• 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

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,292
Reaction score
81,299
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Exclusive: Trump using campaign, RNC funds to pay legal bills from Russia probe


By Karen Freifeld, Ginger Gibson
September 19, 2017

donald-trump.jpg


NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump is using money donated to his reelection campaign and the Republican National Committee to pay for his lawyers in the probe of alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election, according to two people familiar with the matter. The U.S. Federal Election Commission allows the use of private campaign funds to pay legal bills arising from being a candidate or elected official. While previous presidential campaigns have used these funds to pay for routine legal matters such as ballot access disputes and compliance requirements, Trump would be the first U.S. president in the modern campaign finance era to use such funds to cover the costs of responding to a criminal probe, said election law experts. John Dowd, Trump’s lead lawyer, declined to say how the president’s legal bills were being paid, adding: “That’s none of your business.”

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.
 
Everyone of the people that had to lawyer up should have the right to sue the government for monetary damages to pay the legal bills when the fed's come up empty.

Governments do what governments do best: Send you to the poorhouse because you aren't one of them.
 
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, 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
 
I see no problem with this whatsoever unless it's proven that he's actually guilty of something and hiding it.
 
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
 
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

Just because something's legal doesn't and shouldn't exempt it from criticism.

Although in this case, I agree that there isn't a problem with it.
 
Pres. Trump is taking a provision of campaign finance rules and stretching it to pay his legal expenses for the Russian probe. Per 11 CFR 113.1(g)(ii)(A), paying legal fees that are derived from a campaign for public office is allowed on a case-by-case basis, but here's the catch. Per the rule, campaign funds can be used if the Commission determines...

...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

So, would the Russian probe had occurred whether or not Trump had won the Presidency? This allowance tells me it would have. Thus, there's alot more to the Russian collusion story than what meets the eye.
 
Just because something's legal doesn't and shouldn't exempt it from criticism.

Although in this case, I agree that there isn't a problem with it.
Yeah, can't tell you how many times I've said that in the previous administration. However, for the OP to open with its legality then by the end take a pot shot about Trump being a con man, just shows he never intended for the thread to be a serious discussion.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Pres. Trump is taking a provision of campaign finance rules and stretching it to pay his legal expenses for the Russian probe. Per 11 CFR 113.1(g)(ii)(A), paying legal fees that are derived from a campaign for public office is allowed on a case-by-case basis, but here's the catch. Per the rule, campaign funds can be used if the Commission determines...

So, would the Russian probe had occurred whether or not Trump had won the Presidency? This allowance tells me it would have. Thus, there's alot more to the Russian collusion story than what meets the eye.

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:
 
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.


Well if two unnamed people say it.
 
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

Your simple binary approach to life is not surprising.
 
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.

Who is going to pay when your last president is found complicit for wire tapping a opposing candidate to his party for political purposes........ that comes up empty. Will your liberal mind be able to wrap itself around it?
 
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:

Wrong, as has been demonstrated to you countless times here now. "Simply throwing a lot of mud" isn't happening.

That's why there have been search warrants, raids, FISA warrants, grand juries, Mueller's still hiring on top gun prosecutors, etc....

Really simple and basic stuff here to anyone who's been attention.
 
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

So you'd be perfectly ok if Hillary or Obama did it?? Yea, thought not.
 
Just because something's legal doesn't and shouldn't exempt it from criticism.

Although in this case, I agree that there isn't a problem with it.

Quite true. But in this case a purported billionaire President is using campaign funds to pay for lawyers while his aides could end up bankrupting themselves.

Not even remotely surprising to anyone familiar with Trump.
 
Just because something's legal doesn't and shouldn't exempt it from criticism.

Although in this case, I agree that there isn't a problem with it.
You are right on both counts. People who donate to Trump do so because they believe in him and support him as a whole. Why? That is whole other matter...
 
Who is going to pay when your last president is found complicit for wire tapping a opposing candidate to his party for political purposes........ that comes up empty. Will your liberal mind be able to wrap itself around it?

Guess you haven't read the latest regarding the DOJ's investigation, which has cleared the Obama administration (or if you prefer - Obama himself) of wire tapping Trump.

Justice Department confirms no evidence Obama wiretapped Trump Tower

https://sso.foxnews.com/static/serv...j-no-evidence-trump-tower-was-wiretapped.html
 
Who is going to pay when your last president is found complicit for wire tapping a opposing candidate to his party for political purposes........ that comes up empty. Will your liberal mind be able to wrap itself around it?

The Liberals will donate everything they have to protect Obama.
 
Please share it with a link...

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.

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.
 
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

Another example of how low the bar is set for DeeJay. If it's not actually indictable, it's acceptable.
I would expect the President would be held to a higher standard than a Mafia Don.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom