╌>

Trump Reportedly Poured $1.3 Million In Political Contributions Into His Own Businesses After Losing Election

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tessylo  •  2 years ago  •  66 comments

By:   Mary Papenfuss, HuffPost

Trump Reportedly Poured $1.3 Million In Political Contributions Into His Own Businesses After Losing Election

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Trump Reportedly Poured $1.3 Million In Political Contributions Into His Own Businesses After Losing Election





Mary Papenfuss

Mon, June 27, 2022 at 3:37 AM





Former President Donald Trump  continued to fundraise after he lost the 2020 election, and poured some $1.3 million of political contributions into his own businesses, his latest federal filings showed.




According to a   review by Forbes , between the lost election and the end of 2020, Trump’s campaign committee Donald J. Trump for President handed over $113,000 to Trump enterprises, including   two   rent   payments of $38,000   to Trump Tower Commercial LLC, and two $3,000 checks to Trump Restaurants LLC.

In 2021, Trump   changed the name of his campaign committee   to the Make America Great Again PAC, and money again poured into Trump enterprises, Forbes reported. Close to   $38,000 was paid in rent   to the Trump Tower Commercial LLC “ every month or so ,” and   checks for $3,000 were “often” paid   to his restaurant business.

From the time of his election loss to the end of February 2022, the PAC had paid $526,000 to his companies, per Forbes’ review of the Federal Election Commission filings.

Other Trump political groups also rained cash on his operations. The joint-fundraising committee Trump Victory, which collected money for the Trump campaign and state-level Republican groups, paid   $294,000 to the Trump Hotel Collection.

Trump’s leadership PAC, Save America, spent   $213,000 at Trump properties from February 2021 until May 2022 .

Some of the money collected from donors was actually solicited for the Official Election Defense Fund to overturn the election, even though that   fund apparently didn’t exist , the House select committee investigating last year’s insurrection noted.

“Not only was there the ‘ Big Lie ,’” said Rep.   Zoe Lofgren   (D-Calif.), referring to baseless claims of election fraud during one of the panel’s hearings earlier this month. California. “ There was the big rip off .”

In a 2000 interview. Trump boasted to Fortune magazine: “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and   make money on it .”

Check out the   full Forbes’ story here .

This article originally appeared on   HuffPost   and has been updated.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Tessylo    2 years ago

Lifelong conman, grifter, thug, thief.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1    2 years ago

maybe if trump super glued his checkbooks to his cellphones he wouldn't lose so many of them.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @1    2 years ago

check out this comment

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2    2 years ago

[Deleted

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @1    2 years ago

It's not true...a big lie

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3    2 years ago

[Deleted

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  seeder  Tessylo    2 years ago

Anyone who contributes a penny to this steaming pile of shit is a fool.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  Vic Eldred    2 years ago

What about Biden?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    2 years ago
What about Biden?

Don't think Biden contributed to Trump's election campaign.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    2 years ago

Has Biden been influence peddling through his son Hunter?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    2 years ago

but, what aboutism Jared receiving TWO BILLION , for WHO, for WHAT ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    2 years ago

“Not only was there the ‘   Big Lie  ,’” said Rep.      Zoe Lofgren      (D-Calif.), referring to baseless claims of election fraud during one of the panel’s hearings earlier this month. California. “   There was the big rip off  .”

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.1.2    2 years ago
what aboutism

Not really. This whole exercise was a let's see what happens expedition. They were prepared.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.1    2 years ago
Has Biden been influence peddling through his son Hunter?

Evidence presented says no.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.3    2 years ago

trump shaking down his own supporters is hilarious. fools and their money are soon parted.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    2 years ago
This whole exercise was a let's see what happens expedition.

Ahhh, trolling.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.8  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1.6    2 years ago

And they continue to line this lifelong thug, thief, grifter, fool, fucking idiot's pockets.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.9  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.7    2 years ago

That's all some have.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1.10  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.5    2 years ago

The investigation is just getting started on corrupt Joe and his evil offspring

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.10    2 years ago
The investigation is just getting started on corrupt Joe and his evil offspring

What investigation?  There is none, the current investigation is on the insurrectionist Trump and his attempted overthrow of our elected government.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    2 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2    2 years ago

FUCK OFF

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.1    2 years ago

[Deleted

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.2    2 years ago

[Deleted

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    2 years ago

Why do you deflect instead of dealing with the topic?   After all, if this is true would you not be outraged?   And if it is false, would you not seek to illustrate why it is false?

