Because by doing this the US is publicly endorsing and ignoring the evil actions of the Kim regime. What's next? Picnics with Iran and the people who use their own as meat shields so they can fling pot shots at Israel and then when those shields die they can get a nice photo op? Or how about Putin and that shit hole Russia? Shall we have him over for tea? Maybe Trump can dance the kazachok with him on national TV? Where do we draw the line. I say here. No negotiation. "Black Project..?"
I must say I'm gaining a mild fondness for the Don and his gang boss style. His unusual manner is looking like just the tonic to resolve the long running Korean war. If the Don ends the war and comes out of this with a viable agreement then he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course we all know the Nobel Peace Prize is forever tarnished when it was cheaply given to Obama despite the fact he'd done jackshit in the name of peace. Obama got the statue for talking the talk. Another issue is the longstanding aim (1992) of successive NK regimes for a complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. This is viewed by NK as very much an aspiration rather than a definite. They see the denuclearisation of Korea as part of a worldwide denuclearisation. I think the Don will be in the green if he can strike an agreement or a mutual protection commitment, ie if NK was attacked the US would come to it's aid and vice versa. NK could prove a most valuable ally, it would be no sweat for Kim to provide 50,000 troops to root out ISIS for instance. The US would be getting a committed soldier ready to die for his flag. It would be an honour for any NK soldier to die following Kim's orders. Imagine the tax savings for the US taxpayer? No more expensive mercenaries. It's a win win win. There's a lot to mull over here but I'm sure the Don will cast a few minutes over it when he's walking down to the 5th tee. That's all this needs. It makes sense to make peace with Kim, it's the right thing to do for everyone and especially the long suffering Korean people.
It never ends. New York Attorney General Sues Trump's Charitable Foundation A lawsuit filed by New York's attorney general Thursday said President Donald Trump used his charitable foundation to settle personal business disputes and bolster his political image with donations directed by his staff. The Donald J. Trump Foundation "was little more than a checkbook for payments from Mr. Trump or his businesses to nonprofits, regardless of their purpose or legality," Democratic Attorney General Barbara Underwood said as she sued to dissolve the foundation and seek $2.8 million in restitution The foundation's mission says its funds are to be used "exclusively for charitable, religious, scientific, literary or educational purposes," either directly or through other organizations, according to the court filing. In keeping with federal tax rules, the charity's incorporation documents say none of its resources can directly or indirectly go to the benefit of its directors or officers and none of its activities can benefit any political candidate, the filing notes. Staffers Tape Together Official Documents tRump Rips Up, and Are Supposed To Be Kept By Law “We got Scotch tape, the clear kind,” Solomon Lartey told the outlet. “You found pieces and taped them back together and then you gave it back to the supervisor.” The employees said that the project was still ongoing as of this spring, when both Lartey and co-worker Reginald Young Jr. were pushed out from their jobs along with other careers officials. A White House spokesman and a human resources director did not comment on the terminations. Neither employee knew why exactly they were forced to sign resignation letters, though they were quick to point out that Trump’s habit of tearing documents clashed with the habits of previous administrations and the legal requirement to keep them. The Presidential Records Act states that the ownership of the President’s documents are public, and also governs the ability for the public to see them through freedom of information requests starting five years after the end of a commander-in-chief’s term.
Sure I know Trump is bad but what exactly are they saying his did this time? Gave money to some non profits?
He used money people given his charity for personal reasons, violating the Laws of Ethics for Charities. IE. ILLEGAL, and also possibly used it in ways to Violate Campaign Finance Laws.
Do you have a source saying Donald used foundation money for personal reasons? Because I haven't found that yet
Looks like the Trump's are up to the same shenanigans as the Clinton's is what's going on Ed. All the money these bastards have and they're still dipping into the funds supposedly intended for charitable purposes. I think the best thing we could do if we wanted to really change things would be to do a total reset. Guillotine every bastard who ran for or held any political office and start again.
