CDZ Corruption: Trump directs nearly one-fifth of his money to his own businesses

[320 Years of History]

Sorry, this is a very long OP, even for me. Unfortunately, the topic is complex, so the post has to be long if I'm to have any hope of non-CPAs/non-financial analyst folks following it. It's also very long because this is the level of detail one must be at if one is to even begin credibly and critically evaluating Trump's claims (on the subject matter discussed here) and find out just how much "water they hold." So again, sorry for the length.


Let me start out by saying clearly, none of the transactions noted below is illegal. This post is all about the appearance of impropriety. It's about pointing out the dichotomy between Trump's words and his actions. It's about how Trump misrepresents and downplays his own corrupt seeming acts while at the same time loudly trying to claim corruption on the part of his opponent. This thread is about highlighting Trump's hypocrisy with stuff that simply cannot be made up. Most importantly, it's about what, were I discussing drug dealers, would be called money laundering, and because the goods and transactions involved drugs, the transactions would literally be illegal. That said the sort of "shadiness" isn't uncommon for the real estate (real estate development) industry.

• Suspected Money Laundering in the Residential Real Estate Industry: An Assessment Based Upon Suspicious Activity Report Filing Analysis
  
• MONEY LAUNDERING IN THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY
  
• Tax fraud and shady buildings - OECD Observer
  
• How secretive shell companies shape the U.S. real estate market
  
• Panama Papers And Real Estate: New Push For Old Priorities - Law360

So Trump lent his campaign money, a lot of money. What did he do with it? He spent some $11M of it, some 17% of is funds, to purchase goods and services from Trump businesses in part as follows:

• $420,000 to Mar-a-Lago, the private Florida club
  
• $4.6 million to TAG Air, so he can use his private jets (TAG is Trump's airline)
  
• $5,000 to Eric Trump Winery Manufacturing LLC

Then there's this from last year and reported by the Wall Street Journal:

After making his “Make America Great Again” headwear iconic over the summer, Mr. Trump’s campaign spent more on hats and t-shirts than anything except airfare.

The $678,000 the Trump campaign spent on items listed as hats or “t-shirts/hats” is more than he spent on any line item except airfare — and the airfare was paid to Trump-owned Tag Air. No outside vendor approached the more than $500,000 Mr. Trump’s campaign paid to hat-maker Ace Specialties of Lafayette, La.

The owner of Ace Specialties is Christl Mahfouz, who is a board member of a charitable foundation named for Mr. Trump’s son, Eric.

(Sidebar comment: On the PBS Newshour, I think, I yesterday heard Trump remark, as part of a spiel about American manufacturing, about how hard it was to find a U.S. maker for his campaign slogan hats. Really? Just how hard was it to reach out to a guy who sits on the board of a charity named for Trump's son? Apologies for not being able to find the specific quote...I'll keep looking for it.)​

Trump Greases the Palms of His Friends: The "pot" has the gall to call the "kettle" black!
Really? Trump spent at least $680K greasing the palms of a friend and his son. Really? Yet he wants us to think Hillary Clinton is corrupt when there's no evidence that she greased anyone's palms, least of all her own or her family's and friends', by using the political power of her position as Secretary of State.

Critics alleged that Bill Clinton’s fundraising, which in many cases came from foreign billionaires who have reason to court influence in the United States government, created at the very least the perception of quid-pro-quo corruption, in which big dollar donations to the Clinton Foundation won favorable treatment from Hillary Clinton in her roles as senator and Secretary of State.

This was the argument of a book released last year by conservative writer Peter Schweizer called Clinton Cash, which claimed to have discovered several examples in which big donations from wealthy foreigners led Hillary Clinton to give official favors. Schweizer found no hard evidence of a time when Hillary Clinton changed her opinion on an issue of concern or provided an official favor for a Clinton Foundation donor.​

Based on the Trump Campaign filings with the FEC, the same simply cannot be said of Trump.

Okay...So, let's say the sums involved are small, for in one sense they are...$5K and ~$680K is "chump change" in the context of Presidential campaign spending, but it's not de minimus to the suppliers in question, and that's what makes it a "palm greasing" transaction. More importantly, what matters about it is that it's hardly what one would consider as truly an arm's length transaction. That they aren't arm's length transactions speaks directly to Trump's willingness to use his political situation to benefit his favored friends and family.

I don't know from which company Trump purchased his hats, but I do know there are several options for "Made in America" baseball caps (three linked below). Does his "friend" own all of America's baseball cap producers? Could Trump not have chosen a maker who doesn't have a clear connection with himself, thereby maintaining the arm's length nature of the transaction?

• Union Made in USA: UNIONWEAR
  
• Hats Made in USA - Village Hat Shop
  
• USA Made Caps & Hats | Wholesale Blank Caps & Hats

Isn't the absence of the arm's length principle in the dealings of Congress and the Executive Branch part of the very point Trump and Sen. Sanders have been making throughout the campaign season? How does he then expect us to believe his remonstrations to that effect when there's clear proof he's doing exactly what it is he derides the "establishment" for doing?

Oh, the hypocrisy of Donald J. Trump....


"Funny Money": Loan Money to My Campaign --> Campaign Buys from My Companies
Okay, let's get into the matter of Trump's loans to his campaign. Notice that Trump loans money to his campaign rather than donating money to his campaign. What's the impact of that? Well let's take a look.

• Donations to political campaigns, one's own or anyone else's, are not tax deductible. One may as well have spent the money on a pair of shoes or groceries for the tax deductibility of a donation to a campaign. Indeed, those acts may yield a tax deduction whereas a political donation never does.
  • The impact of this is that one earns money (wages or whatever) and then spends it. One pays taxes on the money earned, the money donated is simply not in one's pocket anymore, and that's that. It's what most people are used to, and it's certainly the circumstance of nearly everyone who contributes to political campaigns.
• One may make an interest free loan to a non-profit organization, in this case one's own political campaign; however, in doing so, one must also impute interest income on the loan and include the imputed interest in one's income.
  • That interest then can be deducted as a charitable contribution since it's not actually collected from the recipient of the loan. It's not exactly "a wash" if the deduction is post-AGI, but it is "a wash" if the deduction is one taken to arrive at AGI. Whether the loan was given by an individual or a business will make the difference in this case because Trump is an individual and the campaign is not a business.
  • The above is relatively straightforward. But here's where it gets complicated and "technical," if you will. Accountants won't have trouble with this, finance types probably won't either. The average person probably hasn't any idea of this stuff, so I'll try to keep it as simple as possible.
    
