Tim Cook donates $2 million to unnamed charity

Apple CEO Tim Cook
Apple CEO Tim Cook
Apple CEO Tim Cook last week donated 6,880 of his AAPL shares, worth about $2 million, to an unidentified charity.

Mikey Campbell for AppleInsider:

According to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Thursday, Cook conducted the transaction on Dec. 27, when Apple shares were priced at $289.80. No shares were sold and a reporting price was not applied to the transfer, meaning the exact sum Cook donated will likely remain unknown.

Cook routinely participates in philanthropic activities like auctioning off one-on-one meet-and-greets through CharityBuzz. In 2014, for example, a lunch with Cook at Apple’s headquarters sold for $330,000. Proceeds of the online sales typically go to the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights.

MacDailyNews Take: Perhaps it was for Australian bushfire relief efforts?


    1. No need. We are about to see “Wag the Dog” in its purest form. The reason that most countries refrain from assasinating foreign government officials is that it legitimates the use of assasination in an escalating tit-for-tat pattern.

      Like nuclear weapons, state-sponsored assasination is only useful as a threat to deter a general war,,, unless the man ordering the initial assasination wants a war as a distraction from domestic politics. Trump doesn’t need Cook’s money when he can use ersatz patriotism to rev up his base.

  1. Really…a conspiracy? Trump planned the proceeding events as well? If it’s untrue the general had no plans to attack American forces in the region, as stated otherwise in various US media reports (MSNBC, NBC, NYT), how can one believe anything one reads and, therefore, come to a conclusion, as yours?

    For a president that’s been quite “arms down/pull out” of conflict, on what basis is it logical now that he’s going to get into a conflict merely to rev his base? Your script doesn’t make sense.

    1. Ronner, We do not have “various media reports.” We have one report issued by a single source—the Trump Administration—that has been widely reported. I have no evidence that it is untrue, and you have no more evidence that it is true, other than your faith in the credibility of Donald Trump. It actually does not matter for the point I was making.

      The general was not an individual criminal, or even a criminal mastermind. He was a highly-placed official of a sovereign state carrying out the policy of his country’s government. If he was directing attacks against the US, that was not a crime. State-on-state violence is war. The United States Constitution has a remedy for that: the President sends a message to Congress (like Wilson in 1917 or FDR in 1941) requesting a declaration of war. If it is approved (note “if”), he conducts that war as Commander in Chief

      Absent such a declaration, attacking a foreign official for carrying out the policies of his government is itself an act of war. The analogy is not to Wilson or FDR, but to the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor. Attacking enemy command and control is perfectly appropriate in wartime, but targeted assasination directed at foreign officials outside wartime is never appropriate. It is not just immoral but unwise, because it opens one’s own officials to retaliation.

      In this case, we have the further complication that the assasination was carried out in a third country and involved a missile attack on their principal international airport. It was also an attack on their sovereignty. If the US wants partners to fight Sunni jihadists, attacking Shia governments is hardly the way to gain cooperation. It simply drives Iraq and Syria deeper into the Russian/Iranian orbit.

      Playing the tough guy has always been the President’s style. This is just another example of making policy as an assertion of his manhood, rather than in the national interest. If that plays well to his base, that is not just a coincidence. Pointing that out is not a conspiracy theory.

  2. “Mulatto”…..sheesh!! How low can you go?
    Trump throwing grist to the mill to shore up his base with this assassination, is a clear provocative escalation in the region. That it was undertaken without any prior international consultation, ensures Trump’s international pariah status and rapidly so too for America and Americans, who will be viewed as capricious, untrustworthy, hubristic and thoroughly unlike_able…to say the least.
    Tell me…just who, willingly, will help America when you’ve trampled all your goodwill assets abroad? And once you’ve weakened former staunch allies, who does this help? Russia and China. Is that really what you want?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.