Trump has entered the Querencia Phase of his presidency

that BOTH parties (including the one that corporate shill, Hillary represented) are in bed with mega-corps and wealthy donors."

Accordingly, in recent decades, a new line of argument has opened in the moral defense of greed, a change that was augured and embodied above all others by Ayn Rand. Rand understood that, when someone defended greed by an appeal to the common good, he was also conceding that greed could be checked by it. As the moral foundation for free markets, such an argument was entirely unacceptable to Rand, who took aim at it in her 1965 essay What is Capitalism?

“Implicitly, uncritically, and by default, political economy accepted as its axioms the fundamental tenets of collectivism,” she declared in a sweeping indictment of the Invisible Hand tradition. “The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve ‘the common good.’” That may be so, but it is “merely a secondary consequence.” Instead, capitalism is the only economic system in which “the exceptional men” are not “held down by the majority” and in which (as she said elsewhere) the “only good” that humans can do to one another and “the only statement of their proper relationship” are both acknowledged: “Hands off!”

A woman who titled a collection of essays The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand was given to brackish candor. Yet at a time when many people think that the common good is more often imperiled than empowered by unbridled greed, she provides an alternative defense of the acquisitive instinct by appealing to an ethics of gross achievement and a formulation of personal liberty that looks with suspicion and disdain on any talk of civic duty, moral obligation, or even prudential restraint. Her aim was simple: To relieve greed, once and for all, of any moral taint.

“I think greed is healthy,” an apparent acolyte told the graduating class at Berkeley’s business school in 1986. “You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself.” The speaker was Ivan Boesky, who shortly thereafter would be fined $100 million, and later go to prison, for insider trading. His address was adapted by Oliver Stone as the basis for Gordon Gekko’s “greed is good” speech in Wall Street. An exhortation to shareholders of a sagging company, it reads like a corporate raider’s war cry, with Gekko the grinning avatar of Agency Theory.

There was nothing subtle about any of this. The campaign took full credit for the veterans fundraising program even after the Iowa caucuses. The candidate understood, as did the press, that this entire Iowa fundraising enterprise, which Trump launched in place of his participation at a campaign debate, was a campaign project. And Trump accounted for it in just those terms. The campaign at one point posted on its website a chart identifying the recipient of the charitable grants and “uploaded a news report under the headline, Lewandowski: Trump Campaign Gave between $5.5–$6 Million to Veterans Groups.”

Campaign-finance laws prohibit corporate contributions and expenditures, other than truly independent expenditures made without candidate involvement, to influence a federal election. The facts of the Iowa veterans fundraising program leave no doubt about this purpose. It's hard to imagine more of a slam-dunk violation.

Most ominous for Trump is the attorney general’s conclusion that "Mr. Trump’s wrongful use of the Foundation to benefit his Campaign was willful and knowing.” It is ironic, and highly damaging to Trump, that he made an issue in his campaign about the federal prohibition on tax-exempt involvement in campaigns. He committed that he would act, if elected, to repeal it. It appears that he and his campaign neglected to await repeal and simply declined to comply with it. In any event, his stated awareness of the law, together with his repeated execution of tax forms for the Foundation “in which he attested that the Foundation … did not carry out political activity,” puts him at severe risk of “willful and knowing” liability. As “foundation managers” under the law, Trump and his children are exposed to personal liability if they gave knowing and willful consent to the charity’s illegal expenditures. They could face similar consequences—that is, personal liability—in the event, however unlikely, that the FEC takes meaningful enforcement action.

There is no mention in the complaint about the involvement of any lawyer in any phase of this venture. It's not surprising: No counsel would have advised the Trump campaign and the charity that these Iowa fundraising events and the rallies were lawful. What emerges from the New York complaint’s account is something that has become increasingly familiar. Trump does what he wishes, acting all too often on impulse and without regard to rules or norms, and those around him are expected to do as he says. The result in this instance was, from a legal perspective, disastrous. And that is putting the matter charitably.

The New York State attorney general’s office filed a scathingly worded lawsuit on Thursday taking aim at the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing the charity and the Trump family of sweeping violations of campaign finance laws, self-dealing and illegal coordination with the presidential campaign.