    (Note: To repeat, none of this is illegal, but it is "shady" given all Trump's "soapboxing" about being self-funding, which to the layman means he's spending his money, funding his campaign, in much the same way you and I would be doing were to donate to it. Had Trump not been "on about" being self-funding, I wouldn't be bringing this up, quite frankly because it wouldn't apply.)
    
    Trump's contributions to his campaign are loans not donations. Trump will not seek repayment of the loans, which, in turn, means the loans will eventually, if they aren't already, become bad debt expense. That means that while he has to impute interest as noted above, Trump also gets to take a deduction for bad debt expense. Why? Because his "contributions" are loans not donations.
    
    Another thing to keep in mind is that Trump's businesses are all privately held. Most of them are LLCs, which means they are treated as "flow through" entities and taxes are paid by the equity partners in the organization. That basically means the accounting happens at the partnership/LLC level, and the net results (gain or loss) flow down to the partners in direct proportion to their equity participation. The other equity owners in Trump Organization, the holding corporation (not an LLC) for all Trump's businesses, are his kids.
    
    For now, just store this in the back of your mind; it's relevance will appear below shortly. Also keep in mind that LLCs/partnerships and very closely held corporations function pretty much as do sole proprietorships, that is, the owners can pretty well "run" any expenses -- down to toothpaste and toilet paper if they want to -- through the business and deduct them as business expenses, be they operating or miscellaneous. (There are myriad legit ways to do so, but it's not hard at all to do so, especially with the great variety of types of businesses Trump Organization owns. In super closely held entities like Trump's, doing so basically comes down to cash flow not actual income, which may well explain why Trump was for his campaign begging for $100K in "emergency" funding recently.)
    
    So what does all this mean?
    
    • Donald Trump loans money (let's just call it $100 for simplicity's sake) to the campaign (DTFP).
      • Pre-AGI tax deduction = $100 for bad debt expense
        Had you and I donated $100 to DTFP, we get no tax deduction. It's just our hard earned money that we spent.
        Now up the $100 to $55M. Quite a nice deduction for something that to everyone else isn't deductible at all, hugh? Don't forget that the $55M expenditure is one he is predisposed to making anyway just as most Americans are predisposed to spending money on their summer vacations, car maintenance, food, political campaign donation, or whatever, but those are expenditure for which they don't get a deduction for making.
    • DTFP spends $10 to buy "whatever" from XYZ Trump-owned LLC (it doesn't matter for this illustration which one).
      • XYZ records $10 in sales and some share of that flows to Trump Organization, and thereby to his family members via their ownership in Trump Organization. For Trump himself, he avoids the gift tax. (Remember, LLCs don't pay taxes directly, their income/loss flows to the owners/partners, and taxes are then paid by them, not the LLC itself.)
      • Trump Organization receives the profit from the LLC. It can then distribute the gains as returns of equity (dividends) rather than as wages. This, for folks in Trump's, including himself, and his kids' income bracket, avoids the double taxation of corporate income and sets the tax rate on the money received at the capital gains rate (likely 20%) rather than at their nominal income tax rate (39.5%).
        
        (Indeed, Trump Organization, because it is 100% family owned, can, unlike public corporations that are widely held, run continual net operating losses and suffer no real consequences for doing so, but that's a topic for another time.)
      • For Trump himself, if the money he earned was ordinary income, he'd initially be taxed on it at his marginal rate of 39.5%. Since he's gotten the deduction noted above, he's instead got a deduction, i.e., not taxed on that money. Yet part of it comes back to him via his use of it to buy stuff from himself, which is indeed income, but it's income that's taxed at 20%.

So there's the net result for Trump and his kids of just what seem like simple transactions:

• Trump gets a $55M deduction and a gift tax deduction.
• His kids get income that's taxed at a far lower rate than their nominal tax rate.

If you've read the details above, you may now be asking, "So what?"

• The "so what" is that Trump is claiming to be self funding, which in manner of speaking he is and to the extent he is, I'm not saying he isn't, but the reality is that while he's telling us he's spent $55M of his own money, he's actually "spent" less than that, a lot less. I doubt that much you'll see in the press and in blogs will go into the details as I have above. The linked article in the preceding sentence, for example, doesn't. I just provided all that so you'd understand at least some of the "hanky panky" (not illegality...it doesn't become illegal until and unless Trump himself makes a profit, which is all but impossible for anyone but the FEC and IRS to determine whether, after all is said and done with the election, he has).
• The "so what" is the appearance of impropriety that exists in the way Trump is funneling money through his campaign back to himself and getting a huge tax deduction in the process.
• The "so what" is that Trump makes claims of financial "corruption" by Mrs. Clinton when, in contrast to her Foundation's activities which are very public, there's almost no way for anyone other than the IRS and the FEC to determine whether there is anything unsavory going on with Trump's own finances. He won't even release tax returns from years not under audit, when his opponent has released some 30+ years of them. (What her speech transcripts have to do with his tax return release is this: nothing. She's already released her tax returns. Why should she release her speech texts in exchange for his tax returns? She can release them in exchange for something else, perhaps the tax returns of Trump Organization (TO), the details of which, as a corporation, would not be included in the content of Trump's personal tax returns beyond the itemization of the dividends received, equity transactions and loans (if any) with TO.)

Will Trumpeteers "get" the above? I don't know. I can only hope that by reading it, and examining the content at the links I provided, they'll at least objectively evaluate the integrity of Trump and his claims. I don't expect some sort o "overnight" transformation, but hopefully this post will inspire a bit more critical analysis and objective circumspection.

It's precisely the sort of examination of the details of Trump's remarks and deeds I had to pursue, but pursue them I did because I won't vote for the man/woman who prevaricates and lies more than every other person in the race. Integrity is what I consider most important, and the easiest way to demonstrate that is for a candidate to be open and straightforwardly candid, not "spinning" if you will, re: their dealings. I don't have to like what they do, but I do need to know that what they say, and what they say they're doing, is true. I need to know that I can count on what they say long after they've said it.

• Trump often says, "People say such and such." Who are these people? Why doesn't he name them?
  
• CDZ - You think Trump's claim that the GOP process is "rigged" eh?
  
• CDZ - As if anyone needs more evidence that Trump cannot be relied upon....transsexuals and bathrooms
  
• CDZ - Critically reading Trump's foreign policy speech from 27-April-2016
  
• Trump: "I'll fund my own campaign. I'd love to do that."
  
