Trump dismisses questions about improper gift to Florida attorney general


A Washington Post article looks into the the Florida Attorney General’s decision to not pursue a fraud investigation against Trump University.

Donald Trump on Monday dismissed questions about his failure to disclose an improper $25,000 contribution in 2013 to a political group connected to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was at the time considering whether to open a fraud investigation against Trump University.

The donation, made by the Donald J. Trump Foundation, violated federal rules that prohibit charities from donating to political candidates. Trump and his team also failed to disclose the gift to the Internal Revenue Service, instead reporting that the donation was given to an unrelated group with a similar name — effectively obscuring the contribution.

“I never spoke to her, first of all. She’s a fine person, beyond reproach. I never even spoke to her about it at all. She’s a fine person. Never spoken to her about it, never,” Trump said Monday while campaigning in Ohio. “Many of the attorney generals turned that case down because I’ll win that case in court. Many turned that down. I never spoke to her.”

Marc Reichelderfer — who worked as a consultant on Bondi’s reelection effort — told the Associated Press in June that Bondi spoke with Trump and solicited the donation herself. Reichelderfer said that Bondi had not been aware of the complaints against Trump University when she asked for the contribution.


Imagine that. A foundation not named Clinton that actually has been proven to have violated the law.


You are aware he’s running against Hillary, right?


So what we have here is a presidential candidate that does not have any respect for the rule of law, (Trump vs. the Constitution: A Guide - POLITICO Magazine) has been proved to have bribed a state attorney general and got an investigation dropped (making Pam Bondi guilty of taking a bribe and corrupting justice.) in exchange for it. To borrow one his campaign’s phrases…“Lock them up.”

Sure he’ll “dismiss” questions about this. It’s all he’s done from the outset.

Notice that he has never retracted his allegation that he saw “thousands and thousands of Muslims in New Jersey” celebrating the attack on the twin towers on 9/11.

I’m no fan of either candidate… (Anyone remember a movie called Brewster’s Millions?) but good grief this guy is a crook and a nutcase.


Always consider the source. Timing is everything. And, there is absolutely no one else in the US to investigate before November.

I hope they didn’t use a private email server! They’ll do hard time!


So they shouldn’t write articles about a presidential candidate possibly bribing an Attorney General, due to “timing”?

The validity of the allegation is all that matters, not the timing.


Perhaps you can find better reporting about this issue in the sources that you find reliable. Until then, this seems like reliable, fact-based reporting on an issue that shows the character of a Donald Trump, who has not hesitated to allege that Hillary Clinton is corrupt, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of a quid pro quo.

By the way, very crafty of you to slip an e-mail comment in there to deflect from a clear example of Trump’s corruption.


You might be interested in the fact that the Clinton Foundation contributed less than 6% of its income to charitable grants.

Along with the fact that the monies which remained within the foundation went to rather specious use.

Of special interest is this fact from the article:

The Clinton Foundation’s largest single charitable grant to an organization not founded by the Clinton Foundation or managed by one of its board members was a $700,000 check to the J/P Haitian Relief Organization, a non-profit founded by actor Sean Penn. That organization reportedly spent more than $126,000 on first-class flights for the actor.


There is no “clear example of Trump’s corruption,” since even the New York Times has conceded there is nothing of substance to the accusation.


Compared you mean to the “charitable cause” of Trump’s foundation taking money other people gave to his charity and then buying a six-foot-tall painting of himself. Fact checked here as true:

Btw another fact check: “it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong”


I don’t know where people come up with figures. 6%?? From reports taken from their spendings, it’s closer to 89% of their monies that are given to programs. Admirable.


The 6% comes from their recent tax returns.


Yes, 6% to charitable grants. Grants are not the only charitable activity the foundation carries out.


Yeah, “charitable activities” like flying Sean Penn around the globe in first class.

When someone can actually detail the “good” that is done by this foundation there might be something worth discussing. I mean real good. Supporting a coterie of highly paid hangers-on and shills by giving them office space and paying them expenses and salaries doesn’t count. None of the real or substantive “charitable activity” that is purportedly done is detailed anywhere, at least, not in unambiguous terms that couldn’t serve as cover for “activities” of all kinds. Until then, all this apologia on behalf of the Clinton Foundation is wasted words.

Some on these forums are attempting to supply dictionary publishers with startling new examples for the word “naive.”


ComplineSan Fran, here is an article from just last month that you might find interesting. I was particularly impressed to learn of all the work the Clintons’ foundation has done in providing for new born infants (for example the infant warmer to parts of the world which doesn’t require a fixed electrical source was news to me) and meals for children and in healthcare.

In addition, yes, the most recent Clinton Foundation rating from a watchdog group, CharityWatch, gives the organization a solid “A.” The group indeed says that the foundation spent 88% of its 2014 outlays directly on programs (rather than overhead) and that it only has to spend $2 to raise $100.


Not even close to the truth. Charity Watch says that the Clinton Foundation used 88% of its funds for charity projects. Where do you get your facts?


The Clinton Foundation funds their projects directly on programs rather than passing through funds as grants to other organizations.

Trump supporters would rather continue to circulate this nonsense than actually check the facts available from reliable organizations.


LOL Try telling that to HRC supporters! :wink:


Besides the life size painting of himself, there is also this questionable payment of $12,000 by Trump from his foundation for an autographed Tim Tebow helmet and jersey.


Well they will argue, the liberal media.

That’s their cop out answer,

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit