Trump biographer raises questions about his wealth as campaign donors foot the bill for his many lawyers.
Trump biographer raises questions about his wealth as campaign donors foot the bill for his many lawyers
Former President Donald Trump’s PACs have spent about $50 million in donor money on his legal bills last year, sources told The New York Times.
The “staggering sum” spent by Trump on his legal fees and investigation-related expenses is about the same amount his lone remaining GOP primary opponent Nikki Haley raised across all her committees last year, the Times’ Maggie Haberman and Shane Goldmacher write. Federal Election Commission filings this week are expected to detail the full extent of Trump’s “enormous financial strain,” they added.
Trump, who has a penchant for relying on campaign donations to pay his lawyers if he actually pays them at all, has used his Save America PAC to cover his legal costs. When the PAC ran low on cash last year, Trump asked for an unusual refund of $60 million that had been transferred to the pro-Trump MAGA Inc. PAC. Trump has also been directing 10% of donations raised through Save America to a PAC that primarily pays his lawyers, according to the Times.
Over ten years ago Colbert showed how PAC money could be legally transformed into a personal slush fund. It was a hilarious segment that he did over an entire season to show how the Citizens United law allows anonymous money to go right into politicians' pockets. He won a Peabody award for it.
Pretty sure you can use raised funds for anything as long as you disclose what you're using it for. The questionable part is when he sends an email from his campaign saying "Trump needs your help to stop the woke mob" or whatever and then in the fine print says "money goes to [some ambiguously named PAC called like 'USA Defense" which was created just to pay Trump's legal bills)"...he technically didn't say it was for his political campaign.
Aren’t there a ton of easements on it where any new owner would be required to maintain it as a historic property and commercial country club? I think that’s why the value in the trial was set low.
Like Trump (or maybe a previous owner) essentially donated parts of it to the National Trust for Historic Preservation and got tax breaks in exchange for agreeing to preserve everything. So, you’re essentially buying a country club business run in a future Trump Museum that you don’t really own (but still have to maintain).
How can anyone think Trump should get a second term? I realize, of course, that neither the interests of the people nor common sense are a factor in the States, but even the most unscrupulous businessmen should realize by now that Trump is not an option. I mean, someone who manages to squander even such an exorbitant inheritance without any significant returns can't be considered a smart businessman or any good for business. The only way I can explain the support for Trump is that many influential people backed the wrong horse and are now committed - just the way these people handle their share transactions. But hey, I am not a US-American and so I can't help but get the impression that you all have lost your minds (even for thinking that this is in any way acceptable). How such a ridiculous circus can be possible in a so-called constitutional state is simply beyond me.
You ever get the feeling that Trump so desperately wants to win so he can change the laws in his favour? Because if he loses, in the polls, in the electoral college, in the courts, at that point there'll be a crater where he once stood.
It's basically his Get-out-of-Jail free card that he can use to try to wipe away all of his problems. His arguments for total presidential immunity are ludicrous when he's not in office, but I'm sure if he were to actually be in office again, they wouldn't be laughed off as much. He has to go all in on this or he's basically finished. Although I remember thinking this last election too and here we are again, so maybe if Trump loses we'll still see him running for the 2028 Presidential election (how somebody that unhealthy is still living is beyond me, better men than him have died so much earlier). Not to mention all of Russia's hopes in turning around their war against Ukraine are riding on this election as well, if they can get Trump back in, they can kick the legs out from under Ukraine in one fell swoop, as with every presidential election, there's a lot riding on this.
Why is it even legal for them to spend political donations on legal expenses completely unrelated to politics. It's a stretch, but I can almost see it for the January 6th or maybe even the documents cases, because they're at least related to his political career.
But sexual assault, defamation, and fraud cases definitely shouldn't count. They're cases related to actions he took prior to entering politics.
Let's create a hypothetical candidate that has followed a blameless, honest (moneyless) path. His/her opponents decide to take that candidate down with frivolous lawsuits. How else can they be defended?
Guy can be found to have done sexual assault, but criminal prosecutors wouldn't touch him because he did it in a city where his close personal friend was the mayor. It took 30 years to reach a judgement against him, and even that was for a relatively piddly sum given the time and effort involved in the pursuit. The thing that really got Trump in trouble wasn't the act of physical and sexual violence. It wasn't the defamation that followed. It was the way he and his lawyer were shitty on the stand in a second trial resulting from his remarks on the results of the first trial.
This is what it takes to bring a rich man to something approaching the possibility justice in America. And even after all this bullshit, there's almost zero chance that a Florida court or Sheriff's Department will assist Carroll in collecting on the damages because... Trump is close personal friends with the governor.
Right, the primary difference being that a criminal trial would be that the statue of limitations would restrict what a prosecutor can achieve, while there is no such limitation for civil suits.
The amount of evidence and the case proceeding would be largely similar in both.
So while you are technically correct for calling that out, I just want to be clear that had this been a criminal trial, the result would very likely have been the same from the jury.
My man is literally always begging for money. He brags about how successful he is at begging for money. And he's created an enormous cult of personality full of people who will just give him their money as soon as he asks for it.
Trump could have extorted billions out of Putin and/or the Saudis on Inauguration Day. He's such a manbaby that he can only take money from people who are much, much weaker than he is.