So is this "pay to play?"

A

archives

Verified User
"Donald Trump's sons behind nonprofit selling access to president-elect"

"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. And the donors’ identities may never be known."

"Review of Texas incorporation records found the Opening Day Foundation was created less than a week ago, on Dec. 14. The paperwork for the Opening Day Foundation listed four directors: Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Dallas investor Gentry Beach and Tom Hicks Jr., the son of a Dallas billionaire."

https://www.publicintegrity.org/201...hind-nonprofit-selling-access-president-elect

"Draining the swamp," too funny, more accurately turning the swamp into a cesspool for personal profit
 
archives said:
"Donald Trump's sons behind nonprofit selling access to president-elect"

"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. And the donors’ identities may never be known."

"Review of Texas incorporation records found the Opening Day Foundation was created less than a week ago, on Dec. 14. The paperwork for the Opening Day Foundation listed four directors: Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Dallas investor Gentry Beach and Tom Hicks Jr., the son of a Dallas billionaire."

https://www.publicintegrity.org/201...hind-nonprofit-selling-access-president-elect

"Draining the swamp," too funny, more accurately turning the swamp into a cesspool for personal profit
Click to expand...

Please demonstrate the personal profit.
 
it's not pay for access-it's pay for charity..andt here is the reply at the link that clarifies.

However I would stay away from appearances of impropriety-it could be construed as "access"
Even though the Clinton Foundation promoted access to HRClinton ( and most importantly there as HER POSITION of Sec of State
and any Trump meetings are clearly charity agenda driven, it's not a good idea to promote access for any reason.
 
anatta said:
it's not pay for access-it's pay for charity..andt here is the reply at the link that clarifies.

However I would stay away from appearances of impropriety-it could be construed as "access"
Even though the Clinton Foundation promoted access to HRClinton ( and most importantly there as HER POSITION of Sec of State
and any Trump meetings are clearly charity agenda driven, it's not a good idea to promote access for any reason.
Click to expand...

So in other words,
 
anatta said:
it's not pay for access-it's pay for charity..andt here is the reply at the link that clarifies.

However I would stay away from appearances of impropriety-it could be construed as "access"
Even though the Clinton Foundation promoted access to HRClinton ( and most importantly there as HER POSITION of Sec of State
and any Trump meetings are clearly charity agenda driven, it's not a good idea to promote access for any reason.
Click to expand...

So in other words quid pro quo is automatically assumed in Clinton's case but not so in Trump's. okie dokie, all those people surely are contributing to some month old charity anonymously because they like it's mission statement, no wonder conservatives fall prey so easily to demagoguery
 
Trump will do everything he villified Hillary for. And his supporters will jump right in to explain how it's "different."

He won't just put classified emails on his server - he'll tweet their contents. And his supporters will say something like, "well, he's tweeting them too, so it's completely different from what Hillary did."

Save this post. It is yet another of my 100% accurate predictions.
 
archives said:
So in other words quid pro quo is automatically assumed in Clinton's case but not so in Trump's. okie dokie, all those people surely are contributing to some month old charity anonymously because they like it's mission statement, no wonder conservatives fall prey so easily to demagoguery
Click to expand...
you are missing the point access was sought thru the Clinton Foundation to Clinton because of her position
( various players wanted to see her to resolve State dept business= pay for professional access)..

Celebrity Charities are sold all the time; and any access to Trumps/Trumps kids are supposedly charity agendas.
But I do agree with you this is not a good idea because of the optics
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Should I read your book or wait for the movie......
Click to expand...

Nah, it appeared next, but anything worth saying is worth repeating,

So in other words quid pro quo is automatically assumed in Clinton's case but not so in Trump's. okie dokie, all those people surely are contributing to some month old charity anonymously because they like it's mission statement, no wonder conservatives fall prey so easily to demagoguery
 
anatta said:
you are missing the point access was sought thru the Clinton Foundation to Clinton because of her position
( various players wanted to see her to resolve State dept business= pay for professional access)..

Celebrity Charities are sold all the time; and any access to Trumps/Trumps kids are supposedly charity agendas.
But I do agree with you this is not a good idea because of the optics
Click to expand...

Your kidding, right? He is President not SOS, President, the Clinton Foundation is a charity, and this month old charity was founded and is directed by the Trump boys. It's donors are anonymous, who gives to a brand new charity with no track record anonymously, especially when you can't even use the donation for tax purposes?
 
Here's what the flier contains. Now we all know that trump claimed for 15 mos. that on his first day in office he was going to end Obamacare and start building the wall. Instead trump will be working to fill his coffers even more with this "event." I'll bet any money he's going to be selling overnights in the Lincoln Bedroom, too.... wait and see. :D

"According to a flier for the Jan. 21, 2017 event—attire: “Camouflage & Cufflinks”—ponying up $1 million will get you 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 a host of other perks.

The packages on offer get smaller from there, but those who spend $250,000 still get direct access to the president, albeit the reception and photo-op is limited to four people. Net proceeds, according to the flier, will be donated to unnamed “conservation” charities, which given the Trump sons’ big-game pastimes, and the family’s general disdain for climate science, presumably skew toward the hunting-and-fishing variety as opposed to groups like the Sierra Club."
 
anatta said:
it's not pay for access-it's pay for charity..andt here is the reply at the link that clarifies.

However I would stay away from appearances of impropriety-it could be construed as "access"
Even though the Clinton Foundation promoted access to HRClinton ( and most importantly there as HER POSITION of Sec of State
and any Trump meetings are clearly charity agenda driven, it's not a good idea to promote access for any reason.
Click to expand...

Horeshit. They are paying a million for access. If they wanted to donate to a charity, they could do it directly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top