New O’Keefe video: Sure, says NPR exec, we can hide a donation from a Muslim Brotherhood front group from the government; Update: Exec was wrong about our donations policy, says NPR; Update: NPR releases e-mails showing it questioned donation

posted at 4:50 pm on March 10, 2011 by Allahpundit

Just make the donation anonymous, and voila — no Islamist fingerprints!

Oh, also, they’re liars:

Kasaam follows up by asking: “The fact that NPR is not only a tax-exempt organization, but also receives direct contributions from the government — does that invite some sort of government oversight or government examination of contributions, et cetera?”

Liley answered: “They have audited our programs at times and, I think, as part of that, they can look at our audited financials. If you are concerned in any way about that, that’s one reason you might want to be an anonymous donor. And, we would certainly, if that was your interest, want to shield you from that.”…

Following their phone calls, Liley checked with NPR’s senior management, and sent an e-mail to the man posing as Kasaam saying MEAC was cleared to make an anonymous donation of $5 million…

That e-mail directly contradicts NPR’s public statements issued in the wake of O’Keefe’s first video. “The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept,” NPR spokeswoman Dana Davis Rehm said in NPR’s official response.

Proof (or at least compelling evidence) that my theory about Vivian Schiller’s firing is sound? Maybe Liley came clean to management about her e-mail exchange with “Kasaam” after the first video was released and the board of directors figured immediate action was necessary to limit the damage. Although in that case, er, why would they issue any statements insisting that they “repeatedly refused” to accept Kasaam’s check? That only makes them look worse in hindsight.

Incidentally, O’Keefe’s post on this at his “Project Veritas” website ends with the words, “More to come . . .” Exit question: Why on earth would Liley believe that an Islamist group like the Brotherhood would blow a cool five mil on a media outlet that caters mainly to smug urban progressive moral relativists? Actually, wait. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

Update: Credit where it’s due: Instead of attacking O’Keefe, 22 NPR hosts and reporters have published an open letter condemning Ron Schiller’s remarks. Among the signers are Mara Liasson and Nina Totenberg.

Update: Dave Weigel previews the left’s spin on this: Yes, accepting a donation anonymously from the Muslim Brotherhood may be “not ideal,” but anonymous donations and the MB itself are all perfectly legal in the U.S. That’s great, but it was just a month ago that Bob Mueller and James Clapper went before a House committee to describe the Brotherhood’s support for terrorism and what a takeover in Egypt might mean. Granted, NPR quietly taking millions from a group like that wouldn’t be nearly as sinister as, say, Fox News taking millions from the Koch brothers, but still — maybe a little sinister, yes?

Update: John Hayward, a.k.a. Doctor Zero, wonders: Wasn’t the idea of private groups with political influence accepting money from shadowy, sinister donors a big issue in the midterms for Democrats?

Update: New damage control from a very busy NPR public affairs department.

NPR released a statement condemning Liley’s statements in the video.

“The statement made by Betsy Liley in the audio tapes released today regarding the possibility of making an anonymous gift that would remain invisible to tax authorities is factually inaccurate and not reflective of NPR’s gift practices. All donations – anonymous and named – are fully reported to the IRS. NPR complies with all financial, tax and disclosure regulations.”

Liley, who was caught on the initial videotape laughing at the suggestion that NPR was sometimes called National Palestinian Radio, was placed on administrative leave with Ron Schiller on Tuesday afternoon.

Update: Someone on Twitter asks a good question: Isn’t Liley NPR’s “Senior Director of Institutional Giving”? How could she possibly be wrong about their donations policy?

Update: A point in NPR’s favor: Newly released e-mails show Vivian Schiller apparently explained to “Kasaam” after his call with Liley that no, they couldn’t shield the donation from the IRS. They could keep it anonymous for public purposes, but not for the feds. Quote:

I spoke to Ibrahim. He says they ARE a 501c3. And then he added… “I think”. I told him we would need to know for sure AND we would need to look at the 990 as we do for any first time donor. He stressed that they want confidentially and I told him what Joyce told me – that it would not need to be reported in the public part of the 990 but it would need to be reported to the IRS, including the name of the donating institution. He had questions on all of the above which I said I simply don’t have the expertise to answer but that one of our lawyers could. He repeated again that they want to deliver the check. I said that’s very generous but we really need to sort out these issues first. He said is there a problem – and I said I don’ know till we can see the 990. He seemed a bit worried that there was some subtext to our hesitation.

