Trump Is Actually Guilty of the Kind of Bribery Republicans Imagine Biden Did
Trump Is Actually Guilty of the Kind of Bribery Republicans Imagine Biden Did
The Mar-a-Lago scandal is way worse even than what Republicans can dream up against Biden.
The New York Times reports that Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt privately recorded his intentions to give Donald Trump money in order to advance his business interests in the United States. Pratt wrote, “If Potus is having his election party at mar Lago I’ll book as many rooms as available,” because doing so would not only help Trump win the election but also “be good for business.”
The Times reports that, according to witness testimony to federal prosecutors, Pratt “spent $1 million to attend the party, well in excess of the normal charge.” That is to say, Pratt was not merely indulging himself in amenities offered by Trump’s private club but consciously using those payments as a vehicle to pay Trump directly.
While there is no evidence this alleged scheme violates any criminal statute, the colloquial term for this behavior is bribery.
Meanwhile, House Republicans are continuing to circulate allegations that President Biden was connected to his son Hunter’s influence-peddling business. Representative James Comer has made a series of uncorroborated allegations that the conservative media have uncritically promoted, insinuating that Joe Biden personally benefited from his son’s business. Republicans have produced communications between Hunter Biden and his father, which might be expected between a father and a son, but no clear evidence that Joe Biden received any payments stemming from Hunter’s work.
They are attempting, so far without success, to show Biden did what Donald Trump is proven to have done.
You're viewing a single thread.
I was expecting a much more solid claim based on the headline. Instead it's "dude buys a bunch of hotel rooms in hopes it would make trump return favors" yet no evidence favors were promised.
Yeah man, $1,000,000 for an invite to a party seems totally above board.
He spent it in hopes trump would return the favor. There is no evidence Trump requested it. I hope you keep the same attitude when looking at people who donated to the Clinton foundation.
He spent it in hopes trump would return the favor. There is no evidence Trump requested it.
There is no evidence he spent it in a vain hope without knowledge he was buying something, either. There's an extremely suspicious money trail, and it should be investigated. There may be a criminal presumption of innocence, but there is at least probable cause of illegal activity here.
I hope you keep the same attitude when looking at people who donated to the Clinton foundation.
The Clinton Foundation is a charity. IF there was evidence of the Clintons using it to launder money, it should be investigated as well. You've already agreed there's one side to the quid pro quo here. Nobody in their right mind would think donating to help children or the environment would earn them favors from the Clintons... but laundering dirty money through the rental of unused hotel rooms is actually the plot a crime show and security articles. Spending $1m on hotel rooms you don't intend to use is a massive red flag on both sides of the equation. I'd go so far as to say that most hotels that became aware that kind of transaction was happening would reject it for liability reasons because it looks too much like a blatant laundering scheme..
In the typical laundering scheme, you then request a refund and receive it in clean money. When it's a payment for something, obviously, you receive that something right at the end of the return window, turning the Hotel into an illegal semi-escrow.
Don't get me wrong, charities can be used for the illicit transfer of money. But there's a paper trail for that and inordinate amounts of money needs to go to someone.
most hotels that became aware that kind of transaction was happening would reject it for liability reasons because it looks too much like a blatant laundering scheme..
This seems obvious to most rational people, so I wouldn't be surprised if the guy you're replying to fails to understand this.
There’s an extremely suspicious money trail, and it should be investigated. There may be a criminal presumption of innocence, but there is at least probable cause of illegal activity here.
The title literally says "Trump is actually guilty" despite there being no evidence he is guilty. Rich guys try to bribe politicians in roundabout ways all the time. I'm not discounting the possibility of it Trump being involved in it but there's no evidence of it now yet the article is stating that he's guilty. How is he supposed to prevent someone from buying up all the rooms in his hotels in an attempt to get on his good side? Trump is not involved in the day to day of his business and its not out of the question that he had no idea it was happening until after it happened.
The Clinton Foundation is a charity. Don’t get me wrong, charities can be used for the illicit transfer of money
Give me a break. What's the point of bringing up the fact that it's a charity if you admit charities are used for this exact purpose all the time. Why do you think the Saudi's donated 10 figure amounts to the Clinton foundation? Because they believe in its charitable goals?
The title literally says “Trump is actually guilty” despite there being no evidence he is guilty
You're misusing the word evidence. There is absolutely evidence that he is guilty. Whether it's enough to prosecute is a question for those closer to the case. But, if you're going to attack someone on the semantics, you should use your own words correctly.
Rich guys try to bribe politicians in roundabout ways all the time
I would say "try to" is an unsubstantiated addition.
How is he supposed to prevent someone from buying up all the rooms in his hotels in an attempt to get on his good side?
Simple. If you see a transaction attempt that reeks of criminality, you reject it. If this rich guy had any intention of bribing a politician in roundabout way, there's no way he went through the effort to hide the transfers so the Trump or the hotel couldn't tell what was going on. Because then it wouldn't work.
Trump is not involved in the day to day of his business and its not out of the question that he had no idea it was happening until after it happened.
So you will agree the hotel was involved in illicit spending, or are you just trying to muddy the water by separating him from his for-profit businesses?
Give me a break. What’s the point of bringing up the fact that it’s a charity if you admit charities are used for this exact purpose all the time
Because I'm an honest person and the only thing I attack is bullshit. You don't donate money to a charity as a bribe without prearranged quid pro quo because the owners of the charity don't just get to pocket the donation. This is not true of a hotel that is 100% owned by Trump.
Why do you think the Saudi’s donated 10 figure amounts to the Clinton foundation?
Good question. It should be investigated (and was, heavily investigated with no proof of illicit behavior discovered). Unlike the $1M hotel thing, we need to see if any of that money reached Hillary/Bill. We KNOW the $1M hotel bill largely reached Trump's pockets.
But take a step back and be honest with me. If I hand you $1M to curry favor, is that the same as if I hand St. Jude's Hospital $1M to curry favor of someone who works there?
Also, all of the stuff about his private business dealings aside, Trump Foundation was also a charity. Emphasis on "was."
Anyone know what happened to that charity? I bet it'll only take one guess...
I can't stop laughing. Yes indeed. Too bad that guy isn't going to engage, since he was just here to troll.
You’re misusing the word evidence. There is absolutely evidence that he is guilty.
No there isn't. There is just evidence that this guy bought some hotel rooms to suck up to trump. Any rich person could do that. Would you say there was evidence of Hunter Biden using his connection to his father to further his business deals?
Simple. If you see a transaction attempt that reeks of criminality, you reject it. I don't reject the possibility of it being a pseudo bribe, I just said there is no proof of it. Any random rich guy can buy a bunch of rooms at trumps hotels. I doubt trump is monitoring who buys rooms at his hotels.
Simple. If you see a transaction attempt that reeks of criminality, you reject it. If this rich guy had any intention of bribing a politician in roundabout way, there’s no way he went through the effort to hide the transfers so the Trump or the hotel couldn’t tell what was going on.
Oh please, there are much more efficient means of transferring money to someone than buying up all their hotel rooms. Nothing could be more obvious at attempting to bribe than that. I'm not saying this guy didn't try to bribe trump, there's just no evidence that it worked. If you have evidence I will change my mind.
Good question. It should be investigated (and was, heavily investigated with no proof of illicit behavior discovered).
Do you recognize that there's a disincentive for government agencies to come out with an indictment on a extremely powerful and politically connected potential presidential candidate. Do you not remember when Clinton wiped her entire email server and played dumb? They investigated that too, and of course laid no charges. If Trump did that, it would be game over for him.
A donation to a charity controlled by a politician does not need to go into the pocket of said politician in order to be immoral. That money represents power, even if it doesn't directly line the pockets of Hillary Clinton.
But take a step back and be honest with me. If I hand you $1M to curry favor, is that the same as if I hand St. Jude’s Hospital $1M to curry favor of someone who works there?
St Judes is not the same as the Clinton Foundation and you know that.
You’re misusing the word evidence. There is absolutely evidence that he is guilty.
No there isn’t. There is just evidence that this guy bought some hotel rooms to suck up to trump.
Suggestion: Look up what "evidence" means as a legal term. The paper trail of the guy buying hotel rooms is evidence that Trump was involved. Doesn't make Trump guilty. Doesn't make him innocent either. Evidence isn't proof, and evidence exists of things we are not yet convinced are true (or that actually aren't).
St Judes is not the same as the Clinton Foundation and you know that.
I really don't know that. The name of the founders on it shouldn't affect the charity. Except for Trump foundation, but only because he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and had it taken away.
That is not evidence trump is involved, because he very much could have not been involved.
That is not evidence trump is involved
Wrong
because he very much could have not been involved.
Correct
...welcome to how evidence works. The legal definition for evidence is "Evidence an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable" It is incredibly rare that "no evidence" exists for some claim. People who assert otherwise are either confusing evidence with proof OR arguing from a position of such extreme bias they cannot see. I still haven't figured which of the two you are, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by correcting the former.
Why do you think the Saudi's donated 10 figure amounts to the Clinton foundation?
Thoughts?
fucked up. hate jared kushner and he should never have been in power.
I hope you keep the same attitude when looking at people who donated to the Clinton foundation.
Objection, irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Lmao, weird that they accepted the money in that case, no?