More suspicious entries in Trump FEC filings

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday July 05, 2016 · 11:27 AM PDT

2016/07/05 · 11:27

CNBC has an interesting story today about oddities in Trump’s FEC filings.

A series of filing anomalies point to a Donald Trump camp that is either unaware of campaign finance law, or is actively funneling donors' cash to insiders, according to several experts interviewed by CNBC.

These "red flags," as one expert deemed them, include a total lack of disclosure on which vendors staffers for the presumptive Republican nominee are paying, an "unusual" six-figure payout to campaign staff for nontaxable expenses and what appeared to be double reimbursements for some employees' expenses.

Short version — he’s reimbursing folks for vendor expenses paid out of pocket without listing the vendor involved. Easy way to try to hide improper payments. I continue to wonder whether or not we will find a few years down the road that he used the campaign to personally profit himself and that it is the primary reason he is running.

Donald Trump signed off deal designed to deprive US of tens of millions in tax

scon40

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday May 25, 2016 · 11:09 AM PDT

2016/05/25 · 11:09

Surprised I haven’t seen this story hit DK yet. UK’s The Telegraph has a devastating article on Trump today.

The billionaire approved a $50 million investment in a company – only for the deal to be rewritten several weeks later as a ‘loan’.

Experts say that the effect of this move was to skirt vast tax liabilities, and court papers seen by the Telegraph allege that the deal amounted to fraud.

The newspaper got their hands on documents signed by Trump.

The Telegraph has obtained copies of the letters Mr Trump signed for both the original version, and the new form as a “loan”. He and his lawyers were sent copies of the relevant paperwork, including the final loan agreement.

Alan Garten, Mr Trump’s lawyer, claimed that the billionaire “had nothing to do with that transaction” and by signing the letters was simply acknowledging the deal as a “limited partner”.

“He was not signing off on the deal,” he insisted.

Mr Trump’s lawyer said the tax implications of the deal were not relevant to Mr Trump because he was not a “party” to the transaction. “Our interests are protecting our rights,” he said.

What’s at stake here?

Former employees of Bayrock have alleged in a case against the company that the deal was intended to fraudulently evade some $20 million in tax through a disguised sale of partnership interests.

They also claim the participants mislabeled the sale as a loan in order to avoid paying a further estimated $80 million taxes on the projected profits from the real estate.

The article covers the timeline and details very well. I am certain this is just the first of many frauds he has been involved in that will see the light of day now that he is running for President (which is why I could never understand why he would run in the first place and risk this).

Will Sanders Meet with HIV/AIDS Activists?

scon40

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday May 09, 2016 · 5:47 AM PDT

2016/05/09 · 05:47

Screen_Shot_2016-03-13_at_4.45.53_PM.png

In the wake of Clinton’s horrible brain fart after Nancy Reagan’s death, HIV/AIDS activists rightfully demanded assurances from all major candidates on their support of issues crucial to those in the HIV/AIDS community. Both Clinton and Sanders attempted to delay meeting with activists until the activists threatened to picket them both:

In the six weeks since the letters to the candidates were sent, promises followed by silence and delays have been the rule, not the exception. In their initial responses, the Clinton and Sanders campaigns each proposed meeting with HIV community leadership during the April 20 New York primary, but confirmations never materialized. Only the threat of demonstrations at the Clinton and Sanders headquarters in Brooklyn on April 19, the day before the NY primary, yielded both promised May meetings.

Since then, Clinton has, in fact, provided a solid date to meet with the activists. Sanders on the other hand:

The Clinton meeting has been confirmed for several weeks, but the Sanders meeting remains an elusive, moving target. On April 15, the Sanders campaign committed to meeting with 20 HIV leaders during “the first week of May” on a date and location to be decided later. Not until April 29, with only four days’ notice, did Sanders representatives set a 30-minute meeting to take place in Indianapolis on the morning of the May 3rd Indiana primary. Attendees purchased expensive, last-minute airfares, only to be informed two days later, on April 30, that the May 3 meeting was cancelled. Despite another promise to “reschedule” as soon as possible, thus far the Sanders campaign has not proposed a new date, time, or city.

Shame on both candidates for delaying meetings in the first place. But shame especially on Sanders campaign for continuing to do so.

Housing Works Press Release

Washington Blade Article

Sanders campaign may have done a 180 in two days

scon40

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday April 22, 2016 · 11:07 PM PDT

2016/04/22 · 23:07

Two days ago, I was happy to hear Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver (who I am not a big fan of), have this exchange on With All Due Respect:

Mark Halperin asked Weaver, “If Sen. Sanders is not the nominee, will he stay in the Democratic Party forever now?”

Weaver answered, “Well, he is a Democrat. He’s said he’s a Democrat, and he’s going to be supporting the Democratic nominee, whoever that is.”

Halperin followed up, “But he’s a member of the Democratic Party now for life?”

Weaver said, “Yes, he is. Yes, he is.”

Great news for the party. He brings an authentic voice on a lot of issues (although I hate many of his position on gun control), and he is one of a select group that bring a lot of enthusiasm (as many have mentioned in past weeks, he and Clinton are two sides of the coin in many areas, and I wish we had a candidate that brought both sides at once).

Weaver also discussed Sanders supporting Clinton if she wins the nomination:

The second big part of the interview was Weaver’s statement that Sanders plans to support the Democratic nominee. That means that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, Bernie Sanders will be supporting her in the fall. Sanders was widely expected to support Clinton because his campaign has never given any indication that he wouldn’t support her if she won the nomination.