Other e-mails show NPR’s counsel politely informing “Kasaam” that he’d have to prove his group was a genuine 501(c)(3) organization before they could accept a check. The big questions, then: Why didn’t NPR’s “Senior Director of Institutional Giving” set Kasaam straight on that? And why, as Weigel notes in his post linked above, was NPR set to accept a donation from a Muslim Brotherhood front provided they were willing to go ahead with it knowing the feds would see it?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I wonder if the dems you rammed obamcare down our thraost are in the wee hours of the night thinking that might have not been the smartest thing to do.

This is why I like the way Walker handled the issue. He gave the dems three weeks to compromise on the issue. they refused and he passed it. It was totally different than Obama and the dems passing Obamacare.

unseen on March 10, 2011 at 5:32 PM

I was just thinking the same thing. Betsy looks like a real ball of fire, doesn’t she? No, I didn’t think so either.

CurtZHP on March 10, 2011 at 5:04 PM

lemme guess. How long before we get the newest version of those-aren’t-my-values-and-those-weren’t-npr’s-values from Liley, a la Schiller?

ted c on March 10, 2011 at 5:33 PM

So, Betsy, how much other cash have you hidden from investigation using this method?

ted c on March 10, 2011 at 5:34 PM

It just does my heart good to see Liasson and Totenberg scurrying for the hills like a couple of rats… CYA ladies but it is too late.

Vive La France!!!!!!!

highninside on March 10, 2011 at 5:34 PM

In 1991, the Ikhwan set forth the memorandum for the Jihad Civilization Process in North America.

This is the plan in action.

blatantblue on March 10, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Credit where it’s due: Instead of attacking O’Keefe, 22 NPR hosts and reporters have published an open letter condemning Ron Schiller’s remarks. Among the signers are Mara Liasson and Nina Totenberg.

Dear listeners and taxpayers,

We are so sorry that we have been caught. We never met for it to be public what we really thought of you. We will continue to strive for balance, while insulting you to your face. Again we are sorry, please send a donation to your local NPR station so that we may carry on our good work.

kringeesmom on March 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM

The were shocked , shocked!! that islamist appeasement were going on there.

NPR gets the Captain Renault lifetime Award.

the_nile on March 10, 2011 at 5:35 PM

I know that I am just an ignorant red necked white male but even I know not to go down a path of anonymous donations from Arabic or Muslim groups. This is not so much alarming as showing that these people are morons.

Jdripper on March 10, 2011 at 5:35 PM

MSM silence on this is shocking expected.

bw222 on March 10, 2011 at 5:35 PM

OOhh George Soros enters the conversation at around 18:30

kurtzz3 on March 10, 2011 at 5:36 PM

but still — maybe a little sinister, yes?

maybe. but not sinister enough to ruffle the feathers of unprincipled moral relativists living in the urban areas. Then again, the only feathers they like are those on big bird.

ted c on March 10, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Betcha I know who the next NPR staffer to resign will be.

bw222 on March 10, 2011 at 5:36 PM

LOL – more to come folks!

HondaV65 on March 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM

HondaV65:Very well put,and said,hehe,it anin’t over yet!!

canopfor on March 10, 2011 at 5:37 PM

WAIT a minute. Isn’t this essentially what Obama and his campaign did when they turned off the verification process on the credit card transactions?
This is a big deal, I know, but I really can’t see a bunch of leftists caring where the cash comes from…………an enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I hope there is a lot of room under the bus but this looks like same old same old to me.
Thank God for OKeefe though. He’s doing more to defund than a multitude of Republicans in Congress.

ORconservative on March 10, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Then again, the only feathers they like are those on big bird.

ted c on March 10, 2011 at 5:36 PM

ted c:Haha,

Oh no,not………gulp….beastiality….ick…eewww!:)

canopfor on March 10, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Where or where is GrowFins and crew?

Crickets

Knucklehead on March 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Hummmm, After proposition 8 in California, How many good people in California were terrorized by the GLBT crowd. If one gave less than $100.00 such as $99.99, you didn’t have to give up your name or place of employment. However, those that rounded it up to $100.00 or gave more, their names were listed. Subsequently, many lost their job, others were hounded, their places of business picketed, etc. A lot of those were small donations. One can imagine what would have occurred if one decided to donate $5,000,000.00.

PrettyD_Vicious on March 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Betcha President Palin names O’Keefe to head the FBI or the CIA.

bw222 on March 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Hey. Those muslims are all peaceful.
I am quite sure that they just want their donations to be a surprise.
They just don’t want anyone knowing they are donating bcs they do not want to hog all of the glory./

Badger40 on March 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM

canopfor on March 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Pass the eyebleach my way. I clicked on your link.

OmahaConservative on March 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Is the Muslim Brotherhood one of the banned organizations in terms of supporting terrorism financially?

txmomof6 on March 10, 2011 at 5:41 PM

I can tell just from its name (“The Muslim Brotherhood”) it has to be some sort of glbtq outfit. So, isn’t this exactly the type of donor NPR would be looking for?…..Or am I missing something here?

alwyr on March 10, 2011 at 5:41 PM

EPIC!

Leonidas Hoplite on March 10, 2011 at 5:42 PM

I’m going to have to stop by the store and buy some more popcorn on my way home from work today…

Seven Percent Solution on March 10, 2011 at 5:43 PM

Now to live up to my moniker. Betsy Liley looks like one lesbian that is short on a willing partner of any gender.

PrettyD_Vicious on March 10, 2011 at 5:43 PM

New theme song for NPR: ARAB MONEY
La ilaha illa Allah, ha la ili, hay yo
Hili b’Allah, hey, hili bay yo
We getting Arab money
We getting Arab money

Kenosha Kid on March 10, 2011 at 5:43 PM

step 1 – Smash NPR.
step 2 – Burn corpse. (today)
step 3 – Grind bones into dust. (“More to come . . .”)
scrubjay on March 10, 2011 at 4:56 PM

step 4 – Salt the earth from whence they sprang….

TeresainFortWorth on March 10, 2011 at 5:45 PM

O’Keefe is my hero.

labrat on March 10, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Think NPR will get any more donations from our liberal jewish friends considering the fact that they are more than willing to lay down with the Muslim Brotherhood?

kurtzz3 on March 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM

In 1991, the Ikhwan set forth the memorandum for the Jihad Civilization Process in North America.

This is the plan in action.

blatantblue on March 10, 2011 at 5:34 PM

blatantblue: Heres two sites for ya!:)
===========================================

MB English Website
*******************

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/

===========================
===========================

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report

An Intelligence Digest Covering Developments In The
WorldWide MuslimBrotherhood NetWork
***********************************

http://globalmbreport.org/

canopfor on March 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Gullible liberals with their cocoon behavior are so easy to sting. They’ve got their preconceived notions, and they live inside their academic and elitist bastions. Remember where Ron Shiller got his talking points? Obama in SF in 2008. Bitter clingers. They really believe their narratives. Hilarious.

These stings are the ticket. I keep a hidden camera and recorder ready at all times. You never know when you are going to hear a powerful liberal divulge their true colors. And I hope kids in classrooms do the same. When’s the next obnoxious indoctrination rant? Get it on the iPod and make sure they get fired. It’s time to take a stand against progressives.

JeffB. on March 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM

let us hear the lamentations of their ‘women’….

ted c on March 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Where or where is GrowFins and crew?

Crickets

Knucklehead on March 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM

He is uncomfortable with the corporation-loving retards here at Hot Air suddenly bashing a…corporation.

Del Dolemonte on March 10, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Think NPR will get any more donations from our liberal jewish friends considering the fact that they are more than willing to lay down with the Muslim Brotherhood?

kurtzz3 on March 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Yes.

Will Obama get most of the Jewish vote in 2008 considering the fact that he was more than willing to lay down with an anti-Semitic preacher?

sharrukin on March 10, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Brothers In Arms.

John the Libertarian on March 10, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Exactly!

It’s funny that the absolute moral authority on equality actively defends religious zealots that subjugate women, deny religious freedom and basically create “law” as they go.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

hisfrogness on March 10, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Liberals…taking the High Ground.

Bwahahahahahaha. Gotcha.

kingsjester on March 10, 2011 at 5:49 PM

This is not so much alarming as showing that these people are morons.

Jdripper on March 10, 2011 at 5:35 PM

But they’re our best and our brightest, the proud product of America’s finest, most enlightened and elite institutions!

rrpjr on March 10, 2011 at 5:50 PM

I’m shocked! (Do I get the Captain Renault award now?)

Claypigeon on March 10, 2011 at 5:50 PM

canopfor on March 10, 2011 at 5:13 PM
Pass the eyebleach my way. I clicked on your link.