• CDZ - Donald Trump's Tax plan evaluated

Unlike partisan bloggers, editorialists, and party "hacks" (be they private citizens or public commentators), I don't need to make up stuff; I don't even want to. I'm an Independent, not a Rep, Lib, or Dem. I know how to and will look up stuff from objective sources, not my favorite conservative "this" or liberal "that." The will to do that is all I aim to inspire among others.

As I some time back wrote, I was once quite optimistic about a Trump run for President. I had high expectations back then. Sadly, the hype hasn't matched the reality; in fact, it's totally the opposite. Now, in light of the recent news about Trump's money woes, troubles I would have never expected a billionaire self funding candidate to have, I've opted to apply my CPA skills to figure out for myself just "what's what" as goes the money flows. So here I am, and this post is the first result of my inquiry....

 

[Kosh]

Sorry, this is a very long OP, even for me. Unfortunately, the topic is complex, so the post has to be long if I'm to have any hope of non-CPAs/non-financial analyst folks following it. It's also very long because this is the level of detail one must be at if one is to even begin credibly and critically evaluating Trump's claims (on the subject matter discussed here) and find out just how much "water they hold." So again, sorry for the length.


Let me start out by saying clearly, none of the transactions noted below is illegal. This post is all about the appearance of impropriety. It's about pointing out the dichotomy between Trump's words and his actions. It's about how Trump misrepresents and downplays his own corrupt seeming acts while at the same time loudly trying to claim corruption on the part of his opponent. This thread is about highlighting Trump's hypocrisy with stuff that simply cannot be made up. Most importantly, it's about what, were I discussing drug dealers, would be called money laundering, and because the goods and transactions involved drugs, the transactions would literally be illegal. That said the sort of "shadiness" isn't uncommon for the real estate (real estate development) industry.

• Suspected Money Laundering in the Residential Real Estate Industry: An Assessment Based Upon Suspicious Activity Report Filing Analysis
  
• MONEY LAUNDERING IN THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY
  
• Tax fraud and shady buildings - OECD Observer
  
• How secretive shell companies shape the U.S. real estate market
  
• Panama Papers And Real Estate: New Push For Old Priorities - Law360

So Trump lent his campaign money, a lot of money. What did he do with it? He spent some $11M of it, some 17% of is funds, to purchase goods and services from Trump businesses in part as follows:

• $420,000 to Mar-a-Lago, the private Florida club
  
• $4.6 million to TAG Air, so he can use his private jets (TAG is Trump's airline)
  
• $5,000 to Eric Trump Winery Manufacturing LLC

Then there's this from last year and reported by the Wall Street Journal:

After making his “Make America Great Again” headwear iconic over the summer, Mr. Trump’s campaign spent more on hats and t-shirts than anything except airfare.

The $678,000 the Trump campaign spent on items listed as hats or “t-shirts/hats” is more than he spent on any line item except airfare — and the airfare was paid to Trump-owned Tag Air. No outside vendor approached the more than $500,000 Mr. Trump’s campaign paid to hat-maker Ace Specialties of Lafayette, La.

The owner of Ace Specialties is Christl Mahfouz, who is a board member of a charitable foundation named for Mr. Trump’s son, Eric.

(Sidebar comment: On the PBS Newshour, I think, I yesterday heard Trump remark, as part of a spiel about American manufacturing, about how hard it was to find a U.S. maker for his campaign slogan hats. Really? Just how hard was it to reach out to a guy who sits on the board of a charity named for Trump's son? Apologies for not being able to find the specific quote...I'll keep looking for it.)​

Trump Greases the Palms of His Friends: The "pot" has the gall to call the "kettle" black!
Really? Trump spent at least $680K greasing the palms of a friend and his son. Really? Yet he wants us to think Hillary Clinton is corrupt when there's no evidence that she greased anyone's palms, least of all her own or her family's and friends', by using the political power of her position as Secretary of State.

Critics alleged that Bill Clinton’s fundraising, which in many cases came from foreign billionaires who have reason to court influence in the United States government, created at the very least the perception of quid-pro-quo corruption, in which big dollar donations to the Clinton Foundation won favorable treatment from Hillary Clinton in her roles as senator and Secretary of State.

This was the argument of a book released last year by conservative writer Peter Schweizer called Clinton Cash, which claimed to have discovered several examples in which big donations from wealthy foreigners led Hillary Clinton to give official favors. Schweizer found no hard evidence of a time when Hillary Clinton changed her opinion on an issue of concern or provided an official favor for a Clinton Foundation donor.​

Based on the Trump Campaign filings with the FEC, the same simply cannot be said of Trump.

Okay...So, let's say the sums involved are small, for in one sense they are...$5K and ~$680K is "chump change" in the context of Presidential campaign spending, but it's not de minimus to the suppliers in question, and that's what makes it a "palm greasing" transaction. More importantly, what matters about it is that it's hardly what one would consider as truly an arm's length transaction. That they aren't arm's length transactions speaks directly to Trump's willingness to use his political situation to benefit his favored friends and family.

I don't know from which company Trump purchased his hats, but I do know there are several options for "Made in America" baseball caps (three linked below). Does his "friend" own all of America's baseball cap producers? Could Trump not have chosen a maker who doesn't have a clear connection with himself, thereby maintaining the arm's length nature of the transaction?

• Union Made in USA: UNIONWEAR
  
• Hats Made in USA - Village Hat Shop
  
• USA Made Caps & Hats | Wholesale Blank Caps & Hats

Isn't the absence of the arm's length principle in the dealings of Congress and the Executive Branch part of the very point Trump and Sen. Sanders have been making throughout the campaign season? How does he then expect us to believe his remonstrations to that effect when there's clear proof he's doing exactly what it is he derides the "establishment" for doing?

Oh, the hypocrisy of Donald J. Trump....


"Funny Money": Loan Money to My Campaign --> Campaign Buys from My Companies
Okay, let's get into the matter of Trump's loans to his campaign. Notice that Trump loans money to his campaign rather than donating money to his campaign. What's the impact of that? Well let's take a look.

