New York AG Opens "Inquiry" into Trump Foundation

In the wake of a growing number of improper political donations by the Trump Foundation and stories of Donald Trump using foundation funds for his own uses, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has opened an inquiry into the Trump Foundation, investigating possible wrongdoing and/or violation of restrictions applicable to charitable foundations.  Schneiderman is already involved in litigation involving Trump's alleged scam operation, "Trump University."The inquiry further spotlights Trump's history of questionable activities that skirt the letter of law and violate ethical business practices.  A piece in Politico looks at this new boil on Trump's wide ass.  Here are highlights:

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has opened an investigation into the Donald J. Trump Foundation “to make sure it’s complying with the laws governing charities in New York," he said Tuesday.

A source familiar with the matter confirmed Schneiderman’s remark and said the New York Attorney General’s office “has opened an inquiry into the Trump Foundation based on troubling transactions that have recently come to light.”

Schneiderman — who for months has tangled with Trump over a fraud lawsuit his office filed against Trump University, the Manhattan billionaire’s real estate seminar program — told CNN’s “The Lead” that the GOP nominee’s charitable foundation is also under scrutiny.

“My interest in this issue really is in my capacity as regulator of nonprofits in New York state. And we have been concerned that the Trump Foundation may have engaged in some impropriety from that point of view,” Schneiderman told host Jake Tapper. “And we’ve inquired into it, and we’ve had correspondence with them.

Trump’s charity has faced growing questions in the wake of a damaging series of stories by The Washington Post and The Associated Press. A Post story published over the weekend cited tax records showing that Trump had not donated to his own foundation since 2008, and had, among other allegations, "spent $20,000 of money earmarked for charitable purposes to buy a six-foot-tall painting of himself."

The foundation also made an illegal donation of $25,000 to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi in 2013 as she was considering joining Schneiderman in pursuing a fraud case against Trump University. Bondi and Trump have denied any connection between the money and her office's decision not to pursue an investigation, though Trump paid a $2,500 penalty to the IRS for making a political donation through his charitable foundation. Although Schneiderman, a Democrat who supports Hillary Clinton, has said that his suit against Trump University is not politically motivated, the New York attorney general has not shied away from publicly discussing the case.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, are calling on Attorney General Loretta Lynch to investigate the Trump Foundation's donation to Bondi.

In a letter signed by all Democratic members on the committee and sent to Lynch, they cited the reports by the AP and Post, which they said "indicates that these payments may have influenced Mrs. Bondi’s official decision not to participate in litigation against Mr. Trump."

"A number of criminal statutes would appear to be implicated by this course of conduct," the Democrats wrote, pointing to bribery and tax laws governing nonprofit organizations.

They also noted comments Trump made at a rally last January in Iowa, in which he boasted of his donations to politicians: “I’ve given to everybody. Because that was my job. I gotta give to them. ... Because when I want something, I get it. When I call, they kiss my ass.”

Donald Trump gives sleazy a whole new meaning.

Federal Cout Throws Out Lawsuits by Tea Party Groups Against the IRS

Remember the hysteria in Teabagistan and among GOP political whores over the IRS's questioning or denial of far right groups seeking tax-exempt status, many under the guise of "educational" organizations even though the organizations' main goals was to either (i) engage in banned political activity and/or (ii) enrich the organizers (much like how Sarah Palin's PAC spends less than 6% of revenues on candidates).   Having filed numerous applications for non-profit clients for tax exempt status, the fury was always misguided, in my view.  The IRS always assumes that something is amiss and asks countless questions and/seeks further clarification even for organizations that ultimately gain tax exempt status.  Well, the IRS found away to turn the tables (at least for now) by granting the Tea Party organizations tax-exempt status.  The result?  Their lawsuits were thrown out and the IRS will still have the option of revoking their tax exempt status down the road when they violate the Internal Revenue Code and associated regulations.  Politico looks at the IRS's court win:

The IRS may have inadvertently figured out how to win its legal battles against aggrieved tea party groups: Give them what they wanted in the first place — tax-exempt status.

That was a major reason a Republican-appointed federal judge on Thursday threw out two lawsuits brought by more than 40 conservative groups seeking remedies for being singled out in the tea party targeting scandal, a victory for the IRS.

Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia dismissed almost all counts brought against the tax-collecting agency in two cases, ruling that both were essentially moot now that the IRS granted the groups their tax-exempt status that had been held up for years.

Walton, a President George W. Bush-appointee, also said individual IRS officials could not be fined in their individual capacity for allowing such treatment because it could hurt future tax enforcement.

Republicans said they were outraged at Walton’s decision. . . . You get targeted and harassed for three years but, oh, because you finally get [tax-exempt status], the three years of harassment doesn’t mean anything?” asked Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who heads a congressional subpanel investigating the controversy. “I find that argument lacking tremendously in light of what these people went through.” 

But others said the agency needs to do more — not less — to scrutinize nonprofit groups that don’t follow the rules and over-engage in political activities. To obtain the status in question, political activity must not be the groups’ primary activity — a vague and difficult-to-administer test.

“Judge Walton got it right — there is no ongoing injury to these groups,” said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, which backs tighter rules on political nonprofits. “The IRS needs to enforce tax law with respect to nonprofit political groups more aggressively.”