ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
That was separate fund raising stated to be for legal bills, not diverting election campaign donations.
I don't know who the NY Democrat mentioned in your other post is, but it couldn't have been a president.
Trump isn't "diverting election campaign donations" to fund his legal expenses.
Trump is using PAC money
WOLF: What are the broad strokes of what we know about how Trump is financing his legal defense?
SCHOUTEN: During the course of this campaign, the former president has asked his political donors to help pay his soaring legal bills.
The primary vehicle has been a leadership PAC called Save America that Trump established after he lost the White House in November 2020. Trump seeded the PAC largely with money he raised in the aftermath of his loss when he asked for donors’ help in fighting what he claimed was widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
(Save America also transferred some of that money – $60 million – to the pro-Trump super PAC, MAGA Inc., that could directly spend money to help his campaign. More on that later.)
As a presidential candidate in the 2024 election, Trump has consistently diverted a share of new political donations to Save America, and – by extension – to his legal expenses.
For instance, a joint fundraising agreement among Trump, the Republican National Committee and a couple dozen state GOP committees sends donations to Save America before the national party and state committees get their cut, underscoring how much Trump prioritizes paying lawyers.
Since the start of 2021, Save America has paid nearly $80 million in legal bills for Trump and others in his orbit.
In April 2024 alone, as Trump’s criminal hush money trial in New York got under way, the PAC racked up about $4.4 million in legal expenses between bills paid and outstanding debts, recent filings how. A big recipient: The law firm of Todd Blanche, the lead attorney representing Trump as he battled criminal charges in a Manhattan courtroom that centered on whether he falsified business records to conceal an election-eve payment to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016.
Trump was convicted on May 30 and has vowed to appeal.
//
And donors (to the PACs) are very very aware of that, and are happy to donate for that
//
But one thing has become clear: Trump’s team has used his legal difficulties as an engine to generate donations. We’ve seen fundraising spikes during big court appearances but none so big as the nearly $53 million that Trump’s political operation said it brought in in the 24 hours after the New York conviction last month.
That single-day haul accounts for more than one-third of the whopping $141 million that the Trump campaign said it raised with the Republican National Committee in May.
And MAGA Inc. just announced a May fundraising bonanza, saying it brought in nearly $70 million last month.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/05/polit...
Clinton did what was necessary to do, to get donations to use for legal expenses, before Citizen United (2010).
Trump and many others do what it is necessary to do, to get donations to use for legal expenses, after Citizen United.
In both cases, politicians facing personal legal issues get tax exempt donations to pay their legal expenses.
Nothing strange, nothing unprecedented, nothing shady (donors know that's how the money is going to be used).
But ofc Trump does it, it becomes bad. Democrats did the same many times, "it's totally different and proper". Lol
I really don't know what you think your point is, as this info you just posted confirms my belief that he has diverted campaign funds to his personal defense funds. The fact that "Save America" is a middle man didn't change that.
You also haven't even claimed that a democratic president has done the same thing.
I'm sure what is being done is legal - I just said that I think it should be illegal. I also think that Citizens United was one of the worst SC decisions ever made and hopefully will one day be overturned and go into the trash can of bad decisions along with the likes of Dred Scott.
Because that was before citizen united.
Trump isn't using his campaign money for legal expenses, he is using PAC money
He directed general donations to himself to his own leadership PAC. Which actually makes it worse because leadership PACs are supposed to be used to support other candidates, not your own candidacy. And even if he were allowed to use it for his own candidacy, the use for legal fees is supposed to be in support of the candidacy, not for personal legal defense, even though this is a huge gray area that hasn't been challenged yet.
"Well, it wasn't HIS campaign funds it was from his PAC" goes straight to the top of the list of "I'll take Dumb Things Luciom Said for $100, Alex".
NY State's politically selectively prosecution of Trump?
I contend Donald Trump's behavior and actions while and after he served as president of the United States has been inferior to all or almost all, and superior to no other U.S. President. However, in the USA everyone is entitled to due process of law.
In May 2024, Trump was convicted for having prior to his election to office, committed 34 counts of causing business records falsifications. The indictment was falsification for the purpose of concealing one or more underlying crimes, but the underlying crimes were not explicitly specified.
In my unprofessional legal opinion, the accusation of NY State in this case having politically selectively prosecuted Trump is not without some merit.
I'm supposing NY State rarely indicts anyone of falsifying business records for the underlying purpose of obtaining more favorable loan rates. NY may not have sufficient judges and courts to prosecute all such cases.
Paying for a non-disclosure agreement, or paying an extortionist is not a crime and I question if the prosecution's alleged motive for that payment has, (as is required to be in a criminal case), been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Concealing facts or accusations from your wife and your family, or the voters and the remaining public may, or may not be reprehensible, but it's generally not a crime. Influencing voters, (i.e. political campaigning) is certainly not a crime. Respectfully, Supposn
If the judge gives Trump a 90 day jail sentence and suspends all but 10 days maybe the RNC can do a "live from cellblock d" acceptance speech of the nomination.
So I said, let me ask you a question and he said, nobody ever asked this question and it must be because of MIT, my relationship to MIT. Very smart. He goes, I say, what would happen if the boat sank from its weight? And you're in the boat and you have this tremendously powerful battery and the battery is now underwater and there's a shark that's approximately 10 yards over there, by the way, a lot of shark attacks lately, do you notice that a lot of shark? I watched some guys justifying it today. Well, they weren't really that angry. They bit off the young lady's leg because of the fact that they were, they were not hungry, but they misunderstood what who she was? These people are. He said there's no problem with sharks. They just didn't really understand a young woman swimming now. It really got decimated and other people do a lot of shark attacks. So I said, so there's a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards or here, do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking? Water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking. Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted? Because I will tell you he didn't know the answer. He said, you know, nobody's ever asked me that question. I said, I think it's a good question. I think there's a lot of electric current coming through that water. But you know what I'd do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted, I'll take electrocution every single time
From Wikipedia:
'Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.'
Why is there no 'convicted felon' in there?
sharks get electrocuted too?
Why is this in the Trump thread?
From Wikipedia:
'Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.'
Why is there no 'convicted felon' in there?
Because not everyone suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
So he isn't a convicted felon?
From Playbig's wiki cite -
A 2021 research study found no evidence to support the existence of TDS among Trump detractors on the left.[9]
Nice proof, buddy!
Paying for a non-disclosure agreement, or paying an extortionist is not a crime and I question if the prosecution's alleged motive for that payment has, (as is required to be in a criminal case), been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Concealing facts or accusations from your wife and your family, or the voters and the remaining public may, or may not be reprehensible, but it's generally not a crime. Influencing voters, (i.e. political campa
And yet, a jury of 12 people who heard all the evidence and were instructed as to the law unanimously agreed that he broke the law.
You know, I know windmills very much. I've studied it better than anybody I know. It's very expensive. They're made in China and Germany mostly; very few made here, almost none. But they're manufactured tremendous—if you're into this—tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint—fumes are spewing into the air. Right? Spewing. Whether it's in China, Germany, it's going into the air. It's our air, their air, everything, right? So they make these things, and then they put them up. And if you own a house within vision of some of these monsters, your house is worth 50 percent of the price. They're noisy. They kill the birds. You want to see a bird graveyard? You just go. Take a look. A bird graveyard. Go under a windmill someday. You'll see more birds than you've ever seen ever in your life.
Stable genius.
Because not everyone suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
There are a few cases on this forum, you and BJ being the most severe amongst the regs.
So I said, let me ask you a question and he said, nobody ever asked this question and it must be because of MIT, my relationship to MIT. Very smart. He goes, I say, what would happen if the boat sank from its weight? And you're in the boat and you have this tremendously powerful battery and the battery is now underwater and there's a shark that's approximately 10 yards over there, by the way, a lot of shark attacks lately, do you notice tha
Wait a moment, this is actually something Trump said?
of course. it was during his most recent las vegas speech i believe.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show...
places cover it, ofcourse, but it isn't wall to wall mainly because if they showed him doing all the deranged dementia riddled stuff he actually regularly does than this election might not be as close as it is. and that would reduce the clicks and the advertising revenue..
of course. it was during his most recent las vegas speech i believe.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show...
places cover it, ofcourse, but it isn't wall to wall mainly because if they showed him doing all the deranged dementia riddled stuff he actually regularly does than this election might not be as close as it is. and that would reduce the clicks and the advertising
Pretty will conspiracy theory here, wrt media behavior.
So according to you media is NOT covering something that would be according to you pivotal to get Biden win because this would lead to lower ad revenues?
As if the weird "funny guy" rants by Trump weren't common since 2015?
Pretty will conspiracy theory here, wrt media behavior.
So according to you media is NOT covering something that would be according to you pivotal to get Biden win because this would lead to lower ad revenues?
As if the weird "funny guy" rants by Trump weren't common since 2015?
the media LOVES trump. the trump presidency was a huge boon for both "sides" of the media. i dont think it's weird at all to say the media company heads would vastly prefer a trump presidency over a trump loss. if trump loses this election, he's basically washed out and the attention will die away. but if he wins the grievance gravy train continues for at least another 4 years. trump sells papers/views/clicks in a way that no prior political figure ever has other than maybe the initial Obama surge. he's howard stern in his prime, almost as many haters tune in as fans.. all of that money disappears nov 6th with a loss.
Personally I find Lucille’s naive whataboutism gotcha schtick to be tired nonsense that wouldn’t fool someone with a GED but that’s just me
Separately I do find it hilarious that the usual suspects yelling TDS TDS TDS are not only themselves deranged because trump but rather than engage any actual discussion of why someone is saying ‘hey trump might suck because X y and z’ just decide to go with the lowest common denominator and accuse you of being hysterical or whatever it is they’re doing
I guess it must be awesome when in the face of legitimate criticism all you have to do is call someone deranged and ignore every word presented. Certainly makes life simpler
Also shoutout PB for using a Wikipedia link as his mic drop. That’s certainly something
