Report: Trump’s Sons Behind Nonprofit Selling Access To President-Elect For Millions

[BULLDOG]

New Texas-based group not legally required to disclose its donors

A new Texas nonprofit led by Donald Trump’s grown sons is offering access to the freshly-minted president during inauguration weekend — all in exchange for million-dollar donations to unnamed “conservation” charities, according to interviews and documents reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity.

And the donors’ identities may never be known.

Prospective million-dollar donors to the “Opening Day 2017” event — slated for Jan. 21, the day after inauguration, at Washington, D.C.’s Walter E. Washington Convention Center — receive a “private reception and photo opportunity for 16 guests with President Donald J. Trump,” a “multi-day hunting and/or fishing excursion for 4 guests with Donald Trump, Jr. and/or Eric Trump, and team,” as well as tickets to other events and “autographed guitars by an Opening Day 2017 performer.”

Website TMZ.com first published a brochure hyping the happening. The brochure says that “all net proceeds from the Opening Day event will be donated to conservation charities,” but it does not name the charities or detail how net proceeds will be calculated.

Who’s behind the get-together?

More: Report: Trump’s Sons Behind Nonprofit Selling Access To President-Elect For Millions

Wow, talk about pay for play! Why is Trump almost always guilty of whatever he claims about others? He is a master of projection - which not a praiseworthy human trait.

When did you decide you were against selling access. The Clinton's were masters and the left loved it so much it followed Clinton into her campaign. Look who Obama rewarded after his elections. Solyndra is a prime example. Why is this now bad?

Still can't let that old Solyndra whining point go, even after it has been shown to be bullshit so many times. Yes, Solyndra went broke, just as a large percentage of new businesses do, but the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers. That's a pretty good deal, and it makes your worn out whining point silly.

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

Link?

Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

^
^
Your claim.........


The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years.

^
^
^
Your link.

Let's see if you can figure out your error........

No error. Pay back periods are commonly over a several year period.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's a good thing the Republicans took the House in 2010.
He'd have added $15 trillion if they hadn't stopped him.

So you're finally admitting that we are, and have been, making great strides getting our finances in order after your republican president crashed the economy. That's good.

Yes, a sure sign that Obama got our finances is order is a $9 trillion increase in the debt. DERP!

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending. Sorry if he didn't clean up your mess as fast as you wanted.

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending.

He spent much, much more than Bush. How can you claim that was an improvement?

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired. The much larger part of Obama's spending is based on debt that was acquired before he was president.

Isn't that strange how it's never his fault?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When did you decide you were against selling access. The Clinton's were masters and the left loved it so much it followed Clinton into her campaign. Look who Obama rewarded after his elections. Solyndra is a prime example. Why is this now bad?

Still can't let that old Solyndra whining point go, even after it has been shown to be bullshit so many times. Yes, Solyndra went broke, just as a large percentage of new businesses do, but the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers. That's a pretty good deal, and it makes your worn out whining point silly.

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

Link?

Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

^
^
Your claim.........


The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years.

^
^
^
Your link.

Let's see if you can figure out your error........

No error. Pay back periods are commonly over a several year period.

You claimed it made a profit already. Reality is that maybe, in 20 or more years, the lent money MIGHT be repaid and a profit earned. Maybe. Based on government projections. Maybe.

You realize how ridiculous your claim was now? DERP!

 

[BULLDOG]

So you're finally admitting that we are, and have been, making great strides getting our finances in order after your republican president crashed the economy. That's good.

Yes, a sure sign that Obama got our finances is order is a $9 trillion increase in the debt. DERP!

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending. Sorry if he didn't clean up your mess as fast as you wanted.

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending.

He spent much, much more than Bush. How can you claim that was an improvement?

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired. The much larger part of Obama's spending is based on debt that was acquired before he was president.

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired.

I could explain how wrong you are, but based on your weak math skills, it'd be a waste of time.

I do pretty good with my plusses and minuses, and my timesing ain't bad. Please explain.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you're finally admitting that we are, and have been, making great strides getting our finances in order after your republican president crashed the economy. That's good.

Yes, a sure sign that Obama got our finances is order is a $9 trillion increase in the debt. DERP!

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending. Sorry if he didn't clean up your mess as fast as you wanted.

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending.

He spent much, much more than Bush. How can you claim that was an improvement?

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired. The much larger part of Obama's spending is based on debt that was acquired before he was president.

Isn't that strange how it's never his fault?