OmahaConservative on March 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM

OmahaConservative:Haha,hey,eye bleach on its way,two
Canadian Geese are wing’n there way
to ya,hopefully,customs,won’t hold
them up for too long,hehe!!:)

canopfor on March 10, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Boy I hope this lady gets fired for telling people (correctly) that they can donate to NPR anonymously!

Wouldn’t that be great?

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 5:53 PM

This is a big deal, I know, but I really can’t see a bunch of leftists caring where the cash comes from…………an enemy of my enemy is my friend.
ORconservative on March 10, 2011 at 5:38 PM

They are crapping out in their pants.

The enemy(i.e. the Republican gang) is in the Driver’s seat. And they don’t even have slurpees :-)

antisocial on March 10, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Uhhhh EDITED!!!! Yeah, that’s it. The tape was EDITED! HEAVILY! It’s a trick! Uhhh, James O’Keefe is a convicted CRIMINAL! Yeah, that’s it. Discredited! James O’Keefe is a DISCREDITED CRIMINAL WHO HEAVILY EDITS LIBERALS! Ron and Betsy didn’t actually say what you hear on the tapes because RON SCHILLER IS A REPUBLICAN! Yeah, that’s it Ron’s a Republican. Only a Republican would say all those nasty things about Jews! That is what NPR’s Ombudswoman said. I read it on her Tweeter so it has to the the TRUTH! And, and they didn’t take the money! Because they don’t need no stinkin Federal Dollars.

WHere’s my medicine???!! I NEED MY STINKIN MEDICINE!!! AHHHHHHHHH!

BigAlSouth on March 10, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Is this how bho is going to fund the billion for his re-election? Did he do this last election?
L

letget on March 10, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Criminal behavior to say the least. Lock these people up or our laws are meaningless. Credibility is at state here. Trust in government is at an all time low. We’re about to say enough with this lawlessness by the so called elitist and move into citizen arrest mode.

Keemo on March 10, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Wasn’t the idea of private groups with political influence accepting money from shadowy, sinister donors a big issue in the midterms for Democrats?

Only if they were ‘conservative’ groups.

It’s all part of the “nuance”.

GarandFan on March 10, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Criminal behavior to say the least. Lock these people up or our laws are meaningless.

Keemo on March 10, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Which laws were broken?

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:01 PM

BHO could throw ten billion at this election and lose in historic fashion. These polls showing him at 46-47 percent approval are so effing fabricated. The man might just as well cover himself in dog poo from head to toe, as that would at least give him an excuse for why all the people are avoiding him.

Keemo on March 10, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Which laws were broken?

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Did you forget the sarc button?
Hiding a 5 million dollar donation from the Federal government. Jeez

Keemo on March 10, 2011 at 6:03 PM

O’Keefe handled himself very well on Hannity today. The young man has to goods on these criminals and is waiting to see if they lie before releasing. Smart young man has these as*wipes backed up against a wall.

Keemo on March 10, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Did you forget the sarc button?
Hiding a 5 million dollar donation from the Federal government. Jeez

Keemo on March 10, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Anonymous donations are not illegal.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:05 PM

I know that I am just an ignorant red necked white male but even I know not to go down a path of anonymous donations from Arabic or Muslim groups. This is not so much alarming as showing that these people are morons.

They are not just regular morons. They are ELITE MORONS. :)

poxoma on March 10, 2011 at 6:06 PM

I know that I am just an ignorant red necked white male but even I know not to go down a path of anonymous donations from Arabic or Muslim groups. This is not so much alarming as showing that these people are morons.

Boy, you really summed it up. Anonymous donations from Christians or Jews are fine – Muslim groups shouldn’t be treated equally, huh. After all, Muslims did the 9/11 attacks.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM

OK, I’ve done some more digging per my earlier post on this thread.

First, let me be clear I AM NOT DEFENDING NPR, LILEY, OR EITHER OF THE SCHILLERS. They all deserve to face repercussions and undoubtedly will.

As I mentioned earlier, Liley is an incompetent. She misstates what an “anonymous donation” means (certainly at any reputable charity which I will say her old employer [Purdue] was even if NPR is not).

Along those lines, this was posted at NPR’s blog site:

“The statement made by Betsy Liley in the audiotapes released today regarding the possibility of making an anonymous gift that would remain invisible to tax authorities is factually inaccurate and not reflective of NPR’s gift practices.

“All donations — anonymous and named — are fully reported to the IRS. NPR complies with all financial, tax and disclosure regulations.

“Through unequivocal words and actions, NPR has renounced and condemned the secretly recorded statements of Ron Schiller and Betsy Liley. Mr. Schiller is no longer with NPR and Ms. Liley has been placed on administrative leave, pending an investigation of the matter.

“No stronger statement of disavowal and disapproval is possible. NPR will not be deterred from its news mission and will ultimately be judged by the millions and millions of listeners and readers who have come to rely on us every day.”

Setting Ms. Liley’s odious National Palestinian Radio comments aside, simply based on her competence (or lack thereof) I would be surprised if she is ever able to find work in development again.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Anonymous donations from Christians or Jews are fine – Muslim groups shouldn’t be treated equally, huh.

ProudRino, can you provide us with a list of Christians or Jews who donate to the NPR anonymously and can you also tell us the $ amounts of their donations?? I thought Schiller said on tape there was no Zionists funders at the NPR. You think he was just lying??

poxoma on March 10, 2011 at 6:14 PM

ProudRino, can you provide us with a list of Christians or Jews who donate to the NPR anonymously and can you also tell us the $ amounts of their donations??

poxoma on March 10, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Think before you type.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM

NPR needs to be audited.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:17 PM

As a Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) publicly supported organization, NPR has to be able to show that at least one-third of its support comes from “the public,” and that’s exclusive of any gifts by one individual or organization that exceed 2% of its total support. There are limited exceptions and I’m oversimplying a bit, but the bottom line is, a publicly supported charity can’t just have a list of “anonymous” donors of amounts remotely close to $5 million because the IRS would have no way of verifying that it’s met its public support obligation.

Purdue U, as an educational organization, isn’t subject to that requirement, so they may be able to accept large anonymous donations. I don’t think NPR can. And someone in Liley’s position should know that.

Lynn B. on March 10, 2011 at 6:17 PM

James O’Keefe is a modern-day Paul Revere.

Naturally Curly on March 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Proud Rino- O’Keefe set the group in this situation not to be a Muslim group, but a group associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and a goal of spreading Sharia law in the US.

MayBee on March 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Proud Rino:

I suggest you contact NPR. Perhaps you can clear up what they are doing, thinking and saying.

Along those lines, this was posted at NPR’s blog site:

“The statement made by Betsy Liley in the audiotapes released today regarding the possibility of making an anonymous gift that would remain invisible to tax authorities is factually inaccurate and not reflective of NPR’s gift practices.

Odie1941 on March 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM

I don’t give a crap who they get their money from, as long as they aren’t governmanet funded.

Cut em loose and let em sink or swim along with the rest of us.

party’s over folks

DrW on March 10, 2011 at 6:22 PM

ProudRino, can you provide us with a list of Christians or Jews who donate to the NPR anonymously
poxoma on March 10, 2011 at 6:14 PM

LOL.

crr6 on March 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Proud Rino- O’Keefe set the group in this situation not to be a Muslim group, but a group associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and a goal of spreading Sharia law in the US.

MayBee on March 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Yeah, none of that is actually illegal either.

Odie1941 on March 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM

It’s pretty obvious that she thought these guys were legitimate – why would they care whether NPR reported the anonymous gift to the IRS? A good faith donor would just want to remain anonymous. Try to remember that she doesn’t know she’s on a prank video.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Lynn B. on March 10, 2011 at 6:17 PM

The only type of donation that I’m aware of that comes into a university (that would be accepted) – aside from small, non-receipted cash donations that you might have at a fundraising event – would be gifts from places like Fidelity Charitable Trust. There donors who work with Fidelity can direct their gifts and the way that it’s done often winds up being anonymous. Usually these happen at the end of the year and there’s a scramble to try to line up gift letters from donors with the actual funds as they come in from Fidelity. It’s a nightmare (for the charity).

I think my husband mentioned that new tax regs have compounded the problem, but I don’t recall the specifics.

But in general an anonymous donation is a gift, often very large, that is fully documented at the recipient institution but which is stewarded in a way that keeps the donor’s name anonymous to the public. That doesn’t mean that the IRS doesn’t know who it is.

This often happens when you have people who are big philanthropists with multiple places asking them for money – or even if there are family members who might be annoyed by the gift. They want to be anonymous so that the other charities don’t feel “hurt.” It’s not nefarious.

I actually haven’t followed this closely enough to understand what the scam was that the fake organization was intending to run. It certainly sounds like NPR was unethical in suggesting they’d help them run it, however.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:25 PM

It certainly sounds like NPR was unethical in suggesting they’d help them run it, however.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Just a lone rouge actor, now safely abandoned under the bus. What?

