrant base.
Correction: the site chosen seems to now be Tornillo, Texas, near a border patrol facility, not a military base. The average outside temperature in the summer is basically the same. Upwards of 90-95 degrees each day.