• Donations to political campaigns, one's own or anyone else's, are not tax deductible. One may as well have spent the money on a pair of shoes or groceries for the tax deductibility of a donation to a campaign. Indeed, those acts may yield a tax deduction whereas a political donation never does.
  • The impact of this is that one earns money (wages or whatever) and then spends it. One pays taxes on the money earned, the money donated is simply not in one's pocket anymore, and that's that. It's what most people are used to, and it's certainly the circumstance of nearly everyone who contributes to political campaigns.
• One may make an interest free loan to a non-profit organization, in this case one's own political campaign; however, in doing so, one must also impute interest income on the loan and include the imputed interest in one's income.
  • That interest then can be deducted as a charitable contribution since it's not actually collected from the recipient of the loan. It's not exactly "a wash" if the deduction is post-AGI, but it is "a wash" if the deduction is one taken to arrive at AGI. Whether the loan was given by an individual or a business will make the difference in this case because Trump is an individual and the campaign is not a business.
  • The above is relatively straightforward. But here's where it gets complicated and "technical," if you will. Accountants won't have trouble with this, finance types probably won't either. The average person probably hasn't any idea of this stuff, so I'll try to keep it as simple as possible.
    
    (Note: To repeat, none of this is illegal, but it is "shady" given all Trump's "soapboxing" about being self-funding, which to the layman means he's spending his money, funding his campaign, in much the same way you and I would be doing were to donate to it. Had Trump not been "on about" being self-funding, I wouldn't be bringing this up, quite frankly because it wouldn't apply.)
    
    Trump's contributions to his campaign are loans not donations. Trump will not seek repayment of the loans, which, in turn, means the loans will eventually, if they aren't already, become bad debt expense. That means that while he has to impute interest as noted above, Trump also gets to take a deduction for bad debt expense. Why? Because his "contributions" are loans not donations.
    
    Another thing to keep in mind is that Trump's businesses are all privately held. Most of them are LLCs, which means they are treated as "flow through" entities and taxes are paid by the equity partners in the organization. That basically means the accounting happens at the partnership/LLC level, and the net results (gain or loss) flow down to the partners in direct proportion to their equity participation. The other equity owners in Trump Organization, the holding corporation (not an LLC) for all Trump's businesses, are his kids.
    
    For now, just store this in the back of your mind; it's relevance will appear below shortly. Also keep in mind that LLCs/partnerships and very closely held corporations function pretty much as do sole proprietorships, that is, the owners can pretty well "run" any expenses -- down to toothpaste and toilet paper if they want to -- through the business and deduct them as business expenses, be they operating or miscellaneous. (There are myriad legit ways to do so, but it's not hard at all to do so, especially with the great variety of types of businesses Trump Organization owns. In super closely held entities like Trump's, doing so basically comes down to cash flow not actual income, which may well explain why Trump was for his campaign begging for $100K in "emergency" funding recently.)
    
    So what does all this mean?
    • Donald Trump loans money (let's just call it $100 for simplicity's sake) to the campaign (DTFP).
      • Pre-AGI tax deduction = $100 for bad debt expense
        Had you and I donated $100 to DTFP, we get no tax deduction. It's just our hard earned money that we spent.
        Now up the $100 to $55M. Quite a nice deduction for something that to everyone else isn't deductible at all, hugh? Don't forget that the $55M expenditure is one he is predisposed to making anyway just as most Americans are predisposed to spending money on their summer vacations, car maintenance, food, political campaign donation, or whatever, but those are expenditure for which they don't get a deduction for making.
    • DTFP spends $10 to buy "whatever" from XYZ Trump-owned LLC (it doesn't matter for this illustration which one).
      • XYZ records $10 in sales and some share of that flows to Trump Organization, and thereby to his family members via their ownership in Trump Organization. For Trump himself, he avoids the gift tax. (Remember, LLCs don't pay taxes directly, their income/loss flows to the owners/partners, and taxes are then paid by them, not the LLC itself.)
      • Trump Organization receives the profit from the LLC. It can then distribute the gains as returns of equity (dividends) rather than as wages. This, for folks in Trump's, including himself, and his kids' income bracket, avoids the double taxation of corporate income and sets the tax rate on the money received at the capital gains rate (likely 20%) rather than at their nominal income tax rate (39.5%).
        
        (Indeed, Trump Organization, because it is 100% family owned, can, unlike public corporations that are widely held, run continual net operating losses and suffer no real consequences for doing so, but that's a topic for another time.)
      • For Trump himself, if the money he earned was ordinary income, he'd initially be taxed on it at his marginal rate of 39.5%. Since he's gotten the deduction noted above, he's instead got a deduction, i.e., not taxed on that money. Yet part of it comes back to him via his use of it to buy stuff from himself, which is indeed income, but it's income that's taxed at 20%.

So there's the net result for Trump and his kids of just what seem like simple transactions:

• Trump gets a $55M deduction and a gift tax deduction.
• His kids get income that's taxed at a far lower rate than their nominal tax rate.

If you've read the details above, you may now be asking, "So what?"

• The "so what" is that Trump is claiming to be self funding, which in manner of speaking he is and to the extent he is, I'm not saying he isn't, but the reality is that while he's telling us he's spent $55M of his own money, he's actually "spent" less than that, a lot less. I doubt that much you'll see in the press and in blogs will go into the details as I have above. The linked article in the preceding sentence, for example, doesn't. I just provided all that so you'd understand at least some of the "hanky panky" (not illegality...it doesn't become illegal until and unless Trump himself makes a profit, which is all but impossible for anyone but the FEC and IRS to determine whether, after all is said and done with the election, he has).
• The "so what" is the appearance of impropriety that exists in the way Trump is funneling money through his campaign back to himself and getting a huge tax deduction in the process.
• The "so what" is that Trump makes claims of financial "corruption" by Mrs. Clinton when, in contrast to her Foundation's activities which are very public, there's almost no way for anyone other than the IRS and the FEC to determine whether there is anything unsavory going on with Trump's own finances. He won't even release tax returns from years not under audit, when his opponent has released some 30+ years of them. (What her speech transcripts have to do with his tax return release is this: nothing. She's already released her tax returns. Why should she release her speech texts in exchange for his tax returns? She can release them in exchange for something else, perhaps the tax returns of Trump Organization (TO), the details of which, as a corporation, would not be included in the content of Trump's personal tax returns beyond the itemization of the dividends received, equity transactions and loans (if any) with TO.)

Will Trumpeteers "get" the above? I don't know. I can only hope that by reading it, and examining the content at the links I provided, they'll at least objectively evaluate the integrity of Trump and his claims. I don't expect some sort o "overnight" transformation, but hopefully this post will inspire a bit more critical analysis and objective circumspection.

It's precisely the sort of examination of the details of Trump's remarks and deeds I had to pursue, but pursue them I did because I won't vote for the man/woman who prevaricates and lies more than every other person in the race. Integrity is what I consider most important, and the easiest way to demonstrate that is for a candidate to be open and straightforwardly candid, not "spinning" if you will, re: their dealings. I don't have to like what they do, but I do need to know that what they say, and what they say they're doing, is true. I need to know that I can count on what they say long after they've said it.