Only if you are intent on blaming him for everything, no matter what the facts say.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

True, but the deficit had a steady decline

Yeah, added $9 trillion in 8 years. Good thing he made it decline so much.

Yes, it is good that he did. Imagine what the debt would have been if he had maintained the republican levels.

It's a good thing the Republicans took the House in 2010.
He'd have added $15 trillion if they hadn't stopped him.

So you're finally admitting that we are, and have been, making great strides getting our finances in order after your republican president crashed the economy. That's good.

Yes, a sure sign that Obama got our finances is order is a $9 trillion increase in the debt. DERP!

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending. Sorry if he didn't clean up your mess as fast as you wanted.

The biggest fight between the Republican Congress and DumBama was spending: DumBama wanted to spend more and the Republicans less. That's what led to the government shutdown, that's what led to the sequester, that's what led to the US losing our three star credit rating for the first time in history.

He didn't change the Republicans, Republicans changed him. The US Congress has our checkbook--not the President. You should educate yourself more on our government structure.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, a sure sign that Obama got our finances is order is a $9 trillion increase in the debt. DERP!

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending. Sorry if he didn't clean up your mess as fast as you wanted.

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending.

He spent much, much more than Bush. How can you claim that was an improvement?

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired. The much larger part of Obama's spending is based on debt that was acquired before he was president.

Isn't that strange how it's never his fault?

Only if you are intent on blaming him for everything, no matter what the facts say.

Would you like me to post the FactCheck link? I have it right here!

 

[BULLDOG]

New Texas-based group not legally required to disclose its donors

A new Texas nonprofit led by Donald Trump’s grown sons is offering access to the freshly-minted president during inauguration weekend — all in exchange for million-dollar donations to unnamed “conservation” charities, according to interviews and documents reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity.

And the donors’ identities may never be known.

Prospective million-dollar donors to the “Opening Day 2017” event — slated for Jan. 21, the day after inauguration, at Washington, D.C.’s Walter E. Washington Convention Center — receive a “private reception and photo opportunity for 16 guests with President Donald J. Trump,” a “multi-day hunting and/or fishing excursion for 4 guests with Donald Trump, Jr. and/or Eric Trump, and team,” as well as tickets to other events and “autographed guitars by an Opening Day 2017 performer.”

Website TMZ.com first published a brochure hyping the happening. The brochure says that “all net proceeds from the Opening Day event will be donated to conservation charities,” but it does not name the charities or detail how net proceeds will be calculated.

Who’s behind the get-together?

More: Report: Trump’s Sons Behind Nonprofit Selling Access To President-Elect For Millions

Wow, talk about pay for play! Why is Trump almost always guilty of whatever he claims about others? He is a master of projection - which not a praiseworthy human trait.

When did you decide you were against selling access. The Clinton's were masters and the left loved it so much it followed Clinton into her campaign. Look who Obama rewarded after his elections. Solyndra is a prime example. Why is this now bad?

Still can't let that old Solyndra whining point go, even after it has been shown to be bullshit so many times. Yes, Solyndra went broke, just as a large percentage of new businesses do, but the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers. That's a pretty good deal, and it makes your worn out whining point silly.

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

Link?

Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

^
^
Your claim.........


The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years.

^
^
^
Your link.

Let's see if you can figure out your error........

Here is a newer link
Solyndra who? The Energy Department's loan program is now profitable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, a sure sign that Obama got our finances is order is a $9 trillion increase in the debt. DERP!

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending. Sorry if he didn't clean up your mess as fast as you wanted.

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending.

He spent much, much more than Bush. How can you claim that was an improvement?

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired. The much larger part of Obama's spending is based on debt that was acquired before he was president.

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired.

I could explain how wrong you are, but based on your weak math skills, it'd be a waste of time.

I do pretty good with my plusses and minuses, and my timesing ain't bad. Please explain.

In FY 2008, the Feds spent just under $3 trillion and the interest on the debt was $451 billion.
In FY 2015, the Feds spent almost $3.7 trillion and the interest on the debt was $402 billion.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, it is good that he did. Imagine what the debt would have been if he had maintained the republican levels.

It's a good thing the Republicans took the House in 2010.
He'd have added $15 trillion if they hadn't stopped him.

So you're finally admitting that we are, and have been, making great strides getting our finances in order after your republican president crashed the economy. That's good.

Yes, a sure sign that Obama got our finances is order is a $9 trillion increase in the debt. DERP!

