Can you guess the fleas in this circus?

[Timsup2nothin]

So we start with a guy who owns a residential property in Washington DC. He claims it is his primary residence on his taxes to qualify for a huge tax credit, but publicly claims that he is "just a landlord."

His nominal tenant is a media company. They run an office in the property that is openly violating zoning laws. No one is sure if they actually pay any rent, or if their uniformly friendly "news stories" about the landlord are some sort of payment in kind. Of course they never disclose in these "news stories" that they have any sort of financial arrangement with their "landlord" at all.

The property is occupied as a residence by a high ranking employee. Free rent at this expensive Washington property is never listed as compensation on this individual's income taxes.

When this individual "leaves the company" for a job in the presidential administration he apparently continues receiving rent free accommodations. Bonus question: is it a greater conflict of interest to have a white house staff member receiving "free rent for access" from a media organization, or should he not claim that he is receiving his free rent directly from the property owner, who is a foreign national?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I can't believe no one has taken a guess at any of these players.

Who is the landlord? That might be a tough one, but surely someone can guess what company is involved in this shady deal, and who their "former" employee is.

 

[El_Machinae]

I had made some guesses, but I'm wrong. On a scale of one to ten, how accurate is your summary up there, and how much is selective interpretation?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I had made some guesses, but I'm wrong. On a scale of one to ten, how accurate is your summary up there, and how much is selective interpretation?

It's all paraphrased from articles in fairly reliable media. I paraphrased so a simple "type it word for word into a search engine" wouldn't pull up the article right off the bat...and out of literary license.

What were your guesses, pray tell? I actually thought the answers were obvious, but now I'm curious if there is a close enough fit to make it ambiguous. Ah...hey, I bet I know who would be a good guess but not be right, now that I think about it...

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, keep in mind that I am not an American. So some things might be intuitive to you and not to me.

But someone with an administrative position lives in a media company's office? And this media company is sympathetic to its landlord?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, keep in mind that I am not an American. So some things might be intuitive to you and not to me.

But someone with an administrative position lives in a media company's office? And this media company is sympathetic to its landlord?

The media company "office" is actually in a residence. While "running a business out of your home" is sometimes legal, depending on the business and the way the zoning laws of the city are worded, in this case based on multiple people who have some expertise and their reading of Washington DC zoning codes the media company having their "Washington Headquarters" in a neighborhood brownstone is in fact a violation on their part. There's no indication that code enforcement officers have ever cited them for it though.

Whether the member of the administration is currently living in the media company office is also somewhat questionable. He lists his "home of record" as a property that he owns in Florida, and always has. Maintaining Florida residence is a pretty common tax dodge for the wealthy as Florida has no state income tax. Where he actually lays his head at night at this point has to be somewhere in Washington since he is there day to day, as he mostly has been for years. There is no indication that he has personally rented or purchased any place, and when he actively worked for the media company he basically lived in their "Washington HQ." It is a four bedroom so there's no reason that he shouldn't have...then. He and the company both claim there is no conflict of interest since he "no longer is employed by them," so continuing to let him live there seems...odd. But he doesn't appear to be living anywhere else.

The landlord has appeared in four stories carried by the media company. In all four he was reported on in pretty glowing terms, despite his nationality being not a favorite of their usual editorial policy. In none of the four cases was it pointed out that there may be some inclination to bias since he is the landlord of their "Washington Headquarters," which doubles as the Washington "home away from home" of a (now former) senior staff person. By the way, he says he is the landlord and the media company says they pay rent, but of course as a private rental agreement there is no public record to verify that any money actually changes hands. The entire arrangement could be an exchange of favors.


C'mon man! Somebody has to be able to guess who this is.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ah, I'd guessed some of the players. I was using the wrong search terms, and trying to find the smoking gun for 'staying for free'.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah, I'd guessed some of the players. I was using the wrong search terms, and trying to find the smoking gun for 'staying for free'.

Yeah...not sure there is a smoking gun for that. Rental agreements aren't public record, so all you can go on is claims. At various times he claimed that "the Washington office is in my dining room" and at other times the landlord claimed the media organization was his "tenant and I'm just their landlord." So it's actually unclear who is the actual renter and who is just being allowed to share space. And of course there could be a sublease agreement of some sort. But no one involved has ever offered any clarifications, really. And now that he "no longer works for them" and is a member of the Trump administration the hazy nature of the relationships is in itself a problem.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah. It's a fairly important question.

Is a government official getting free kickbacks from a media organization?
Is a media organization failing to disclose financial relationships?

The 2nd one has no solution. The first one should be investigatable. But it won't be. But it should be.

 

[Perfection]

I DON'T KNOW

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I DON'T KNOW

That's an honest admission, so time to move on.

The landlord is an Egyptian named Moustafa El-Gindy. Former member of parliament who in no way shape or form could meet the "resident" requirement to claim the property tax deduction that he claims on the Brownstone.

The media company is Breitbart.

You can guess who the head mother flea in charge is, for sure.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

HMFIC (head mother flea in charge) at the circus violates Trump's hilariously hypocritical "ethics pledge." Hard not to "have contact" while living rent free in their offices I guess.

 

[Naskra]

Some big, scary fleas you've smoked out, there. Nice work.
An Egyptian guy with a questionable entry on his tax return; a possible zoning violation in the nation's capital; and Steve Bannon, who recently moved on short notice, is crashing with friends. And possibly paying rent, or possibly not, whichever is worse.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Some big, scary fleas you've smoked out, there. Nice work.
An Egyptian guy with a questionable entry on his tax return; a possible zoning violation in the nation's capital; and Steve Bannon, who recently moved on short notice, is crashing with friends. And possibly paying rent, or possibly not, whichever is worse.

Well, when the "friends" are either a foreign national (prohibited by the constitution) or his former employer (prohibited by his boss's employment requirements) it is at least interesting, don't you agree?

 

[Naskra]

No. I like scandals as much as the next guy, but there's just nothing here I can work with. An unconstitutional foreigner sounds promising only until we examine the concept.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No. I like scandals as much as the next guy, but there's just nothing here I can work with. An unconstitutional foreigner sounds promising only until we examine the concept.

The concept is that members of the administration are not allowed to accept gifts from foreign nationals. What's to examine?

 

[Naskra]

When Obama publicly took a cash gift of 7 figures from some foreigners of dubious allegiance, most people just laughed. The bar for scanda

 

[Naskra]

-l in Trump times is considerably higher.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

When you use "events" from the fevered imaginings of Steve Bannon to "raise the bar" on a scandal involving Steve Bannon one has to wonder about your integrity.

 

[Naskra]

I'm not making this up, and didn't hear it from Bannon. Obama really did win a Nobel Prize. I know it sounds like fake news so I won't try to convince you.