• Trump often says, "People say such and such." Who are these people? Why doesn't he name them?
  
• CDZ - You think Trump's claim that the GOP process is "rigged" eh?
  
• CDZ - As if anyone needs more evidence that Trump cannot be relied upon....transsexuals and bathrooms
  
• CDZ - Critically reading Trump's foreign policy speech from 27-April-2016
  
• Trump: "I'll fund my own campaign. I'd love to do that."
  
• CDZ - Donald Trump's Tax plan evaluated

Unlike partisan bloggers, editorialists, and party "hacks" (be they private citizens or public commentators), I don't need to make up stuff; I don't even want to. I'm an Independent, not a Rep, Lib, or Dem. I know how to and will look up stuff from objective sources, not my favorite conservative "this" or liberal "that." The will to do that is all I aim to inspire among others.

As I some time back wrote, I was once quite optimistic about a Trump run for President. I had high expectations back then. Sadly, the hype hasn't matched the reality; in fact, it's totally the opposite. Now, in light of the recent news about Trump's money woes, troubles I would have never expected a billionaire self funding candidate to have, I've opted to apply my CPA skills to figure out for myself just "what's what" as goes the money flows. So here I am, and this post is the first result of my inquiry....

Well it is not illegal..

And Trump I snot claiming to run a non-profit that only uses 10% of it's money for what they claim..

Both are scum, just that Hilary is much worse..

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump I snot claiming to run a non-profit that only uses 10% of it's money for what they claim..

Can you explain and substantiate the remark above please? What has it to do with anything I wrote? Does it have to do with any claims Trump has made? ...because what the OP does is consider claims Trump has made, not claims he has not made, not claims someone else made.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump pays his own airfare

Wow

 

[320 Years of History]

CrusaderFrank, what precisely is funny about the content of the OP in this thread?

 

[Tresha91203]

Why would I pay a charter service to fly me around when I can use my own? Why would I spend my money (not taxpayer money) on catering at a competitor of mine rather than my own restaurant? Why would I buy Dom Perignon for my events when my son has a winery? As long as he was self funding primarily, why should he not be able to choose who he prefers to do business with?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CrusaderFrank, what precisely is funny about the content of the OP in this thread?

It's a complete waste, I pity the electrons killed in making the OP. It's rambling, incoherent, vapid and boring

 

[tinydancer]

Well synonyms for corrupt include illegal, criminal and unlawful. So by calling him corrupt or his actions corrupt you are still calling Trump a criminal.

 

[Agit8r]

At the beginning of what appeared to be a joke run for the presidency, I said it was all a marketing gimmick.

So, I guess I "called it!"

 

[320 Years of History]

Well synonyms for corrupt include illegal, criminal and unlawful. So by calling him corrupt or his actions corrupt you are still calling Trump a criminal.

Do not put words in my mouth. I have more than enough of them on my own without your contributions.

No, actually, I'm not. All that is illegal is also corrupt. All that is corrupt is not necessarily illegal. I expressly went out of my way to note that none of what I described is illegal and that the whole point of the post has to do with the appearance of impropriety, not with illegality. Has Trump performed illegal transactions? I don't know, which is precisely why I have refrained from calling anything I noted illegal.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why would I pay a charter service to fly me around when I can use my own? Why would I spend my money (not taxpayer money) on catering at a competitor of mine rather than my own restaurant? Why would I buy Dom Perignon for my events when my son has a winery? As long as he was self funding primarily, why should he not be able to choose who he prefers to do business with?

Well, given the tone of your post, I'd have to say the answer is you would do as Trump is doing because you have little to no sense of integrity, don't understand the optics of your actions, and because you are fine with nepotism.

 

[Tresha91203]

Why would I pay a charter service to fly me around when I can use my own? Why would I spend my money (not taxpayer money) on catering at a competitor of mine rather than my own restaurant? Why would I buy Dom Perignon for my events when my son has a winery? As long as he was self funding primarily, why should he not be able to choose who he prefers to do business with?

Well, given the tone of your post, I'd have to say the answer is you would do as Trump is doing because you have little to no sense of integrity, don't understand the optics of your actions, and because you are fine with nepotism.

I do have integrity. There is nothing wrong with buying food from your own restaurant to feed your guests. There is nothing wrong with flying in your own plane rather than another's. I worked my dad's campaigns. Is that unethical?

Would you mind explaining to me the problem with buying your son's wine over some other vineyard's. He's spending his own money, not mine.

I find the dynasties to be a better example of nepotism, personally. Trump runs a family business. Why would he seek outside services when he has high quality service in-house. Why do you feel it is improper ... or is it the appearance of impropriety that you are concerned about? It just does not seem improper to me. It seems like common sense.

 

[jasonnfree]

Why would I pay a charter service to fly me around when I can use my own? Why would I spend my money (not taxpayer money) on catering at a competitor of mine rather than my own restaurant? Why would I buy Dom Perignon for my events when my son has a winery? As long as he was self funding primarily, why should he not be able to choose who he prefers to do business with?

Well, given the tone of your post, I'd have to say the answer is you would do as Trump is doing because you have little to no sense of integrity, don't understand the optics of your actions, and because you are fine with nepotism.

So we now have two candidates who are not pure as the driven snow. Which one is better. The one who will continue flooding the country with the third world's needy and often violent illegals and refugees, like her predecessor obama, or this man Trump, who will put a screeching halt to it? Then there's the incompetence problem. Hillary doesn't know how to handle government emai, even though she read and signed the email protocol.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why would I pay a charter service to fly me around when I can use my own? Why would I spend my money (not taxpayer money) on catering at a competitor of mine rather than my own restaurant? Why would I buy Dom Perignon for my events when my son has a winery? As long as he was self funding primarily, why should he not be able to choose who he prefers to do business with?

Well, given the tone of your post, I'd have to say the answer is you would do as Trump is doing because you have little to no sense of integrity, don't understand the optics of your actions, and because you are fine with nepotism.

I do have integrity. There is nothing wrong with buying food from your own restaurant to feed your guests. There is nothing wrong with flying in your own plane rather than another's. I worked my dad's campaigns. Is that unethical?

Would you mind explaining to me the problem with buying your son's wine over some other vineyard's. He's spending his own money, not mine.