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending. Sorry if he didn't clean up your mess as fast as you wanted.

The biggest fight between the Republican Congress and DumBama was spending: DumBama wanted to spend more and the Republicans less. That's what led to the government shutdown, that's what led to the sequester, that's what led to the US losing our three star credit rating for the first time in history.

He didn't change the Republicans, Republicans changed him. The US Congress has our checkbook--not the President. You should educate yourself more on our government structure.

Well make up your mind. If you're going to whine about the debt, you'll have to blame the republican congress instead of Obama.

 

[BULLDOG]

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending. Sorry if he didn't clean up your mess as fast as you wanted.

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending.

He spent much, much more than Bush. How can you claim that was an improvement?

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired. The much larger part of Obama's spending is based on debt that was acquired before he was president.

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired.

I could explain how wrong you are, but based on your weak math skills, it'd be a waste of time.

I do pretty good with my plusses and minuses, and my timesing ain't bad. Please explain.

In FY 2008, the Feds spent just under $3 trillion and the interest on the debt was $451 billion.
In FY 2015, the Feds spent almost $3.7 trillion and the interest on the debt was $402 billion.

And?

 

[kiwiman127]

Even though the House controls the purse strings, it's still Obama's fault.
As a matter of fact, when the deficit exploded from January 2001-January, 2007, it was the Democrats fault.
It is never, ever, was the GOP's fault. Never.

 

[BULLDOG]

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending. Sorry if he didn't clean up your mess as fast as you wanted.

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending.

He spent much, much more than Bush. How can you claim that was an improvement?

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired. The much larger part of Obama's spending is based on debt that was acquired before he was president.

Isn't that strange how it's never his fault?

Only if you are intent on blaming him for everything, no matter what the facts say.

Would you like me to post the FactCheck link? I have it right here!

You said congress controls the money, so how did Obama run the debt up? Does he control the money, or congress?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When did you decide you were against selling access. The Clinton's were masters and the left loved it so much it followed Clinton into her campaign. Look who Obama rewarded after his elections. Solyndra is a prime example. Why is this now bad?

Still can't let that old Solyndra whining point go, even after it has been shown to be bullshit so many times. Yes, Solyndra went broke, just as a large percentage of new businesses do, but the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers. That's a pretty good deal, and it makes your worn out whining point silly.

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

Link?

Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

^
^
Your claim.........


The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years.

^
^
^
Your link.

Let's see if you can figure out your error........

Here is a newer link
Solyndra who? The Energy Department's loan program is now profitable.

Thanks.

According to a report by the Department of Energy, interest payments to the government from projects funded by the Loan Programs Office were $810 million as of September - higher than the $780 million in losses from loans it sustained from startups including Fisker Automotive, Abound Solar and Solyndra, which went bankrupt after receiving large government loans intended to help them bring their advanced green technologies to market.........

Of the $30.3 billion in loans and loan guarantees issued by the Loan Programs Office, $21.71 billion has been disbursed. At least one company has yet to draw down its DOE loan.

$30 million in "profits" on $21.71 billion in loans.
Pretend the government funded those loans with a sale of 10 year Treasury Bonds (current yield 2.54%).
The program has to make $551 million a year to break even. $30 million over 7 years adds up to a big loss.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending.

He spent much, much more than Bush. How can you claim that was an improvement?

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired. The much larger part of Obama's spending is based on debt that was acquired before he was president.

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired.

I could explain how wrong you are, but based on your weak math skills, it'd be a waste of time.

I do pretty good with my plusses and minuses, and my timesing ain't bad. Please explain.

In FY 2008, the Feds spent just under $3 trillion and the interest on the debt was $451 billion.
In FY 2015, the Feds spent almost $3.7 trillion and the interest on the debt was $402 billion.

And?

Lower interest on the debt, higher spending on him.

 

[BULLDOG]

Still can't let that old Solyndra whining point go, even after it has been shown to be bullshit so many times. Yes, Solyndra went broke, just as a large percentage of new businesses do, but the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers. That's a pretty good deal, and it makes your worn out whining point silly.

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

Link?

Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

^
^
Your claim.........


The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years.

^
^
^
Your link.

Let's see if you can figure out your error........

Here is a newer link
Solyndra who? The Energy Department's loan program is now profitable.

Thanks.

According to a report by the Department of Energy, interest payments to the government from projects funded by the Loan Programs Office were $810 million as of September - higher than the $780 million in losses from loans it sustained from startups including Fisker Automotive, Abound Solar and Solyndra, which went bankrupt after receiving large government loans intended to help them bring their advanced green technologies to market.........

