• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exclusive: Trump using campaign, RNC funds to pay legal bills from Russia probe

RetiredUSN alleged Obama being complicit in the wiretapping. The DOJ exonerated Obama from guilty of Trump's claim two weeks ago. September 2, 2017 to be exact.

Rice's sins aren't going to cause Obama to use DNC funds for legal fees.


Former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort demands investigation of report FBI wiretapped him

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/09/19/former-trump-campaign-chief-paul-manafort-demands-investigation-report-fbi-wiretapped-him/683236001/

Paul Manafort was being wiretapped by the Obama administration while he was Trumps Campaign chairman, so no, no one in the Obama administration has been exonerated. Nixon was forced out of office for far less than this.
 

Former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort demands investigation of report FBI wiretapped him

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/09/19/former-trump-campaign-chief-paul-manafort-demands-investigation-report-fbi-wiretapped-him/683236001/

Paul Manafort was being wiretapped by the Obama administration while he was Trumps Campaign chairman, so no, no one in the Obama administration has been exonerated. Nixon was forced out of office for far less than this.

Better check out the DOJ's recent release.

DOJ: No evidence Trump Tower was wiretapped | Fox News
 
Exclusive: Trump using campaign, RNC funds to pay legal bills from Russia probe




It seems to be legal. Reelection campaign donations can be used to pay criminal-defense legal bills.

By announcing his 2020 candidacy almost immediately after the election, Trump is stashing away millions in donations. Probably the paramount reason why he still holds political rallies.

Lol. In all candor, I didn't expect Trump to personally pay for his high-profile expensive-as-hell legal-defense teams. That's not how this con-man operates.
So what you're saying is that Trump is a financial genius?
 
Exclusive: Trump using campaign, RNC funds to pay legal bills from Russia probe




It seems to be legal. Reelection campaign donations can be used to pay criminal-defense legal bills.

By announcing his 2020 candidacy almost immediately after the election, Trump is stashing away millions in donations. Probably the paramount reason why he still holds political rallies.

Lol. In all candor, I didn't expect Trump to personally pay for his high-profile expensive-as-hell legal-defense teams. That's not how this con-man operates.


He held his first big campaign rally his first week in office. Anyone who didn't know that money was for his personal use is delusional. He's got plenty of lawyers to make sure the books use the correct terminology to make it legal... and between the RNC and his war chest, they'll be very well paid.

P.S. Trumps campaign funds are also being used to pay Don Jr.'s legal bills. $300,000 so far and counting!
 
Well if two unnamed people say it.

Actually, the RNC made the announcement, because it knows the the "forms" for lack of a better word declaring those expenditures would be filed officially tomorrow.
 
so, after three pages of this bull**** it would seem the US political system is pretty much just another Russian ruse aka red commie bull**** ................. nice ..............
 

A known pathological liar makes an absurd claim, his followers cast aside all notions of common sense and dignity to spend months trying to defend that absurd claim by the known pathological liar. I sure hope that a conman (other than our president - the conman in chief) never gets a hold of some of these people because they are obviously gullible enough to get financially wiped out.
 
Last edited:
So, it's legal yet you have a problem with doing it, well, because it's Trump. Got it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Part of the issue we have in this country right now is a bunch of stuff that is technically legal, but unethical.

Loopholes in laws, regulations in name only, etc.
 
NO!

What it should tell you is that the "collusion" narrative is about alleged campaign malfeasance, hence why campaign funds are legal for use in his "defense."

Simply throwing a lot of mud and people having to react to the repercussions of said mud-slinging does not mean "there is more to the story than meets the eye." :roll:

Unless you mean more regarding the nefarious motives of those who have been pushing this narrative from the day (if not before) he was elected ? :coffeepap:

I think you miss the point.