Kenosha Kid on March 10, 2011 at 6:29 PM

uh, rogue. heh. maybe rouge too.

Kenosha Kid on March 10, 2011 at 6:30 PM

It’s pretty obvious that she thought these guys were legitimate – why would they care whether NPR reported the anonymous gift to the IRS? A good faith donor would just want to remain anonymous.

I think you may be cutting NPR too much slack. If you are talking with a donor who is trying to work out some sort of tax work-around, which it sounds like NPR was trying to do (to avoid an audit), then you stop the conversation and immediately refer them to their own tax attorneys and lawyers. A charity should never enter into a conversation with a donor when it becomes evident that the donor is trying to “get around” the law. These things happen from time to time. People (donors) are trying to construct their gifts in a way that is most favorable to them tax-wise. But if they get anywhere near the line of a tax dodge, the charity has to walk away. And they do. Reputable ones do.

Look, I think Liley is 90% incompetent and only 10% unethical, but it sounds like her boss (Mr. Schiller) was 100% unethical.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Odie1941 on March 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Anonymous donations are not illegal.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:05 PM

As a Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) publicly supported organization, NPR has to be able to show that at least one-third of its support comes from “the public,” and that’s exclusive of any gifts by one individual or organization that exceed 2% of its total support. There are limited exceptions and I’m oversimplying a bit, but the bottom line is, a publicly supported charity can’t just have a list of “anonymous” donors of amounts remotely close to $5 million because the IRS would have no way of verifying that it’s met its public support obligation.
Lynn B. on March 10, 2011 at 6:17 PM

PR, could you respond, please?

a capella on March 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Just a lone rouge actor, now safely abandoned under the bus. What?

No. It sounds like they were seriously considering taking the gift. So both Schillers and Liley should be gone… and perhaps the Legal Counsel, depending on what his recommendations were.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Yeah … several questions about O’Keefe “trickling out” the videos.

It’s a standard Alinsky tactic – which James like to use against the Libbies. Essentially – he can provoke even greater dishonesty and overreaction by the organizaion through the “trickle out”.

To paraphrase General George S. Patton:

Alinsky, you commie bastard – WE’VE READ YOUR BOOK!

Naturally Curly on March 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM

….not reflective of NPR’s gift practices.

Of course! Liley’s just a “Senior Director, Institutional Giving” — it stands to reason that she’d know nothing at all about NPR’s gift practices.

cthulhu on March 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Yeah, none of that is actually illegal either.

I don’t think illegality is the problem. I haven’t heard anybody allege it would be illegal to take their donation. Have you?

MayBee on March 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Who you going to believe liar one or liar two. Tough choice.

tarpon on March 10, 2011 at 6:35 PM

If the word of NPR’s PR department is to be believed, if Schiller, Liley et. al. were wrong in everything they said to their putative Muslim Brotherhood donors, weren’t they therefore completely trying to defraud them?

Blaise on March 10, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Does NPR answer the right question? I don’t think the whole donation being invisible was at issue. I thought just the donor was to be anonymous.

MayBee on March 10, 2011 at 6:35 PM

It’s amazing what one brilliant wiseacre with a camera can accomplish. I’m thinking…Senator O’Keefe sounds good?

ronsfi on March 10, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Odie1941 on March 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM
Anonymous donations are not illegal.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:05 PM
As a Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) publicly supported organization, NPR has to be able to show that at least one-third of its support comes from “the public,” and that’s exclusive of any gifts by one individual or organization that exceed 2% of its total support. There are limited exceptions and I’m oversimplying a bit, but the bottom line is, a publicly supported charity can’t just have a list of “anonymous” donors of amounts remotely close to $5 million because the IRS would have no way of verifying that it’s met its public support obligation.
Lynn B. on March 10, 2011 at 6:17 PM
PR, could you respond, please?

a capella on March 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM

The idiot is stuck on stupid. Give him an hour or so.

Odie1941 on March 10, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Yeah…but do they get a free tote bag with the donation?

ReaganWasRight on March 10, 2011 at 6:38 PM

I think NPR has a U.S. House-ordered audit in its future. Might there be some prison sentences in some folks’ futures? Once can only hope. FROG MARCH!!!