Of the $30.3 billion in loans and loan guarantees issued by the Loan Programs Office, $21.71 billion has been disbursed. At least one company has yet to draw down its DOE loan.

$30 million in "profits" on $21.71 billion in loans.
Pretend the government funded those loans with a sale of 10 year Treasury Bonds (current yield 2.54%).
The program has to make $551 million a year to break even. $30 million over 7 years adds up to a big loss.

No, lets don't pretend anything. Make your point with facts.

 

[BULLDOG]

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired. The much larger part of Obama's spending is based on debt that was acquired before he was president.

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired.

I could explain how wrong you are, but based on your weak math skills, it'd be a waste of time.

I do pretty good with my plusses and minuses, and my timesing ain't bad. Please explain.

In FY 2008, the Feds spent just under $3 trillion and the interest on the debt was $451 billion.
In FY 2015, the Feds spent almost $3.7 trillion and the interest on the debt was $402 billion.

And?

Lower interest on the debt, higher spending on him.

So there was less spent on interest. Does that automatically mean Obama's spending made the difference, or did that go toward retiring the principal? I've been told that congress controls all the spending anyway, so wouldn't that be money they spent?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

Link?

Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

^
^
Your claim.........


The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years.

^
^
^
Your link.

Let's see if you can figure out your error........

Here is a newer link
Solyndra who? The Energy Department's loan program is now profitable.

Thanks.

According to a report by the Department of Energy, interest payments to the government from projects funded by the Loan Programs Office were $810 million as of September - higher than the $780 million in losses from loans it sustained from startups including Fisker Automotive, Abound Solar and Solyndra, which went bankrupt after receiving large government loans intended to help them bring their advanced green technologies to market.........

Of the $30.3 billion in loans and loan guarantees issued by the Loan Programs Office, $21.71 billion has been disbursed. At least one company has yet to draw down its DOE loan.

$30 million in "profits" on $21.71 billion in loans.
Pretend the government funded those loans with a sale of 10 year Treasury Bonds (current yield 2.54%).
The program has to make $551 million a year to break even. $30 million over 7 years adds up to a big loss.

No, lets don't pretend anything. Make your point with facts.

The claim that they made a profit while ignoring the cost of their funds is accounting malpractice.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired.

I could explain how wrong you are, but based on your weak math skills, it'd be a waste of time.

I do pretty good with my plusses and minuses, and my timesing ain't bad. Please explain.

In FY 2008, the Feds spent just under $3 trillion and the interest on the debt was $451 billion.
In FY 2015, the Feds spent almost $3.7 trillion and the interest on the debt was $402 billion.

And?

Lower interest on the debt, higher spending on him.

So there was less spent on interest. Does that automatically mean Obama's spending made the difference, or did that go toward retiring the principal? I've been told that congress controls all the spending anyway, so wouldn't that be money they spent?

Less interest paid, $700 billion more spent. Sounds like the spending, not the interest is to blame.
And doesn't the President typically sign off on spending?
Or did he continue his Illinois habits and vote "Present"? LOL!

And who has been whining that we need to spend more the last 6 years, mean Republicans
or President Spend-A-Lot?

 

[BULLDOG]

Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

^
^
Your claim.........


The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years.

^
^
^
Your link.

Let's see if you can figure out your error........

Here is a newer link
Solyndra who? The Energy Department's loan program is now profitable.

Thanks.

According to a report by the Department of Energy, interest payments to the government from projects funded by the Loan Programs Office were $810 million as of September - higher than the $780 million in losses from loans it sustained from startups including Fisker Automotive, Abound Solar and Solyndra, which went bankrupt after receiving large government loans intended to help them bring their advanced green technologies to market.........

Of the $30.3 billion in loans and loan guarantees issued by the Loan Programs Office, $21.71 billion has been disbursed. At least one company has yet to draw down its DOE loan.

$30 million in "profits" on $21.71 billion in loans.
Pretend the government funded those loans with a sale of 10 year Treasury Bonds (current yield 2.54%).
The program has to make $551 million a year to break even. $30 million over 7 years adds up to a big loss.

No, lets don't pretend anything. Make your point with facts.

The claim that they made a profit while ignoring the cost of their funds is accounting malpractice.

OK, so give me the numbers you use to determine how much of the Solyndra loss was not made up and exceeded.