There's clearly a gray area here where the use of campaign funds is concerned for the POTUS to pay his legal expenses as derived from his presidential campaign. The "personal use" clause should prohibit this expenditure at the very least because the expenses were derived from an on-going investigation - an investigation I contend would NOT have happened had there not be probably cause and, thus, legal expenditures would NOT have existed if Donald J. Trump, Sr not ran for public office or even won the presidency. The fact that he hired his own legal team well before charges were even levied against him should tell you something. He didn't do it to fight off defamatory claims against his character and he shouldn't be doing it to pay off legal expenses he incurred from any law suit levied against him from his involvement with Trump Org. as a private citizen.

The question every citizen should rightfully be asking is what justification did the FEC use to authorize these legal payments? Did they agree simply because Donald J. Trump, Sr. is now POTUS and it believes said legal fees were closely tied to his campaign? If so, did it believe Trump would have incurred legal troubles whether he won the presidency or not? If the answer is YES, then this does lend itself to question what's really going on.
 
Last edited:
Paul Manafort who was Trumps campaign chairman at the time was wiretapped

Its a bit suspicious considering that back in March, James Clapper explicitly denied that any Trump associate had been wiretapped.

That statement would likely hold true since per this CNN article the FBI stopped surveying Manafort prior to May 2016 when he become Trump's campaign chairman but resumed after he resigned.

The fact that Susan Rice and Samantha Powers unmasked the identities of Trump associates is a bit suspicious too.

Obama NSC Adviser Admits Seeking Trump Aides Identities in Intel Reports

The FBI was tasked with investigating Trumps associates for alledged collusion.

There would be no legitmate reason for the National Security Advisor or the US Ambassador to the UN to unmask Trump associates.

I guess that would depend on what they were up to and why the NSA or US Ambass. to the UN needed to know the identities of the people in question. Your linked article seems to shed some light as to why Susan Rice asked for their names. However, let's be fair here. Asking "who's who" is different from leaking those names to the press which is what many Trump supporters who have discussed this sensitive topic have tried to conflate. They are two completely separate things. Moreover, when Susan Rice said, "I know nothing about this", she was referring to their identities being disclosed not that she inquired about whose names were redacted from intelligence briefing reports.



Again, she may have asked for the individuals to be unmasked ("identified"), but there's no proof that she disclosed their names to the public.
 
I think you miss the point.

Actually, I think it is you who are confused.

There's clearly a gray area here where the use of campaign funds is concerned for the POTUS to pay his legal expenses as derived from his presidential campaign. The "personal use" clause should prohibit this expenditure at the very least because the expenses were derived from an on-going investigation - an investigation I contend would NOT have happened had there not be probably cause and, thus, legal expenditures would NOT have existed if Donald J. Trump, Sr not ran for public office or even won the presidency. The fact that he hired his own legal team well before charges were even levied against him should tell you something. He didn't do it to fight off defamatory claims against his character and he shouldn't be doing it to pay off legal expenses he incurred from any law suit levied against him from his involvement with Trump Org. as a private citizen.

You cite the Personal Use clause without understanding. From your own citation:

Personal use includes but is not limited to the use of funds in a campaign account for any item listed in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(A) through (J) of this section:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definit...itle:11:Chapter:I:Subchapter:A:Part:113:113.2

That section lists items for which campaign funds are specifically identified as personal use and thereby prohibited.

However, the next section applies to the OP issue:

(ii) The Commission will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether other uses of funds in a campaign account fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder, and therefore are personal use. Examples of such other uses include:
(A) Legal expenses;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definit...itle:11:Chapter:I:Subchapter:A:Part:113:113.2

The question every citizen should rightfully be asking is what justification did the FEC use to authorize these legal payments? Did they agree simply because Donald J. Trump, Sr. is now POTUS and it believes said legal fees were closely tied to his campaign? If so, did it believe Trump would have incurred legal troubles whether he won the presidency or not? If the answer is YES, then this does lend itself to question what's really going on.

The answer is as clear as the cause of the investigation...allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power to influence the election process in order to win the election.

Now you make reference to legal issues you don't appear to understand.