You deflect to Biden instead of honestly dealing with Trump.

What must Trump do to get people to abandon their loyalty to that narcissistic con-artist?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.3    2 years ago
Why do you deflect instead of dealing with the topic?  

I wasn't really involved with the article. I brought up Biden to prove a point about a double standard or more than likely a mistake. The very intelligent person who I wanted to see it, now sees it. We are now able to discuss Trump. I have told you numerous times already that I don't want him as the nominee in 2024.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.1    2 years ago

You brought up Trump so that we can discuss Trump?    You brought of Trump to prove some obscure double standard point (unclear)?

Seems to me you just admitted to trolling this seed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.3    2 years ago

All some have is projection, deflection, denial, delusion.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.3.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.3    2 years ago

Start with a winning comment, stay with a winning comment.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.2    2 years ago

Great minds think alike, TiG because that was my perception, also

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.2    2 years ago
You brought of Trump to prove some obscure double standard point (unclear)?

I brought up Biden for that reason. It's over now.


Seems to me you just admitted to trolling this seed.

Not trolling. It was to end something we had been debating on Metafield for months. 

Now I would like to discuss the seed. What should be done with Trump?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.5    2 years ago
Seems to me you just admitted to trolling this seed.

[Deleted

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.3.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.1    2 years ago
I brought up Biden to prove a point about a double standard or more than likely a mistake.

Do you have evidence that Biden poured millions in "political contributions into his own businesses"? If not then where is the double standard?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.3.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3.8    2 years ago

[Deleted]  I doubt that he ever used political donations for his personal use.


If not then where is the double standard?

It has to do with a recurring problem on certain seeds.

Do you want to discuss Trump?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.10  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.3.6    2 years ago

Yes, trolling.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    2 years ago

Yes, Trump is a lifelong pathological liar, crook, bigot , moron and cheat, and everyone with half a brain knows this. 

But he "owns the libs" and makes MAGA yahoos feel superior in that way, so they forgive all. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 years ago
Reportedly...
review by Forbes,

So, like every other accusation about the former POTUS, there's really no evidence.  Just the normal blathering of the left.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
5.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5    2 years ago

YEP!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5    2 years ago

First of all, how can you reject the contents of this article [ ] as not being based on evidence?

Second, have you watched the Jan 6th hearings??   You think the accusations therein have NOT been backed by hard evidence??

If so, you are likely ignoring what you do not wish to be true.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.2    2 years ago
First of all, how can you reject the contents of this article

Easy.  It's an article.  Not an official report.

You think the accusations therein have NOT been backed by hard evidence??

Very little of the accusations have been backed by hard evidence.  

If so, you are likely ignoring what you do not wish to be true.

I'm telling you to prove it's true.  Lets see the actual documents.  Not a "news" article, the actual documents.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.1    2 years ago
Not an official report.

So the only evidence you will accept is that which is entered in a court of law?    If so, that is your call.   But your 'high standard' does not make evidence such as the content of the article to be 'no evidence'.    You just refuse to accept it unless forced down your throat.

Very little of the accusations have been backed by hard evidence. 

Yeah, that pretty much confirms that you are ignoring what you do not wish to be true.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.3    2 years ago
So the only evidence you will accept is that which is accepted in a court proceedings?

More reliable than an "news" article.  We already know that's just a bloggers version of "I heard from a friend who heard from a friend".  [Deleted]   Until then you have nothing to say.

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
5.2.5  bccrane  replied to  TᵢG @5.2    2 years ago
how can you reject the contents of this article [ ] as not being based on evidence?

Sounds legit to me, when running several businesses you need to keep them separate for legal reasons.  Since it looks to be that these campaign committees are located in his hotels and use of his food services, then they need to pay for those to show legal separation. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.4    2 years ago
More reliable than an "news" article. 

Yes but you do not go with 'more reliable' you flat out dismiss the article by Forbes.    You ignore that which you do not wish to be true.   Confirmation bias.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  bccrane @5.2.5    2 years ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

Does that make it easier to accept that you gave money to this fucking traitor?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.6    2 years ago
Yes but you do not go with 'more reliable' you flat out dismiss the article by Forbes. 

Is the seeded link to actual documents or an article?  when I opened it, it was an article.  Nothing of any proof.  Just the usual blathering's.  

You might hold Forbes in high regard, that doesn't mean everybody has to.  