Rational Thought on March 10, 2011 at 6:38 PM

a publicly supported charity can’t just have a list of “anonymous” donors of amounts remotely close to $5 million because the IRS would have no way of verifying that it’s met its public support obligation.
Lynn B. on March 10, 2011 at 6:17 PM

PR, could you respond, please?

a capella on March 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM

I’ll jump in if I may.

If we accept NPR’s word that they were reporting the names of the donors to the IRS (which would be standard operating procedure) when and as required, then I think that there isn’t a problem. There’s a difference between what the IRS sees and what the general public sees.

Liley was intimating to the fake donor that the gift would come in anonymously, but she was wrong. They would know who the donor was at NPR and report it to the IRS (unless they’re really lying about everything).

Also, I don’t have a feel for NPR’s charitable contributions, so I’m not sure where $5 M would fall on the percentages quoted above. But remember that corporate (and foundation) support probably also counts as “public” support. So it’s probably a big number. Not sure about that, though.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:39 PM

I think you may be cutting NPR too much slack. If you are talking with a donor who is trying to work out some sort of tax work-around, which it sounds like NPR was trying to do (to avoid an audit), then you stop the conversation and immediately refer them to their own tax attorneys and lawyers.

How would MEAC be able to prevent NPR from being audited?

A charity should never enter into a conversation with a donor when it becomes evident that the donor is trying to “get around” the law.

I’m suggesting that, if you’re listening to this guy in good faith, you’re assuming that maybe he’s misspeaking, maybe he doesn’t really understand what an ‘audit’ is, etc. He’s not a tax lawyer, he’s just a representative.

But if they get anywhere near the line of a tax dodge, the charity has to walk away. And they do. Reputable ones do.

You have to elaborate by what you mean here, because I can’t think of any way in which that makes sense.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:40 PM

It’s amazing what one brilliant wiseacre with a camera can accomplish. I’m thinking…Senator O’Keefe sounds good?

ronsfi on March 10, 2011 at 6:36 PM

It says something about what the media fight hard to keep under wraps.

the_nile on March 10, 2011 at 6:40 PM

regarding the possibility of making an anonymous gift that would remain invisible to tax authorities is factually inaccurate and not reflective of NPR’s gift practices. All donations – anonymous and named – are fully reported to the IRS. NPR complies with all financial, tax and disclosure regulations.”

How’s about a little audit there, scarecrow?

:::Yeeeeheeeeheeeeheeeheeehee

/wicked witch of the West.

Key West Reader on March 10, 2011 at 6:40 PM

which it sounds like NPR was trying to do (to avoid an audit),

That was a typo, btw. I meant that the fake Islamofacist organization was trying to do the tax dodge, but NPR was willing to help them.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:41 PM

How did they intend to hide a donation from the Muslim Brotherhood? By laundering the money through the Tides foundation of course. That’s the only reason Tides exists, to launder money. That’s why they called it ‘Tides’.

slickwillie2001 on March 10, 2011 at 6:41 PM

odie1941 on March 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM

It’s pretty obvious that she thought these guys were legitimate – why would they care whether NPR reported the anonymous gift to the IRS? A good faith donor would just want to remain anonymous. Try to remember that she doesn’t know she’s on a prank video.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Was it the responsibility of the video makers to tell her they were taping her?

Priceless.

PS, Maytag called. They need you to design a new washing machine for them.

Del Dolemonte on March 10, 2011 at 6:41 PM

So does that mean there won’t be a series on The Glory of Islam and the Wonders of Muslim Spain in 3D?

BL@KBIRD on March 10, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Given this new information, de-funding by itself does not go far enough.

Kenosha Kid on March 10, 2011 at 5:26 PM

For sure.

petefrt on March 10, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Granted, NPR quietly taking millions from a group like that wouldn’t be nearly as sinister as, say, Fox News taking millions from the Koch brothers, but still

SNORT! (that bit o’ honey/sarcasm made my night)

Oh, and NPR is right, they do get independently audited and would have a difficult time hiding a donation of that size. Granted, they’d get no more than a breath of warm air on the wrist from this administration, but it would still expose them to some serious legal ramifications if anyone on the Con side of the aisle discovered it, and some firings would soon follow I’m guessing.

Geministorm on March 10, 2011 at 6:44 PM

The idiot is stuck on stupid. Give him an hour or so.

Odie1941 on March 10, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Deploying the ‘I got nothing so I’ll pretend I don’t see that’ gambit.

BigWyo on March 10, 2011 at 6:45 PM

PR -

See typo correction above re the avoiding audit thing. I mistyped.