Also great news. One expects Democrats to come together after the primary and support the victor. Clinton did it for Obama, and now Sanders is going to do it for Clinton. Or is he? I got the disappointing news of the reversal today in The Week:

When asked if he would campaign for Hillary Clinton were she to become the Democratic nominee, Bernie Sanders said in an interview on Friday that he'd have to wait and see.

"Well, first of all, I've got to find out what her platform is, what the views are that she is going to be bringing forth, to what degree she will adopt many of the ideas that I think are extremely popular and I think very sensible," Sanders told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell.

Sanders, who has said he'll stay in the race until the convention, stressed that the process of backing Clinton in a general election would be a "two-way street."

So in 2 days a 180 degree reversal, from definite yes to wait and see. Which sadly is in line with a number of his supporters here at DK who feel that a horse trade is in order where the losing side in the primary will dictate terms to the victor. I personally believe that Sanders needs to approach this as an open negotiation back and forth, where he tries to influence the platform as much as possible. But the “two-way street” sounds more like a take it or leave it kind of offer. I hope he changes his mind. Clinton got nothing for her endorsement of Obama, and yet, for the sake of the party and the country, she gave him an amazing endorsement and she and Bill campaigned for him. I hope Sanders does the same, but initial indications are not promising given the changes in position in less than 72 hours.

Update: An alternate interpretation of Sanders’ comments was offered in the comments that he was speaking about the aggressiveness of his campaigning for Clinton rather than whether or not he would support her. Blog title updated in response.

Willingness to play within the current system is a Clinton asset, not a detriment

scon40

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday April 17, 2016 · 9:38 PM PDT

2016/04/17 · 21:38

I’ve posted in comments to other diaries why I am happy to support Sec. Clinton despite my long term desire to remove the influence of money from the system. I wholeheartedly support a constitutional amendment to move to a public finance system for elections. I remember that even before Citizens United, there was way too much money buying influence. So while I think getting CU overturned is a great idea, it is not going to solve the problem. And I remember way too many elections lost because the Republicans had more money than us. I’m not going to hold it against any Democratic candidate to take help from PACs or big donors unless they act in a way that indicates they have been bought. In my opinion, Clinton has shown no signs of such corruption. And Sunday, the first great example of what the willingness to make the most of the current financing rules can do, as published in Politico:

Democrats aligned with Hillary Clinton are laying the groundwork for a general election campaign focused primarily on the same battleground states that twice elected President Barack Obama, buying up ad time on local TV in an attempt to quietly shape the playing field before the Republicans choose a candidate.

Clinton's willingness to play the game the way it is currently setup is going to give the party a huge boost this cycle. While Sanders refuses to participate to the fullest under the current rules, Democratic Super PACs are making sure we take advantage of the disorder on the Republican side:

Democrats — led by Priorities USA Action, the biggest pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC — have already started spending heavily on ad reservations in strategically placed markets in the seven core states, investing early to maximize air time while rates are still low.

How bad is this for the Republicans:

And since Republicans are unlikely to have a nominee before late July, added individuals close to GOP campaigns, conservative outside groups will have to spend considerably more to match Democratic spending as ad rates rise throughout the summer. In some scenarios, they fear, Democrats will be on the air defining the GOP nominee in key states, at a cheaper rate, before the Republican can even start seriously reserving ad time.

How about all that money Clinton is raising for the individual State Parties and the DNC:

While Clinton's campaign doesn’t have many paid staffers left over in swing states that have already held their primaries, local allies are preparing to work hand-in-hand with state party infrastructures in coordinated campaigns. Clinton’s top political staffers have also, in some cases, been monitoring local Democratic field and financial programs for months.

The candidate herself has also made a point to personally visit some target states — and influential Democrats there — after their primary contests finished. For example, she held a series of closed-door fundraisers in Florida, Ohio, Colorado (hosted by Gov. John Hickenlooper), and Virginia (hosted by Gov. Terry McAuliffe) earlier this month.

This is why that add’l fundraising is so crucial. We count on the coordinated campaigns in individual states to help us win the prize in November. I appreciate Sen. Sanders helping those three candidates earlier this month, but that doesn’t even come close to what Clinton has done for her fellow Democrats. And if Sanders pulls off the miracle upset, he’ll benefit from her hard work just as much as she would.

I find Clinton and Sanders similar on most issues and only varying in strategy on others. What pushes Hillary over the top, and has earned her my vote when the CT primary occurs, is her willingness to go all-in to help the party win in November, her practical approach to getting things done, and Bernie’s refusal to back away from giving the gun industry an unnecessary and undeserved special status in our courts. I’ll happily vote for Bernie if he wins the nomination, but my first choice for President is Hillary Clinton.

Lost their real estate investments?

scon40

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday September 04, 2008 · 8:17 PM PDT

2008/09/04 · 20:17

Are you kidding me? He's doing his "people I met on the campaign trail" section of his speech. Does he bring up someone who lost their house? No...

scon40

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday January 05, 2008 · 3:58 PM PST

2008/01/05 · 15:58

Well, this is my first diary ... so hear goes

Just saw something interesting about the packed houses in New Hampshire on the Washington Post site:

RSS

More suspicious entries in Trump FEC filings

Donald Trump signed off deal designed to deprive US of tens of millions in tax

Will Sanders Meet with HIV/AIDS Activists?

Sanders campaign may have done a 180 in two days

Willingness to play within the current system is a Clinton asset, not a detriment

Lost their real estate investments?

When is a packed house, not a packed house