The lawsuit, which seeks to dissolve the foundation and bar President Trump and three of his children from serving on nonprofit organizations, was an extraordinary rebuke of a sitting president. The attorney general also sent referral letters to the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission for possible further action, adding to Mr. Trump’s extensive legal challenges.

The lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, culminated a nearly two-year investigation of Mr. Trump’s charity, which became a subject of scrutiny during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. While such foundations are supposed to be devoted to charitable activities, the petition asserts that Mr. Trump’s was often improperly used to settle legal claims against his various businesses, even spending $10,000 on a portrait of Mr. Trump that was hung at one of his golf clubs...

In 2012, a man named Martin B. Greenberg sued the Trump National Golf Club after he made a hole in one at a fund-raising golf tournament that had promised to pay $1 million to golfers who aced the 13th hole, as he did. As part of a settlement, the charitable foundation paid $158,000 to a foundation run by Mr. Greenberg.

A hole-in-one from 2010 could turn into a headache for Donald Trump in 2016.

According to The Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold, the Republican presidential nominee refused to pay the winner of a hole-in-one contest at a charity golf tournament held at one of his courses and later used money from his charitable foundation to settle the resulting lawsuit, actions that might have violated laws against "self-dealing."

In August of 2010, Martin Greenberg, CEO of Sterling Commodities Corp., hit a hole-in-one on the 13th hole at Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, N.Y., winning a $1 million prize. Or so he thought.

The contest's rules stipulated that the shot had to travel at least 150 yards, and according to The Post, tournament organizers had set up the tee short of the mark.

Greenberg sued, and when the parties settled, the Trump Foundation donated $158,000 to the Martin Greenberg Foundation, which Rosemary Fei, an expert in nonprofit law, says is illegal.

"Yes, Trump pledged as part of the settlement to make a payment to a charity, and yes, the foundation is writing a check to a charity," Fei told The Post. "But the obligation was Trump's. And you can't have a charitable foundation paying off Trump's personal obligations. That would be classic self-dealing."

When reached for comment, Jason Miller, a senior spokesperson for the Trump campaign, issued a statement to GOLF.com denying The Post's allegations and attacking the paper, its reporter and Hillary Clinton.

"In typical Washington Post fashion, they’ve gotten their facts wrong," Miller said. "There was not, and could not be, any intent or motive for the Trump Foundation to make improper payments. All contributions are reported to the IRS, and all Foundation donations are publicly disclosed … The Post's reporting is peppered with inaccuracies and omissions from a biased reporter who is clearly intent on distracting attention away from the corrupt Clinton Foundation, a vehicle for the Clintons to peddle influence at the expense of the American people."

pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia

Everyday norton??

Don't you have a better way to start your day?

1985
North Korea signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
1993
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demands that inspectors be given access to two nuclear waste storage sites. In response, North Korea threatens to quit the NPT but eventually opts to continue participating in the treaty.
1994
North Korea and the United States sign an agreement. North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its old, graphite-moderated nuclear reactors in exchange for international aid to build two new light-water nuclear reactors.
2005
North Korea tentatively agrees to give up its entire nuclear program, including weapons. In exchange, the United States, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea say they will provide energy assistance to North Korea, as well as promote economic cooperation.
2006
July - After North Korea test fires long range missiles, the UN Security Council passes a resolution demanding that North Korea suspend the program.
October - North Korea claims to have successfully tested its first nuclear weapon. The test prompts the UN Security Council to impose a broad array of sanctions.
2007
February 13 - North Korea agrees to close its main nuclear reactor in exchange for an aid package worth $400 million.
September 30 - At six-party talks in Beijing, North Korea signs an agreement stating it will begin disabling its nuclear weapons facilities.
December 31 - North Korea misses the deadline to disable its weapons facilities.
2008
June 27 - North Korea destroys a water cooling tower at the Yongbyon nuclear facility.
December - Six-party talks are held in Beijing. The talks break down over North Korea's refusal to allow international inspectors unfettered access to suspected nuclear sites.
2011
October 24-25 - US officials meet with a North Korean delegation in Geneva, Switzerland, in an effort to restart the six-party nuclear arms talks that broke down in 2008.
2012
February 29 - The State Department announces that North Korea has agreed to a moratorium on long-range missile launches and nuclear activity at the nation's major nuclear facility in exchange for food aid.