What it wasn’t a witch hunt

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I see a lot of smoke coming out of Floridaman and the Trumplicans, seems to be the scream louder and you win theory, because to his base truth doesn't matter, Floridaman does

If you read the report you'll find that it blows the Trumplican conspiracy theories out of the water.

The Crossfire investigation was for political purposes............

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations..."

They planted spies in the campaign...........

“We found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign.”

The investigation was based on the Steele report paid for by the Dems......

“These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele’s election reporting until weeks later, and we therefore determined that Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening..."

I think you are correct as you scream loudly here on a daily basis. I also think it will ultimately discourage you as Trump is a certainty to win in 2020. But keep screaming as you fall deeper into the abyss of misfits.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I think you are correct as you scream loudly here on a daily basis. I also think it will ultimately discourage you as Trump is a certainty to win in 2020. But keep screaming as you fall deeper into the abyss of misfits.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep believing that

[Sea Dangles]

OK
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

A day after U.S. Attorney General William Barr disputed a watchdog’s finding that the FBI was legally justified in opening the Russia investigation, a group of lawyers who served in Republican administrations on Tuesday accused him of mischaracterizing the conclusions and more broadly injecting politics into the Justice Department to benefit President Donald Trump.

Barr disavowed certain findings of the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, who documented missteps in the FBI’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election but otherwise determined the investigation was lawfully opened. Taking aim at that latter finding, Barr said the inspector general’s report “now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.”
“It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory,” he said, in a prepared statement that went out within a half-hour of the inspector general report’s release.

His commentary added fuel to criticism that he’s serving more as a “spokesman” for Trump —as James Comey called him in a Washington Post op-ed—than as the independent head of the U.S. Justice Department. Barr’s critics have accused him of politicizing the Justice Department, using his leadership to advance defense-lawyer arguments benefitting Trump personally and not more widely the office of the presidency. Barr is set to speak later this afternoon in Washington at an event hosted by the Wall Street Journal.
On Tuesday, a group of former Justice Department and White House lawyers, all of whom served in Republican administrations, criticized Barr over his latest dip into a partisan battle. The former leaders are all affiliated with Checks & Balances, a group of conservative lawyers who have bristled at Trump’s presidency. The group has lashed out at Barr previously, challenging his attempt to implement an “autocratic vision of executive power.”

Jonathan Rose, who served under the Reagan administration as the assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, said the inspector general’s report “rebuts in detail the AG’s charge that the FBI’s investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign was unjustified, overly intrusive, or systematically suppressed exculpatory evidence.”

“This is the first attorney general in the history of presidential impeachment proceedings to enlist as a partisan warrior on behalf of a President. It is a sad day for those of us who revere the historic commitment of the FBI and the Department of Justice to even-handed law enforcement based on truth and verifiable facts,” said Rose, who had previously served under the Nixon administration as the deputy associate attorney general.
Donald Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general under the George H.W. Bush administration, said Barr’s reaction to the inspector general’s report was reminiscent of his handling of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation. Ahead of the Mueller report’s release, Barr came under criticism for mischaracterizing the report’s findings.

Ayer, a former Jones Day partner who now teaches at Georgetown Law, said the inspector general’s exhaustive investigation showed that the Russia investigation was “properly initiated based on a sound factual basis, and that the allegations of ‘witch hunt’ and bias on the part of those overseeing it are without foundation.”

“Rather than focus on those critical findings which should reassure all Americans, Barr dwells entirely on the report’s further findings that some agents (who he describes as a ‘small group of now-former’ FBI employees) were guilty of misconduct in the manner in which they put forward evidence in some submissions to the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court,” Ayer said, referring to the secretive court tasked with weighing warrant applications filed under the surveillance law.

Indeed, the inspector general’s report stated repeatedly that the review of the Russia investigation had not uncovered evidence that “political bias or improper motivation” influenced the FBI’s action, an assertion that flew in the face of Trump’s refrain that the probe amounted to a partisan “witch hunt.”

Christopher Wray testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing in 2017. Credit: Diego M.
FBI Director Christopher Wray has accepted the findings of the inspector general’s report, saying it revealed “unacceptable” problems and missteps. Wray, a former partner at King & Spalding, has vowed to make changes to how the bureau handles confidential informants and applies for warrants through the FISA courts.

On Tuesday, Trump targeted Wray over his reaction to the report, writing in a tweet: “I don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!”

Carrie Cordero, a co-founder of Checks and Balances and former counsel to the head of the Justice Department’s national security division under the George W. Bush administration, said Trump’s tweet on Tuesday “betrays his own bias: one in favor of personal loyalty and blind partisanship instead of dedication to mission and country.”

“We should not accept as normal or acceptable a political leader who routinely seeks to damage the credibility of the leadership and institutions dedicated to keeping Americans safe,” she said.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Funny typical response when the report fails to support yours and others fantasies..you responded just like bengiza, biden, emails..
With suggestion. Of cover up or the IG himself is bias..

Where is the smoking gun ,, maybe the IG used the standard the Republicans are using to defend Trump. He cant find. Anyone who spoke directly to anyone who directed or ask can you do us a favor conduct surveillance on Trumps campaign for political reasons
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the report highlighted many errors, some it labeled as “serious”. the DOJ ignored a lot of exculpatory information when applying for FISA warrants on an american citizen.

i’m not sure what the motive was to commit a large number of serious errors, if not political, in this case. Maybe the FBI is just that unprofessional all around.

Durham stuck his neck out to say he disagrees with parts of the reports. Let’s see what he says. But if I’m ok with the mueller report not finding Trump colluded with russia, than i should
be equally satisfied with the IG report finding no political bias.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the report highlighted many errors, some it labeled as “serious”. the DOJ ignored a lot of exculpatory information when applying for FISA warrants on an american citizen.

i’m not sure what the motive was to commit a large number of serious errors, if not political, in this case. Maybe the FBI is just that unprofessional all around.

Durham stuck his neck out to say he disagrees with parts of the reports. Let’s see what he says. But if I’m ok with the mueller report not finding Trump colluded with russia, than i should
be equally satisfied with the IG report finding no political bias.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's a link to IG reports, all of them. https://oig.justice.gov/reports/all.htm
What the IGs do is find errors in procedure, that is the job they are to perform.
Read any executive summary, you will find that the issues are listed and they always are found and acted upon.
All jobs performed by humans have errors, misjudgements and miscalculations.
In my experience few people conspire to do their jobs incorrectly, perhaps it is common in your industry.

[wdmso]

FBI bad for conducting legal surveillance...

Trump asking ukraine for a favor against Biden

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here's a link to IG reports, all of them. https://oig.justice.gov/reports/all.htm
What the IGs do is find errors in procedure, that is the job they are to perform.
Read any executive summary, you will find that the issues are listed and they always are found and acted upon.
All jobs performed by humans have errors, misjudgements and miscalculations.
In my experience few people conspire to do their jobs incorrectly, perhaps it is common in your industry.

not every task performed by humans, is found to have serious errors. Is that really news to you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

FBI bad for conducting legal surveillance...

Trump asking ukraine for a favor against Biden

FBI bad for making serious errors when deciding to suspend the inalienable rights of an american citizen. One who presumably by sheer coincidence, worked for the presidential campaign which the agent leading the investigation, said he’d “stop” from becoming president.

You’re bending over backwards to whitewash this, because it helps your political agenda.

Carter Page is going to be suing as many people as that Sandman kid. I can’t imagine any insurance company willing to write slander/libel insurance for CNN or MSNBC. I used to work
for a company which sold
such insurance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Barr stated, “The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.”