But if they get anywhere near the line of a tax dodge, the charity has to walk away. And they do. Reputable ones do.

You have to elaborate by what you mean here, because I can’t think of any way in which that makes sense.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:40 PM

A common type of monkey business (not strictly a tax dodge, I guess) has to do with gifts of land. Someone owns 50 acres of land. The real estate market is down. They (try to) donate 5 acres of land to a charity and in the process of doing their tax paperwork get the land valued at a high price. Then they sell the remaining 45 acres, waving the land valuation to prospective buyers, jacking up the price.

The IRS has closed this loophole this year by basically making it impossible to give land to a charity for anything other than use in the charity’s primary mission/function. In other words, charities can’t accept gifts of land and turn around and sell them. They need to use them.

But prior to closing this loophole the charity had to walk away from it if they suspected that was the plan the donor was running.

Other things that donors do is try to set up trusts or annuities at institutions, but still control how they’re used.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Update: New damage control from a very busy NPR public affairs department.
NPR released a statement condemning Liley’s statements in the video.
“The statement made by Betsy Liley in the audio tapes released today regarding the possibility of making an anonymous gift that would remain invisible to tax authorities is factually inaccurate and not reflective of NPR’s gift practices. All donations – anonymous and named – are fully reported to the IRS. NPR complies with all financial, tax and disclosure regulations.”
Liley, who was caught on the initial videotape laughing at the suggestion that NPR was sometimes called National Palestinian Radio, was placed on administrative leave with Ron Schiller on Tuesday afternoon.

Nice knowing you, Betts!

Naturally Curly on March 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM

PR -

See typo correction above re the avoiding audit thing. I mistyped.

But if they get anywhere near the line of a tax dodge, the charity has to walk away. And they do. Reputable ones do.

You have to elaborate by what you mean here, because I can’t think of any way in which that makes sense.
Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:40 PM

A common type of monkey business (not strictly a tax dodge, I guess) has to do with gifts of land. Someone owns 50 acres of land. The real estate market is down. They (try to) donate 5 acres of land to a charity and in the process of doing their tax paperwork get the land valued at a high price. Then they sell the remaining 45 acres, waving the land valuation to prospective buyers, jacking up the price.

The IRS has closed this loophole this year by basically making it impossible to give land to a charity for anything other than use in the charity’s primary mission/function. In other words, charities can’t accept gifts of land and turn around and sell them. They need to use them.

But prior to closing this loophole the charity had to walk away from it if they suspected that was the plan the donor was running.

Other things that donors do is try to set up trusts or annuities at institutions, but still control how they’re used.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM

You are dead on. See St. Joe Company in Florida.

Odie1941 on March 10, 2011 at 6:51 PM

The idiot is stuck on stupid. Give him an hour or so.

Odie1941 on March 10, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Deploying the ‘I got nothing so I’ll pretend I don’t see that’ gambit.

BigWyo on March 10, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Maybe read 26 USC 170. You might understand then why that doesn’t merit a response.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:52 PM

That was a typo, btw. I meant that the fake Islamofacist organization was trying to do the tax dodge, but NPR was willing to help them.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:41 PM

That’s what I’m disputing. It seemed pretty clear to me that she was focusing on the anonymity aspect and they were talking about the tax stuff – she didn’t really mention that at all. She should have made it clear to these guys that anonymity doesn’t mean that the funds don’t get reported, but again, she thought she was dealing with people that were actually donating money in good faith and not people that were playing gotcha.

But prior to closing this loophole the charity had to walk away from it if they suspected that was the plan the donor was running.

Y-not on March 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM

I’m aware of the loophole but was unaware that charities had to refuse money if they thought a tax loophole was involved. Do you have a link or something? I’m curious.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 6:57 PM

she didn’t really mention that at all. She should have made it clear to these guys that anonymity doesn’t mean that the funds don’t get reported, but again, she thought she was dealing with people that were actually donating money in good faith and not people that were playing gotcha.

Elaborating a little further – Because she thought they were good faith donors, I’m thinking she assumed they were misspeaking when they were talking about “hiding” the money and were talking about remaining anonymous. Like I said, you have to remember that she doesn’t know she’s on tape here, she just thinks she’s trying to assure these guys that they will remain anonymous.

Proud Rino on March 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

National Putz Radio
Putz Broadcastion Corporation

SouthernGent on March 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

See the liars squirm.

paul1149 on March 10, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3