Why is Trump coining the "Deep State" for a political win? They have been investigating "Trump Management Company" from 1972 (click here)
Files (click here) The copy of the lease stating "No Dogs Allowed" is number 08 of 08.
Trump hates the FBI and the US Justice Department because they always win their investigations and he loses.
Amanda Carpenter is a CNN contributor, former communications director for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and speechwriter for Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC).
January 30, 2020
By Amanda Carter
...The memo in question (click here) is one written by the staff of Republican Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes—the same Nunes who recused himself from the Russia investigation last year among allegations that “he made unauthorized disclosures of classified information.” Now, Nunes is at it again. This time with a four-page classified memo that, if you believe what those who have read it say, shows an Obama-era FBI rife with corruption and engaging in eye-popping abuses of power. The details of what the memo says have been kept private, because they are classified. But that hasn’t stopped Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill and beyond from crowing about the allegedly shocking memo since mid-January, demanding it be released to the public and spawning a viral hashtag, now used by everyone from Donald Trump Jr. to Sean Hannity and Julian Assange. After the House voted on Monday to do so, House Speaker Paul Ryan made a statement in favor of the decision. Now, the matter is in the president’s hands....
From hotels to casinos to his university and non-profits all he has is legal problems because HE LIES AND BREAKS THE RULES.
November 8, 2019
By Michael Collins, Dennis Wagner and Kevin McCoy
Washington - A New York judge’s ruling that (click here) President Donald Trump must pay $2 million to charity appears to be the final chapter in the saga of Trump’s troubled charitable foundation.
State Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla of Manhattan ruled on Thursday that Trump pay $2 million in damages to various nonprofit groups to settle allegations that he and his family used the Trump Foundation to further his political and business interests.
Though Trump admitted the misconduct in court documents, he issued a defiant statement in which he accused New York’s attorney general of mischaracterizing the settlement process for political purposes. Trump claimed he had been attacked by “political hacks in New York State.”
Here’s a closer look at the ruling and the foundation’s legal troubles:...
Trump understands "quid pro quo' all too well.
November 13, 2019
By Robert W. Wood
There is plenty of talk these days (click here) about whether there was a quid pro quo concerning the President’s interactions with Ukraine. As the hearings and testimony unfold, could the IRS care about this too? The IRS’s concern isn’t about politics, of course, but surprisingly, the concept of a quid pro quo comes up regularly in the tax law. In fact, the same basic concept is there. What’s more, the practical way in which the IRS looks at this issue is pretty interesting. Consider charitable contributions. The tax law is clear that you cannot write off a charitable contribution if it wasn’t really a charitable contribution.
Charitable contributions by real estate developers are one classic context in which this quid pro quo issue can arise. When faced with a big tax write-off for a “donation,” the IRS might sniff out suspect motives for a donation. In many cases, so-called "gifts" to charity were actually more like business deals in which one item is exchanged for some other item of value....
...The quid pro quo problem can arise with a charitable contribution for something in return now, or a promised benefit in the future. Conservation easements are another area ripe for the quid pro quo issue to come up. Conveying an asset to a charitable organization as part of a deal or arrangement to get something back from the organization taints the contribution. It is, in short, merely a business deal, not a charitable contribution. Donations to charity are supposed to be out of generosity, not a business deal in which you get something back. So one way a donation might not qualify for a tax deduction is if you were paying for services, expecting something back in return....
Trump understands "quid pro quo' all too well.
November 13, 2019
By Robert W. Wood
There is plenty of talk these days (click here) about whether there was a quid pro quo concerning the President’s interactions with Ukraine. As the hearings and testimony unfold, could the IRS care about this too? The IRS’s concern isn’t about politics, of course, but surprisingly, the concept of a quid pro quo comes up regularly in the tax law. In fact, the same basic concept is there. What’s more, the practical way in which the IRS looks at this issue is pretty interesting. Consider charitable contributions. The tax law is clear that you cannot write off a charitable contribution if it wasn’t really a charitable contribution.
Charitable contributions by real estate developers are one classic context in which this quid pro quo issue can arise. When faced with a big tax write-off for a “donation,” the IRS might sniff out suspect motives for a donation. In many cases, so-called "gifts" to charity were actually more like business deals in which one item is exchanged for some other item of value....
...The quid pro quo problem can arise with a charitable contribution for something in return now, or a promised benefit in the future. Conservation easements are another area ripe for the quid pro quo issue to come up. Conveying an asset to a charitable organization as part of a deal or arrangement to get something back from the organization taints the contribution. It is, in short, merely a business deal, not a charitable contribution. Donations to charity are supposed to be out of generosity, not a business deal in which you get something back. So one way a donation might not qualify for a tax deduction is if you were paying for services, expecting something back in return....