Note what Barr did not say. He did not say that launching the investigation was illegal. Nor did he say the FBI violated any internal policy. Instead, he relied on his own opinion that the evidence was insufficient to justify the investigation. His hindsight does not make the investigation illegal or improper.

He stated that “the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory.” This statement overlooks facts contained in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report documenting contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. He neglected to mention Trump’s negotiations for a Trump Tower in Moscow, the June 2016 meeting with Russians at Trump Tower in New York to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton, and Manafort’s meeting with Konstantin Kilimnik in August 2016 to share polling data on battleground states. Barr’s omissions tend to make him sound more like a defense attorney for Trump than the Attorney General of the United States.

Just keep defending Putin's Puppet and his lackeys.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Note what Barr did not say. Nor did he say the FBI violated any internal policy. .

The IG report said that. Barr didn't have to. The IG report said there were serious mistakes by the DOJ in seeking to suspend the constitutional rights of an American citizen.

Is that true, or is it false?

I don't work at the DOJ, I have no idea how common it is to commit serious mistakes when seeking to suspend the rights of a citizen. I hope it's not standard practice. If it's not, and I presume it's not (since overseeing the DOJ is a big part of Obama's job), why so many mistakes in this one case? Was there anything special about spying on the Trump campaign, that motivated the DOJ to make serious mistakes in its quest to get permission to spy on them?

Or did Obama's DOJ routinely make a large number of serious mistakes when making applications to the FISA court? I have no idea, neither does anyone here...

Which is it? Did Obama's DOJ routinely make a large number of serious mistakes when applying for FISA warrants, meaning there was nothing special about this case?? Or did they normally go by the book, but screw up big time when it came to Carter Page? That's a very, very key question.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Barr stated, “The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.”

Note what Barr did not say. He did not say that launching the investigation was illegal. Nor did he say the FBI violated any internal policy. Instead, he relied on his own opinion that the evidence was insufficient to justify the investigation. His hindsight does not make the investigation illegal or improper.

He stated that “the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory.” This statement overlooks facts contained in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report documenting contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. He neglected to mention Trump’s negotiations for a Trump Tower in Moscow, the June 2016 meeting with Russians at Trump Tower in New York to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton, and Manafort’s meeting with Konstantin Kilimnik in August 2016 to share polling data on battleground states. Barr’s omissions tend to make him sound more like a defense attorney for Trump than the Attorney General of the United States.

Just keep defending Putin's Puppet and his lackeys.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The IG report said that. What? Barr didn't have to. The IG report said there were serious mistakes by the DOJ in seeking to suspend the constitutional rights of an American citizen.

Is that true, or is it false?

I don't work at the DOJ, I have no idea how common it is to commit serious mistakes when seeking to suspend the rights of a citizen. I hope it's not standard practice. If it's not, and I presume it's not (since overseeing the DOJ is a big part of Obama's job), why so many mistakes in this one case? Was there anything special about spying on the Trump campaign, that motivated the DOJ to make serious mistakes in its quest to get permission to spy on them?

Or did Obama's DOJ routinely make a large number of serious mistakes when making applications to the FISA court? I have no idea, neither does anyone here...

Which is it? Did Obama's DOJ routinely make a large number of serious mistakes when applying for FISA warrants, meaning there was nothing special about this case?? Or did they normally go by the book, but screw up big time when it came to Carter Page? That's a very, very key question.

Just why is it as you say with great emphasis....Key?

While it is important in the world of FISA and rights, to the investigation it was inconsequential and did not result in anything. There were many other things discovered and if there had been less obstruction perhaps more would have been found.

FISA is a precious trust and an inspector general report identifying even carelessness that leads to serial misstatements in FISA applications is a serious matter that needs to addressed. And some of the conduct he describes may involve deliberate misconduct too.

None of them involves the sort of misconduct or errors that will reasonably bear the weight Trump and his defenders have put on the notion that something was rotten at the bureau. Not only were these errors not political, but they took place at the lower levels—individual agents and an attorney. What’s more, Horowitz does not even find that the conduct rendered the FISA applications defective—a point on which he does not weigh in.

If I were Carter Page, I would read this report with some grim satisfaction; Page has a right to be pissed off. The inspector general has, after all, concluded that serious errors took place in seeking Page’s surveillance orders. But that’s about as far as it goes. The errors were not political. They were not part of some coup. And in any event, the Page FISA applications did not end up being all that important. None of the indictments that Mueller handed down were driven by evidence collected in surveillance of Page, who was never charged with anything. The issues Horowitz raises are important because the integrity of the FISA process is so important. But no aspect of the integrity of the Russia investigation turns on the questions Horowitz raises about the Page FISA applications.

[Sea Dangles]

🍔🙀🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Barr must have read my posts.


I think I should sue him for plagiarism

[Pete F.]

Is Barr the Attorney General or Floridaman’s lawyer?
Just another guy who auditioned and got a spot on Floridaman’s reality TV show
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Is Barr the Attorney General or Floridaman’s lawyer?
Just another guy who auditioned and got a spot on Floridaman’s reality TV show
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This pretty much sums things up. He’s a disgrace to the DOJ and is selling out America.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Remember the tell:

You don't need a "4-page letter" or blitz of interviews if the goal is to simply allow the DOJ's exhaustive work to speak for itself when it comes out.

People can read the Mueller Report or IG Report to get that.

Barr is up to something else.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck; well guess what it’s a f*cking duck. I am enjoying the spin on the right and Barr is an embarrassment as head of the DOJ.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

lamest impeachment effort in American history...nice job democraps

[Pete F.]

"Whether or not they've spent the last eight months paying attention to this, they will when this goes to the Senate. Everyone loves a good trial. This is OJ on steroids because it involves the President of the United States"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

This pretty much sums things up. He’s a disgrace to the DOJ and is selling out America.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is good stuff and probably could be used by Shift as evidence in this crucial affair. Great work Jeff,stay vigilant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

“Barr’s conduct is nothing short of disgraceful & continues his pattern of misstating facts & out-and-out lying about documents to protect “ Trump. The HJC should call him up to the Hill & make him explain his remarks...under oath.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

“Barr’s conduct is nothing short of disgraceful & continues his pattern of misstating facts & out-and-out lying about documents to protect “ Trump. The HJC should call him up to the Hill & make him explain his remarks...under oath.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Barr tells it like it is. I don't think the HJC wants any part of what Barr would say."

[Pete F.]

As Attorney General, Barr is a threat to democracy. He has distorted facts and misled the public. He appointed Durham to run a concurrent investigation because he knew the Inspector General would debunk his conspiracy theories, and he needed someone he could control.
Durham revealed much about his own character when he issued a transparently political message challenging the IG's report before completing his investigation. Barr, who deceived the public about the contents of the Mueller report, has similarly tried to undermine the IG report.
Barr's crackpot theory boils down to the idea that the last administration tried to sabotage Trump's candidacy by keeping its investigation of Trump's campaign completely secret while colluding with Jason Chaffetz to leak information about its investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Barr bizarrely argues it'd be bad if a president abused his power to sabotage a rival's campaign with an investigation. The notion that Obama came anywhere near doing this is the debunked lunacy of pizzagate enthusiasts, but it's exactly what the "transcript" shows Trump did.
Barr's comments also suggest a plan to take personnel actions against individuals tied to the investigation of Trump. Whether action is warranted or not, an Attorney General commenting on personnel actions that must be taken by lower level managers suggests the fix is in.
Whether he ultimately intervenes in personnel matters is almost beside the point. His remarks were intended to intimidate the DOJ attorneys and FBI agents investigating others associated with the president. And there's something far more ominous that his remarks have signaled.
Barr, who traveled the world looking for ways to defend the politician he serves instead of the rule of law, has also signaled he may use the criminal investigative apparatus of the state to go after perceived enemies of his boss—weaponizing it as a tool of a political party.
Even the mere suggestion that he would do this is a direct assault on democracy and a betrayal of the public trust. It is extremely dangerous and may chill legitimate investigations. It's the stuff of autocracies. It must not be tolerated. It cannot be tolerated in a republic.
(Barr even talks like an authoritarian. He said he'd ignore any ethics guidance he disagreed with. He ignored the 1st amendment and blamed "secularism" for society's ills. He told certain "communities" [wink] they need to show more respect or live without police protection.)
In this context, it's important to remember that Trump fired Sessions the day after the election because he would not stop the Russia investigation. A president firing someone for failing to treat him as though he is above the law should have been viewed as an impeachable act.
Instead, Barr was greeted warmly as a stabilizing force by people who should have known better. But, as the beneficiary of a slow motion Saturday Night Massacre, Barr was hired to do what Sessions wouldn't do. He was hired for this moment in history.
It's important not to make the same mistake twice. Some people underestimated Barr's ruthless partisanship before. No one should do that again. Like Trump, Barr is capable of doing anything he can get away with—and that includes interfering in the 2020 election, if we let him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As Attorney General, Barr is a threat to democracy. He has distorted facts and misled the public. He appointed Durham to run a concurrent investigation because he knew the Inspector General would debunk his conspiracy theories, and he needed someone he could control.
Durham revealed much about his own character when he issued a transparently political message challenging the IG's report before completing his investigation. Barr, who deceived the public about the contents of the Mueller report, has similarly tried to undermine the IG report.
Barr's crackpot theory boils down to the idea that the last administration tried to sabotage Trump's candidacy by keeping its investigation of Trump's campaign completely secret while colluding with Jason Chaffetz to leak information about its investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Barr bizarrely argues it'd be bad if a president abused his power to sabotage a rival's campaign with an investigation. The notion that Obama came anywhere near doing this is the debunked lunacy of pizzagate enthusiasts, but it's exactly what the "transcript" shows Trump did.
Barr's comments also suggest a plan to take personnel actions against individuals tied to the investigation of Trump. Whether action is warranted or not, an Attorney General commenting on personnel actions that must be taken by lower level managers suggests the fix is in.
Whether he ultimately intervenes in personnel matters is almost beside the point. His remarks were intended to intimidate the DOJ attorneys and FBI agents investigating others associated with the president. And there's something far more ominous that his remarks have signaled.
Barr, who traveled the world looking for ways to defend the politician he serves instead of the rule of law, has also signaled he may use the criminal investigative apparatus of the state to go after perceived enemies of his boss—weaponizing it as a tool of a political party.
Even the mere suggestion that he would do this is a direct assault on democracy and a betrayal of the public trust. It is extremely dangerous and may chill legitimate investigations. It's the stuff of autocracies. It must not be tolerated. It cannot be tolerated in a republic.
(Barr even talks like an authoritarian. He said he'd ignore any ethics guidance he disagreed with. He ignored the 1st amendment and blamed "secularism" for society's ills. He told certain "communities" [wink] they need to show more respect or live without police protection.)
In this context, it's important to remember that Trump fired Sessions the day after the election because he would not stop the Russia investigation. A president firing someone for failing to treat him as though he is above the law should have been viewed as an impeachable act.
Instead, Barr was greeted warmly as a stabilizing force by people who should have known better. But, as the beneficiary of a slow motion Saturday Night Massacre, Barr was hired to do what Sessions wouldn't do. He was hired for this moment in history.
It's important not to make the same mistake twice. Some people underestimated Barr's ruthless partisanship before. No one should do that again. Like Trump, Barr is capable of doing anything he can get away with—and that includes interfering in the 2020 election, if we let him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is riddled with error.

[scottw]

re-pete is determined to prove beyond any doubt that he's completely nuts

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is riddled with error.

No, it’s not
Just doesn’t fit what the Trumplicans echo chamber pushes
Case in point Floridaman’s rally last night when he called the FBI scum
🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Calling the FBI scum is just hyperbole .. supporters except it willingly.. if you don't you just hate him... guess Wray will be gone next for not showing his Allegiance to Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Does anyone know any people w/charities who get fined, band from ever having a charity and whose children have to undergo training to tell them right from wrong? What is Trump's approval rating amongst R's again?



President Trump has paid $2 million to eight charities as part of a settlement in which the president admitted he misused funds raised by the Donald J. Trump Foundation to promote his presidential bid and pay off business debts, the New York State attorney general said on Tuesday.

The foundation’s giving patterns and management came under scrutiny during Mr. Trump’s run for office, and last year the New York attorney general filed a lawsuit accusing the president and his family of using the foundation as an extension of their businesses and the campaign.

The payments were part of a settlement announced last month that capped a drawn-out legal battle. In the end, the president admitted in court documents that he had used the foundation to settle legal obligations of his businesses and even to purchase a portrait of himself.

“Charities are not a means to an end, which is why these damages speak to the president’s abuse of power and represent a victory for not-for-profits that follow the law,” the attorney general, Letitia James, said in a statement. “Funds have finally gone where they deserve — to eight credible charities.”



Last month, a state judge ordered the president to give $2 million to the eight charities, or $250,000 per charity. Under the settlement, Mr. Trump’s lawyers also agreed to liquidate the Trump Foundation’s remaining assets of more than $1.7 million and disburse them to those same nonprofits, which have no connection to the president or his family.

The president wired payments directly to the organizations a few weeks ago, but the payments were not made public until this week, an official in the attorney’s office said.

The nonprofit groups that received payments were the Army Emergency Relief, the Children’s Aid Society, Citymeals on Wheels, Give an Hour, Martha’s Table, the United Negro College Fund, the United Way of the National Capital Area, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Each received a total of $476,140.01.

In a statement, Marc Mukasey and Alan Futerfas, the attorneys for the foundation, said the attorney general “doesn’t want the media to focus on the massive trial they lost today.”

“Our case was amicably resolved weeks ago,” the statement said. “The judge commended both parties for the resolution. The legacy of the Trump Foundation — which gave away many millions to those most in need at virtually no cost — is secure.”



In a mid-November filing, the attorney general’s office requested that the judge, Justice Saliann Scarpulla of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, order Mr. Trump not to write off the payments as charitable contributions in his tax filings, but the judge did not do so.

As part of the settlement, Mr. Trump, who at first dismissed the suit as a political attack, made 19 detailed admissions, acknowledging, for example, that the foundation had purchased the $10,000 portrait of himself that was ultimately displayed at one of his Florida hotels.

He admitted to using the foundation’s money to settle obligations of some of his for-profit companies, including a golf club in Westchester County, N.Y., and Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Florida which he frequently visits.

And he admitted that the foundation had given his presidential campaign control over about $2.8 million that the foundation had raised at a veterans fund-raiser in Iowa in January 2016. Mr. Trump acknowledged the fund-raiser was in fact a campaign event.

The Trump Foundation, which Mr. Trump founded in 1987, disbanded last December after an investigation by Barbara Underwood, then-acting attorney general of New York. Ms. Underwood’s office found “unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more.”

It is illegal for charitable foundations to advance the self-interests of their executives.

The investigation had been started by the former attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, and was based on information first reported by The Washington Post during the presidential campaign. Ms. James took over the case when she was sworn into office in 2019.

As part of the settlement, Mr. Trump’s three children who were officers of the foundation — Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump — were ordered to undergo mandatory training to ensure they do not engage in similar misconduct in the future.

On Tuesday, the attorney general’s office confirmed the children had undergone the training.

[scottw]

Shoulda made an article of impeachment out of that too
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device