I find the dynasties to be a better example of nepotism, personally. Trump runs a family business. Why would he seek outside services when he has high quality service in-house. Why do you feel it is improper ... or is it the appearance of impropriety that you are concerned about? It just does not seem improper to me. It seems like common sense.

Okay. Fine. I can see that of all the things I wrote about in the OP, the only one you seem of a mind to take exception with is that I mentioned that Trump greased the palm of his son. I can tell that because it's the only thing you are discussing. So, I will infer from that being your sole point of contention that you take no exception with anything else. Fine. Thank you for your remarks. L8R on you.

 

[Tresha91203]

Why would I pay a charter service to fly me around when I can use my own? Why would I spend my money (not taxpayer money) on catering at a competitor of mine rather than my own restaurant? Why would I buy Dom Perignon for my events when my son has a winery? As long as he was self funding primarily, why should he not be able to choose who he prefers to do business with?

Well, given the tone of your post, I'd have to say the answer is you would do as Trump is doing because you have little to no sense of integrity, don't understand the optics of your actions, and because you are fine with nepotism.

I do have integrity. There is nothing wrong with buying food from your own restaurant to feed your guests. There is nothing wrong with flying in your own plane rather than another's. I worked my dad's campaigns. Is that unethical?

Would you mind explaining to me the problem with buying your son's wine over some other vineyard's. He's spending his own money, not mine.

I find the dynasties to be a better example of nepotism, personally. Trump runs a family business. Why would he seek outside services when he has high quality service in-house. Why do you feel it is improper ... or is it the appearance of impropriety that you are concerned about? It just does not seem improper to me. It seems like common sense.

Okay. Fine. I can see that of all the things I wrote about in the OP, the only one you seem of a mind to take exception with is that I mentioned that Trump greased the palm of his son. I can tell that because it's the only thing you are discussing. So, I will infer from that being your sole point of contention that you take no exception with anything else. Fine. Thank you for your remarks. L8R on you.

He is spending his money on goods and services. Many of those goods and services are ones he and his family actually provide for a living. Why would he send his personal business, spending his own money, to a competitor?

I also mentioned his air travel and restaurant/catering. I also asked you several questions that you ignored. Your word play (greasing palms) is ridiculous. He bought goods and services from his own businesses with his own money rather than some other company. Do you think he is trying to buy his son's vote?

Loaning your campaign money is common. If the candidate loses, it is customary for the winner to pay the loser's campaign debts. It is quite common to not pay back your own loans. Trump is not doing anything corrupt (in this, at least) or illegal.

Please explain to me what reason any candidate who owns an airline would have to charter some other company's jets. What purpose would it serve to have company x cater your event when you own multiple facilities that cater? It is his money! Why is it corrupt to spend it wisely?

 

[320 Years of History]

He is spending his money on goods and services.

Clearly, you missed the points. Please, just take the time to carefully read the whole post, and at least peruse the content at the links, from beginning to end. Treat it like it's part of a class in accounting and professional ethics. I know it'll take some time, but I'm not in a rush for a response, but I do welcome high quality responses that speak to the topic as a whole and provides specific examples to support the points you make in addressing the overall theme of my OP, or any other post.

If you don't understand what "appearance of impropriety" is all about, which may be the case if you haven't had to work in a field/firm that has a strong code of professional ethics to which you had to adhere, this may help:

• "Perception of Impropriety" | CityEthics.org -- This is a discussion of professional ethics.
  
• Conflicts of Interest: the appearance of impropriety - Center for Inquiry
  
• Dorf on Law: The Appearance of Impropriety and Partiality
• Appearance of the Impropriety, Recusal, and the Segars-Andrews Case -- I've listed this document solely because it explains one of the reasons why lawyers seem so damn shady....it points out that lawyers are not held to the "appearance" standard (as are accountants, politicians, and business people) but rather to the "actual breaking of a law" standard, which is a much lower standard.
  
• AICPA Code of Professional Conduct -- This is the code of ethics to which CPAs are held. It's among the most rigorous sets of standards in business. Depending on the firm to which one belongs, the standards may be even higher. "Objectivity and independence principle. A member should maintain objectivity and be free of conflicts of interest in discharging professional responsibilities. A member in public practice should be independent in fact and appearance."
  
• Management Consulting Code of Ethics-- This is just a baseline. Most firms, at least large ones, have considerably more rigid standards. Those that are attached to an accounting firm require all professionals to adhere to the standards for the CPAs in the firm. (This is a supplementary document that aims to provide a bit more detail: Principles of Ethical Consulting.)
• Chevron's code of ethics
• Hershey's code of ethics -- "Conflicts of interest arise in many different forms. In general, a “conflict of interest” occurs when a personal or family interest interferes with our ability to make sound, objective business decisions on behalf of our Company. We need to avoid any situation that might put us in such a position or create even the appearance of bias."
• Federal Government Code of Ethics -- This, along with other governmental codes of ethics are the most stringent because they rise to the level of breaches being legally enforceable as well as (often) career ending, although some elected officials can be re-elected after serving their time/paying their fine if they are jailed/fined for their breach(s). (That depends on their constituents.)

There are multiple ways it can be said, at the end of the day, professionals consistently and routinely go out of their way, if they have any true degree of integrity, to avoid the "appearance of impropriety," no matter how it's manifested...via bias, via patronage, via favorable contracting arrangements, etc. The way to do that is to keep transactions at arm's length. That's why I put a link on "arm's length" in my OP.

Of all the things that OP is about, the mere fact that he's using his own plane, his own hotels, etc. is, by itself, only part of the problem, and from where I sit, it's, by itself, currently the least of the problems. The problem, the central and key points of the OP, and what gives rise to the appearance of impropriety, is that he's doing it in such a way as to:

• generate profit for his own companies for what is his personal use of the company resources, and
• get a tax deduction for doing so, and
• use his "contributions" to a political campaign to generate tax deductions when anyone else's contributions to his campaign do not afford them tax deductions, and
• direct profit making transactions from his campaign to his friends and family rather than to disinterested third parties with whom the transaction would merely be an arm's length business transaction.

The matter of Trump directing campaign expenditures to family members comes squarely into play not now, because right now Trump isn't an elected official, but it will if he becomes President. His behavior now just portends of the kinds of unethical, perhaps even illegal, things we can reasonably foresee** that he may try to do on the sly, just as we see him now getting tax deductions "on the sly" for what for everyone else would be a non-deductible transaction. How so? Elected officials may not "appoint, employ, promote, [or] advance" their family members.

Trump has been been attempting to pin Mrs. Clinton with a "conflict of interest" pallor concerning her political position as SecState and the Clinton Foundation, namely using that position to direct third-party contributions to a non-profit organization that her husband runs in return for favoritism at State. (Perhaps he's implying the same re: her tenure in the Senate. I don't know.)

With Trump, the appearance of conflict is similar, and it's manifest even before he's assumed a position even higher than that of SecState. He's using his political position as candidate to direct his campaign, not himself personally, to buy wine from his son. Were his spending with his son and friends to have come from his pocket and not that of his campaign, I'd have nothing to say about it. Additionally, part of the issue I have with what I'm seeing comes from the distinction between what one can "get by" with doing in the private sector and on a low level vs. what is absolutely not acceptable, or appears shady, in the public sector.

So if Trump's President, does he then direct the White House to buy his son's wine? Will he go on a Presidential visit to NYC and have his entourage stay at Trump hotels? Are we going to have to listen to four years of wrangling over the technicalities of how what he did "here or there" wasn't unethical/illegal? Technicalities that are vastly more detailed than what I went into in my OP....Do we really need to be concerned enough about his potential for "shadiness" in that regard that whom he chooses for VP becomes a matter of paramount importance? I mean really. Trump's "unfavorables" aren't at 70% because voters trust and regard him as being of the highest of ethical fiber, as being the most reliable guy on the block.

So the whole point of the OP is to illustrate a few ways, albeit high dollar ones, in which Trump has shown us that he'll go through the contortions needed to technically not do something illegal, but that he's keen walk a very thin line between what is legal and what at the very least appears to be unethical. Stuff/deeds that absent a very strong understanding of the minutia of the law and a strong sense of ethics, isn't going to be evident to a great many people. Stuff/deeds that will almost certainly lead to nothing but controversy. Stuff that will be made to look like "someone's out to get him" (we've already seen his willingness to "cry wolf" and whatnot) and that the intransigent party hacks will have no better sense and no desire to examine closely and objectively. (Nevermind that if Trump wins, we'll have a sitting President embroiled in a civil lawsuit given that Judge Curiel ruled to Trump's advantage to delay the case's start until after the 2016 election.)

Hell, in just one year, Trump has managed to tell more outright falsehoods and fabrications than have Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama in the entirety of their political careers. (Check each of their files on Politifact.) Even the speech Trump delivered yesterday was factually incorrect in most cases. (The link goes to CNN. Fox isn't even as generous as CNN is.)

So tell me, do you really want four years of that crap? Haven't you already had enough of it? I know that Mrs. Clinton has had to fend off her share of scandal too. That said, in her 30+ years of public life, as far as I know, of no instances of actual, punishable wrongdoing has she been found guilty. In contrast, we only have the past year of Trump in a public capacity (politically), and what have we gotten from him, a swarm of false claims and innuendos. I'm sorry, but I really don't have any desire to daily put up with that from both the Congress and the White House for another four years.


**Note:
"Reasonably foresee" meaning that if/when such things happen, one has no basis for saying, "Oh, my God! How could he have done such a thing?" The writing was on the wall and voters chose to ignore it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, the topic isn’t complex at all.

Trump is engaging in practices which although not illegal, are nonetheless causing donors to question the merits of donating to Trump at all, particularly where their money will be used not to win the election but to enrich Trump’s businesses.

This is also yet another example of Trump the incompetent amateur, clueless as how to run a presidential campaign, where as a consequence of that incompetence Trump is scaring off donors he needs to win the election.

 

[320 Years of History]

Actually, the topic isn’t complex at all.

Trump is engaging in practices which although not illegal, are nonetheless causing donors to question the merits of donating to Trump at all, particularly where their money will be used not to win the election but to enrich Trump’s businesses.

This is also yet another example of Trump the incompetent amateur, clueless as how to run a presidential campaign, where as a consequence of that incompetence Trump is scaring off donors he needs to win the election.

The topic, as you say, isn't really so complex, but for folks who'll insist on the details that lead to the "boiled down" summary you've provided above, sifting through those details is what I think, for the "regular guy," is a lot complexity.

Complex or not, I don't really care. What's important is that people see the machinations that result in Trump using campaign funds to some end other than simply winning the election. As you can see reading the thread, few folks are able or willing to do that.

 

[Tresha91203]

He is spending his money on goods and services.

Clearly, you missed the points. Please, just take the time to carefully read the whole post, and at least peruse the content at the links, from beginning to end. Treat it like it's part of a class in accounting and professional ethics. I know it'll take some time, but I'm not in a rush for a response, but I do welcome high quality responses that speak to the topic as a whole and provides specific examples to support the points you make in addressing the overall theme of my OP, or any other post.

If you don't understand what "appearance of impropriety" is all about, which may be the case if you haven't had to work in a field/firm that has a strong code of professional ethics to which you had to adhere, this may help:

• "Perception of Impropriety" | CityEthics.org -- This is a discussion of professional ethics.
  
• Conflicts of Interest: the appearance of impropriety - Center for Inquiry
  
• Dorf on Law: The Appearance of Impropriety and Partiality
• Appearance of the Impropriety, Recusal, and the Segars-Andrews Case -- I've listed this document solely because it explains one of the reasons why lawyers seem so damn shady....it points out that lawyers are not held to the "appearance" standard (as are accountants, politicians, and business people) but rather to the "actual breaking of a law" standard, which is a much lower standard.
  
• AICPA Code of Professional Conduct -- This is the code of ethics to which CPAs are held. It's among the most rigorous sets of standards in business. Depending on the firm to which one belongs, the standards may be even higher. "Objectivity and independence principle. A member should maintain objectivity and be free of conflicts of interest in discharging professional responsibilities. A member in public practice should be independent in fact and appearance."
  
• Management Consulting Code of Ethics-- This is just a baseline. Most firms, at least large ones, have considerably more rigid standards. Those that are attached to an accounting firm require all professionals to adhere to the standards for the CPAs in the firm. (This is a supplementary document that aims to provide a bit more detail: Principles of Ethical Consulting.)
• Chevron's code of ethics
• Hershey's code of ethics -- "Conflicts of interest arise in many different forms. In general, a “conflict of interest” occurs when a personal or family interest interferes with our ability to make sound, objective business decisions on behalf of our Company. We need to avoid any situation that might put us in such a position or create even the appearance of bias."
• Federal Government Code of Ethics -- This, along with other governmental codes of ethics are the most stringent because they rise to the level of breaches being legally enforceable as well as (often) career ending, although some elected officials can be re-elected after serving their time/paying their fine if they are jailed/fined for their breach(s). (That depends on their constituents.)