You ignore that which you do not wish to be true.   Confirmation bias.

I ignore anything without actual proof.  So put up or shut up.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.9  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.8    2 years ago

FUCK OFF

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.9    2 years ago

Gee, he wasn't even talking to you!

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
5.2.11  bccrane  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.7    2 years ago

Oh great, thank you for the heads up, I need to contact my bank again, my identity seems to have been stolen again.  Now I need to get a campaign contribution challenged, because I never made it, but now the question is, how did you know?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.8    2 years ago

It is obvious that you will dismiss anything short of absolute proof.   I suspect you would even deny proof.   

Evidence ≠ Proof

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.10    2 years ago

That's what I was just thinking.  I guess somebody's feelings got hurt by proxy.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.12    2 years ago

All you and the rest of the "but TRRUUUMMMMPPPP!" crowd has given is lip service and countless media releases.  No actual proof.  

Media Releases  ≠ Evidence or Proof

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.14    2 years ago

Confirmation bias.    Such blatant denial of reality.   Truly pathetic.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.15    2 years ago
Confirmation bias.

You sure it's that?  Or is it your inability to back up a single claim?  I'm going with the latter.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.17  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.15    2 years ago

Desperate.  Deplorable.  Bitter clinger.  Pathetic indeed.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
5.2.18  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.12    2 years ago
"It is obvious that you will dismiss anything short of absolute proof.   I suspect you would even deny proof".   

Feelings are no facts. Uncorroborated testimony or hearsay or unsupported opinion is not proof

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
5.2.19  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.17    2 years ago
"Desperate.  Deplorable.  Bitter clinger.  Pathetic indeed".  

Yes you are

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.16    2 years ago

I did not claim proof; that was a demand from you.

The confirmation bias is your denial of everything offered as evidence by the committee and demanding proof.   You are demanding a bar rarely reached in legal concerns and have yet to accept any of their hard evidence.

That is over-the-top confirmation bias.

The problem is you, not me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.21  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @5.2.18    2 years ago

You demand proof which is rarely achieved in legal proceedings.   Our system is based on evidence and the credibility of same.

Looking at the evidence presented, which is false and which of the many R witnesses are not credible?

It is so obvious that you, et. al. are shaking your heads furiously and refusing to acknowledge hard evidence  and infomration presented to you and when challenged demand something (proof) that is rarely achieved even in a court of law.

It is comical but this is a very serious situation and that makes such blatant confirmation bias dangerous for the nation.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.20    2 years ago
everything offered as evidence

Blogger articles are not "evidence".  What about this is so hard for you to comprehend?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.2.23  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.22    2 years ago

Glad you said that. I am going to use that on another article.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.24  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.22    2 years ago
Blogger articles are not "evidence". 

And water is not gasoline.    What on Earth are you blabbering about now?

The evidence I have been referring to is that which is being presented in the Jan 6th hearings.

Grasping at straws just illustrates the weakness of your position.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
5.2.25  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.24    2 years ago

Look, your pissed that I refuse to take an article that, by it's own admission, is running with something unfounded as proof.  I get it.  I'm pushing against what you think I should believe.  

I'm not setting any unachievable bar for you to overcome.  When there is proof, provide it.   

The evidence I have been referring to is that which is being presented in the Jan 6th hearings.

The TDS Committee?  That's where you are telling me the evidence is?  A partisan version of Jersey Shore?  You'd have a better chance convincing me Biden isn't suffering from "you know, the thing".

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.2.25    2 years ago

I am not 'pissed', I am pointing out the profound flaws in your 'argument'.

Again, the evidence I am talking about is not from some article but rather that which is presented in these hearings.

The TDS Committee? 

Confirmation bias as plain as day.  

Your problem is that you refuse to look at what is presented in these hearings —you are ignoring the evidence— because the committee is not strictly bi-partisan.   An objective, rational mind who sought to make an informed decision would evaluate the evidence and not simplistically reject all evidence because the committee is not strictly bi-partisan.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6  Ronin2    2 years ago

Then charge Trump already!

Enough of this bullshit. Get the Democrat DA's, AG's, and the highly partisan DOJ to charge Trump already! How much more do they need! 

Until then this is just more leftist bullshit!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @6    2 years ago

What evidence presented by this committee is false?   Which of the many R witnesses are not credible?  

 
 

Who is online


Right Down the Center
devangelical
Krishna
Sparty On
mocowgirl
Outis
Veronica


68 visitors