After a quite detailed investigation by David Fahrenthold of The Washington Post, several questions have been raised about The Trump Foundation. Unfortunately, we need to spend more time on these questions than the story is being given in short news cycles by main stream media.
I want to set aside the fact that Trump has not made recent contributions of his own money and likes to use other people’s money, while taking credit and accolades for the Foundation’s donations. I also want to set aside what the news is focusing most on and that is the buying of a portrait for personal use, which is illegal, if true.
What I want to focus on is the $25,000 donation made to the political campaign of the Florida Attorney General. The donation was received four days after an article appeared in a Florida newspaper revealing the Florida AG was considering charges against Trump University. After the timing of the donation, no charges were brought against Trump University. It should be noted there are three outstanding class action lawsuits against Trump University for alleged misrepresentation that began before the Trump campaign, which will continue whether he wins or loses the election. I guess the Florida claimants are not worthy of helping.
The AG denies this donation was buying influence as has the Trump campaign. Trump has admitted (after the investigation pointed it out) that the political donation from his Foundation was illegal and has made restitution, but there is more to it than that.
First, the donation was incorrectly noted on the Trump Foundation tax return as being made to a non-political group, which would have made it legitimate, if true. The campaign says this was an administrative error. Yet, it seems too coincidental that a later admitted illegal donation was incorrectly noted as a donation to a legitimate non-profit entity on the tax return.
Second, Trump’s son said his father intended to make that donation from his own funds and he signs a lot of checks, so it slipped through the cracks. Since Trump likes to use other people’s money, I have a hard time with that, but let’s set that aside for the important issue.
To me, the heart of the matter is the timing of a $25,000 donation to the Florida AG. Irrespective of its source, Trump sent a check to the AG at the time she was considering charges against Trump University. It has been noted while the check arrived four days after the article appeared, it was dated before the date of the article. I would not be surprised by gamesmanship, be it his backdating the check or being apprised of the forthcoming article or consideration of charges. I have no proof of this, but suggest that more investigation is at least warranted.
Yet, the AG’s decision to not press charges was made after the receipt of the check. Plus, Trump has bragged in debates, speeches and on the campaign trail about his buying influence with political donations, yet he denies it was done here.
Well, let me just say what I believe to be true, without proof, but on the basis of the above and his self-professed nature. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.