There are multiple ways it can be said, at the end of the day, professionals consistently and routinely go out of their way, if they have any true degree of integrity, to avoid the "appearance of impropriety," no matter how it's manifested...via bias, via patronage, via favorable contracting arrangements, etc. The way to do that is to keep transactions at arm's length. That's why I put a link on "arm's length" in my OP.

Of all the things that OP is about, the mere fact that he's using his own plane, his own hotels, etc. is, by itself, only part of the problem, and from where I sit, it's, by itself, currently the least of the problems. The problem, the central and key points of the OP, and what gives rise to the appearance of impropriety, is that he's doing it in such a way as to:

• generate profit for his own companies for what is his personal use of the company resources, and
• get a tax deduction for doing so, and
• use his "contributions" to a political campaign to generate tax deductions when anyone else's contributions to his campaign do not afford them tax deductions, and
• direct profit making transactions from his campaign to his friends and family rather than to disinterested third parties with whom the transaction would merely be an arm's length business transaction.

The matter of Trump directing campaign expenditures to family members comes squarely into play not now, because right now Trump isn't an elected official, but it will if he becomes President. His behavior now just portends of the kinds of unethical, perhaps even illegal, things we can reasonably foresee** that he may try to do on the sly, just as we see him now getting tax deductions "on the sly" for what for everyone else would be a non-deductible transaction. How so? Elected officials may not "appoint, employ, promote, [or] advance" their family members.

Trump has been been attempting to pin Mrs. Clinton with a "conflict of interest" pallor concerning her political position as SecState and the Clinton Foundation, namely using that position to direct third-party contributions to a non-profit organization that her husband runs in return for favoritism at State. (Perhaps he's implying the same re: her tenure in the Senate. I don't know.)

With Trump, the appearance of conflict is similar, and it's manifest even before he's assumed a position even higher than that of SecState. He's using his political position as candidate to direct his campaign, not himself personally, to buy wine from his son. Were his spending with his son and friends to have come from his pocket and not that of his campaign, I'd have nothing to say about it. Additionally, part of the issue I have with what I'm seeing comes from the distinction between what one can "get by" with doing in the private sector and on a low level vs. what is absolutely not acceptable, or appears shady, in the public sector.

So if Trump's President, does he then direct the White House to buy his son's wine? Will he go on a Presidential visit to NYC and have his entourage stay at Trump hotels? Are we going to have to listen to four years of wrangling over the technicalities of how what he did "here or there" wasn't unethical/illegal? Technicalities that are vastly more detailed than what I went into in my OP....Do we really need to be concerned enough about his potential for "shadiness" in that regard that whom he chooses for VP becomes a matter of paramount importance? I mean really. Trump's "unfavorables" aren't at 70% because voters trust and regard him as being of the highest of ethical fiber, as being the most reliable guy on the block.

So the whole point of the OP is to illustrate a few ways, albeit high dollar ones, in which Trump has shown us that he'll go through the contortions needed to technically not do something illegal, but that he's keen walk a very thin line between what is legal and what at the very least appears to be unethical. Stuff/deeds that absent a very strong understanding of the minutia of the law and a strong sense of ethics, isn't going to be evident to a great many people. Stuff/deeds that will almost certainly lead to nothing but controversy. Stuff that will be made to look like "someone's out to get him" (we've already seen his willingness to "cry wolf" and whatnot) and that the intransigent party hacks will have no better sense and no desire to examine closely and objectively. (Nevermind that if Trump wins, we'll have a sitting President embroiled in a civil lawsuit given that Judge Curiel ruled to Trump's advantage to delay the case's start until after the 2016 election.)

Hell, in just one year, Trump has managed to tell more outright falsehoods and fabrications than have Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama in the entirety of their political careers. (Check each of their files on Politifact.) Even the speech Trump delivered yesterday was factually incorrect in most cases. (The link goes to CNN. Fox isn't even as generous as CNN is.)

So tell me, do you really want four years of that crap? Haven't you already had enough of it? I know that Mrs. Clinton has had to fend off her share of scandal too. That said, in her 30+ years of public life, as far as I know, of no instances of actual, punishable wrongdoing has she been found guilty. In contrast, we only have the past year of Trump in a public capacity (politically), and what have we gotten from him, a swarm of false claims and innuendos. I'm sorry, but I really don't have any desire to daily put up with that from both the Congress and the White House for another four years.


**Note:
"Reasonably foresee" meaning that if/when such things happen, one has no basis for saying, "Oh, my God! How could he have done such a thing?" The writing was on the wall and voters chose to ignore it.

I understand the appearance of impropriety very well. My dad is a judge. If Trump was spending taxpayer money, I'd agree with you. There is nothing improper in buying from your own LLC or family IMO.

If one is really concerned about the appearance of impropriety, I can point to a slew of HRC's "corruptions." She actually broke the law with her server, whether she intended or not, whether others did the same or not. She is an actual example of nepotism. You even seem to acknowledge how close to the line she skates but are concerned that Trump might do the same if elected.

It is practical for Trump to use his family businesses while campaigning in the primary as he was self financing. It stretches the dollars. It is not illegal or unethical. He is up front about it, not "shady." Why is it better for him to spend his money at the Ritz rather than his own hotel?

Our options this cycle are beyond embarassing. I am no fan of Trump, but Sec Clinton has proven to be corrupt, incompetent or both. I'm not understanding how you say she hasn't been found guilty so she's good, but he is unethical though you admit he hasn't broken any laws. She's under criminal investigation by the FBI, but he should worry about the appearance of impropriety? Is there some reason you think she will suddenly become ethical? Do you think he will be even more unethical than she has proven to be? We get to choose between corrupt and likely corrupt. -sigh-

 

[320 Years of History]

There is nothing improper in buying from your own LLC or family IMO.

There isn't. What has the appearance of impropriety is making another do so by using one's own influence to effect as much.

She actually broke the law with her server, whether she intended or not, whether others did the same or not.

Sec Clinton has proven to be corrupt, incompetent or both.

She's under criminal investigation by the FBI

The FBI that is investigating the server matter hasn't seen fit to think so; they've neither arrested her nor has any prosecutor brought charges against her for her use of a personal email server. Ditto her actions as Senator or SecState.

You're a judge's kid. I should think you understand well the difference between under investigation, under arrest, or facing charges, to say nothing of the principle of innocent until proven guilty.