1. Probable Cause. This is a term most used in the context of arrest and search warrants. It is based on legal interpretations of the Fourth Amendments restrictions on search and seizure. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause

2. Complaint. A criminal investigation typically starts as the result of some complaint (via victim, witness, or police officer) of a crime that has been committed. The purpose of the investigation is to determine if the complaint has a factual basis sufficient to lead to actual charges. A crime of some kind must have been committed, and the investigation is initiated to try to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Probable cause has nothing to do with the establishment of the Trump investigation.

There have been allegations (a complaint) of collusion. While there is yet to be an identified crime, Congress has leeway when considering possible impeachment proceedings to demand an investigation. They may conduct it, or request a special counsel.

So, the facts are:

a. The issue being investigated is based on alleged campaign malfeasance of some kind. Thus, under the Personal Use clause you cited, funds from the campaign may be used for legal costs.

b. There is no crime, and this investigation is seeking a crime rather than investigating one. Thus..."mud-slinging" IMO.

c. The rest of your (honestly confusing) rambles about "if he had not run...levied as a private citizen" have nothing to do with the issue. The investigation exists because he ran for office. Campaign funds are raised to cover costs of running for office. If legal issues results as a direct result of the campaign, campaign funds may be used to cover legal costs.

THAT is the logical trail the Commission would follow to allow this usage.
 
Last edited:
Apparently, Trumps base is paying for his power-lawyers.

45de644a446d48be2ae7564955ce79ba--political-satire-political-cartoons.jpg
 
That statement would likely hold true since per this CNN article the FBI stopped surveying Manafort prior to May 2016 when he become Trump's campaign chairman but resumed after he resigned.



I guess that would depend on what they were up to and why the NSA or US Ambass. to the UN needed to know the identities of the people in question. Your linked article seems to shed some light as to why Susan Rice asked for their names. However, let's be fair here. Asking "who's who" is different from leaking those names to the press which is what many Trump supporters who have discussed this sensitive topic have tried to conflate. They are two completely separate things. Moreover, when Susan Rice said, "I know nothing about this", she was referring to their identities being disclosed not that she inquired about whose names were redacted from intelligence briefing reports.



Again, she may have asked for the individuals to be unmasked ("identified"), but there's no proof that she disclosed their names to the public.
Yet...stay tuned.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Not only are political donors paying for Donald's phalanx of high-powered defense attorney's, political donations are also paying for the legal defense of Donald Jr.
 
Exclusive: Trump using campaign, RNC funds to pay legal bills from Russia probe




It seems to be legal. Reelection campaign donations can be used to pay criminal-defense legal bills.

By announcing his 2020 candidacy almost immediately after the election, Trump is stashing away millions in donations. Probably the paramount reason why he still holds political rallies.

Lol. In all candor, I didn't expect Trump to personally pay for his high-profile expensive-as-hell legal-defense teams. That's not how this con-man operates.

So

They are using my money and other tax payers money to fund this witch hunt!
 
Actually, I think it is you who are confused.

Not confused at all.

So, the facts are:

a. The issue being investigated is based on alleged campaign malfeasance of some kind. Thus, under the Personal Use clause you cited, funds from the campaign may be used for legal costs.

I'm discounting the rest of your post because this is the part you seem to gloss over. It's the fact that the (Federal Election) Commission has determined that Pres. Trump would have incurred legal fees pursuant to this investigation whether or not he won the presidency that eludes you. This has nothing to do with the fact that the legal expenses are a consequence of his running for public office. It has everything to do with the fact that the Commission has determined that the legal expenses would have existed whether he won or not. Once again from the law...

...expense that would exist irrespective (re: regardless) of the candidate's campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder...

Admittedly, Pres. Trump might have incurred legal expenses derived from some incident while on the campaign trail (i.e., paying the White guy's legal fees who punched threw an elbow at a Black at a campaign rally). But the legal expenses in question aren't over any minor thing. They are the result of legal expenses from the Russia investigation. So, as I've stated above if they are allowed because the Commission believes such expenses would have occurred regardless of a Trump victory or not, what should this tell you about the merits of the investigation?
 
Back
Top Bottom