Really too Bad that only American Citizens can make those changes Right? Unless the Blue Hats want to take a run at the American People. I say Bring it.
I'm thinking global Stiggy. The only way to route them all out is on a global scale. Oh and Red hat's/Blue Hats = Piss/Shit
But seriously you do know that is never going to happen. The world is set in its ways , and the 1% will make sure it remains that way by any means.
Don't forget about him being (half) black and highly leftist. He could kill a white country boy with a confederate flag on his truck in times square and still be supported by the left. See what I did there? heheh. Now that's a plan I can get behind. "Let it be written, let it be done. Slowly I walk toward the fractured light."
Yes in Deed May take a few Nuclear Bombs to make em see the light. What Good is Having all that power if he doesn't use it.
We already know he was personally involved. Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business Donald Trump used $286G in charity money to build his political brand, according to report Buying a portrait of himself Tebow Helmet Trump hasn't donated to his own foundation since 2008, and has faced scrutiny for using other people's money to buy portraits of himself, an autographed Tim Tebow helmet and other questionable items. This latest potential form of self-dealing, which is illegal, showed he also used the foundation to lay the groundwork for his presidential run. The attorney general’s office detailed what it said was a closely coordinated effort by Trump’s campaign and the foundation to burnish his political image by giving out big grants of other’s people money to veterans’ organizations during the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, the first presidential nominating contest of 2016. It accused the foundation of “improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations.” Underwood referred her findings to the IRS and the Federal Election Commission for possible further action. IRS and FEC representatives declined to comment. The Trump Foundation’s mission says its funds are to be used “exclusively for charitable, religious, scientific, literary or educational purposes,” according to the lawsuit. In exchange for tax-exempt status, charities are required to follow rules that include a strict prohibition against involvement in political campaigns. In a handwritten note, Trump directed that $100,000 in foundation money go to settle legal claims against Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, the lawsuit said. The foundation also paid $158,000 to resolve a lawsuit over a prize for a hole-in-one contest at Trump National Golf Club in Briarcliff Manor, New York; $10,000 to buy a 6-foot (1.8-meter) portrait of Trump at a charity auction; and $5,000 for advertisements published in the programs for charitable events. The ads promoted Trump’s hotels. The suit also singled out a $32,000 payment that the foundation made to satisfy a Trump company pledge to contribute to a land-preservation group. After New York’s attorney general began investigating, Trump’s business empire reimbursed the foundation for various payments and returned the painting to the foundation. Despite the prohibition on political activity, Trump’s foundation cut a $25,000 check in 2013 to Republican Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi’s re-election campaign, the lawsuit notes. After a watchdog group complained to the IRS in 2016, Trump reimbursed the foundation and paid a $2,500 fine. Then Trump’s foundation was “co-opted” by his presidential campaign, the lawsuit says. Four days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump held a televised rally and fundraiser for veterans’ organizations. The event raised approximately $5.6 million, half of which went to the Trump Foundation; the rest was given directly by donors to veterans groups, the lawsuit says. The foundation then gave campaign staff members control over the money raised, the attorney general charged. “Is there any way we can make some disbursements this week while in Iowa?” then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski wrote in an email. Lewandowski did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The foundation went on to make at least five grants of $100,000 each to Iowa groups before the caucuses, with Trump presenting giant checks at a series of campaign rallies. The checks bore Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan along with the foundation’s address. Trump didn’t give any money personally at the time, but several months later, after media pressure, followed through on a pledge to donate $1 million. During his campaign, Trump was highly critical of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton’s family charity, the Clinton Foundation, for taking donations from people who met with her while she was secretary of state.
Actually he just shifted the money from his own campaign to pay a charity. You know, that campaign that he payed for anyway. And that money he gives away plenty of. What was that saying.... never trust the word of a junkie... something like that. "Black Project..?"
Azz, your going to need some support for that. You can't just arbitrarily dismiss the facts presented. He hardly paid for his campaign the numbers don't support that statement.