Haberman: Guilfoyle's 60k Payday Went Viral in 'Trump World'

  
Via:  John Russell  •  2 months ago  •  60 comments

By:   Tommy Christopher (Mediaite)

Haberman: Guilfoyle's 60k Payday Went Viral in 'Trump World'
Maggie Haberman dished on the agita in "Trump World" over Kim Guilfoyle's $60,000 payday for several seconds of work at the Jan. 6 Trump rally.

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



New York Times correspondent Maggie Haberman dished on the agita in "Trump World" over Kimberly Guilfoyle's $60,000 payday for several seconds of work at the Jan. 6 Trump rally.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren of the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol made waves Monday when she revealed to CNN's Jake Tapper that Guilfoyle was paid "$60,000 for two and a half minutes" of introduction at former President Donald Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally on Jan. 6, 2021.

On Tuesday morning's edition of CNN's New Day, Haberman painted a picture for anchor John Berman of Trump allies passing around the clip of Lofgren's revelation as they lament the "retirees" who funded the introduction of her own boyfriend — and noted they shouldn't have been surprised:


JOHN BERMAN: The committee has found information that Kimberly Guilfoyle was paid $60,000 to speak at the rally on January 6, $60,000 for a speech that was, what, 3 minutes?

MAGGIE HABERMAN: If that.

JOHN BERMAN: If that, 3 minutes long. And what have you heard over the last several hours since that revelation about how people in Trumpworld feel about this?

JOHN BERMAN: So I want to say two things about that. People in Trumpworld are sharing that clip. They are aghast that this is the amount of money that she got for a speech to introduce her boyfriend. They couldn't really get over, I had one one former adviser say to me, essentially, these were folks who were raising money in small amounts from retirees, telling them this was going to some legal fight that didn't really happen. And instead, Kimberly Guilfoyle is getting paid. But this is the whole ecosystem. So it's fine that some people are upset about this. But this is, there's some level of this that often goes on around Trump, and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Watch above via CNN.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 months ago
Guilfoyle's $60,000 payday for several seconds of work at the Jan. 6 Trump rally.

In most families, they would introduce each other for nothing. She had to be paid 60,000 dollars to introduce HER BOYFRIEND.  Must be love. s.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

Who gives a shit John? 

Did Trump use tax payer money to pay her? Did he do anything illegal in paying her?

This is the Jan 6th committee at it's finest. Releasing absolute bullshit that has no relevance to Jan 6th in order to try and harm Trump. 

Where is the fucking accountability on this committee? They seem to be able to say and do anything they want. Other than question Pelosi, Schumer, Bowser, or the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms about why Trump's offer of 20,000 National Guard Troops was declined (Bowser even did it in writing) that is. Also why the small contingent that was deployed wasn't called up to assist sooner during Jan 6th. Trump doesn't control the National Guard in DC. That would be Pelosi, Schumer (their Sergeant at Arms), and Bowser. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    2 months ago
This is the Jan 6th committee at it's finest. Releasing absolute bullshit that has no relevance to Jan 6th in order to try and harm Trump.

Yet more proof of the Democratic-run circus.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago
n most families, they would introduce each other for nothing.

The rebuttals here are so obvious.  Have you heard of the Bidens?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

They paid her to go down on anyone who gave her a buck.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.4  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago
She had to be paid 60,000 dollars to introduce HER BOYFRIEND. 

My God...the things that trigger you.

What would you say if it were Hunter Biden that introduced his dad?

My guess is you would have zero against it and we would never hear about it because Biden does not trigger anyone like Trump triggers you.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     2 months ago

It was payment for a ''lap dance'' from Rudy Hands in Pants.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @2    2 months ago

"Rudy Hands in Pants"

reminds me of a joke

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
2.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  Kavika @2    2 months ago
It was payment for a ''lap dance'' from Rudy Hands in Pants.

Did Kimberly drape that black tent she was wearing over Rudy?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @2    2 months ago

A misogynistic comment.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.1  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @2.3    2 months ago
A misogynistic comment.

Not at all since she has offered lap dances in past comments. 

  • Kimberly Guilfoyle, a Trump campaign advisor and Donald Trump Jr.'s girlfriend, joked about her sex life and made offers for a lap dance and a hot-tub party at fundraisers, Politico reported Saturday.
  • Guilfoyle offered to give a lap dance to whomever raised the most money at a donor event in December at the Trump Hotel in Washington, DC, Politico reported, citing two people who were at the event.
  • Guilfoyle and Trump Jr. made some donors uncomfortable with their "sexually suggestive" conversations, Politico reported.
  • Tim Murtaugh, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, told Politico: "Kimberly Guilfoyle is an excellent fundraiser and was a highly valued asset to the President's team. There was nothing offensive about her presentations in context."
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @2.3.1    2 months ago

Oh, for just a second there, I thought you were going to post some proof for your asinine, misogynistic accusations, my mistake!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.3  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.2    2 months ago
I thought you were going to post some proof for your asinine, misogynistic accusations, my mistake!

I did and yes it is your mistake. 

Thanks for the confirmation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @2.3.3    2 months ago
I did

That's cute and hilarious!

You might actually want to read what you wrote that you 'think' is proof.

Helpful hint:

you didn't post anything a reasonable person would consider proof for your misogynistic comment.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3.5  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3    2 months ago

Rudy was the one with his hand in his pants!

original

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.6  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.3.5    2 months ago

And WHAT does Rudy have to do with her introducing Trump?

Can you at least attempt to make some kind of half-assed connection that your fellow liberals can swallow?

Find a meme for THAT.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.7  Kavika   replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.4    2 months ago
you didn't post anything a reasonable person would consider proof for your misogynistic comment.

Counting yourself as reasonable is hilarious. 

Keep up the comedy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.8  Texan1211  replied to  Kavika @2.3.7    2 months ago
Counting yourself as reasonable is hilarious.  Keep up the comedy.

The hilarity is assuming others can't see that you posted bupkis to support your misogynistic comment.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3.9  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Kavika @2.3.1    2 months ago

Dont make so much sense Kavika, you will traumatize some of these people. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.10  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.9    2 months ago
Dont make so much sense

Absolutely no worries in that regard.

Relax.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @2.3.1    2 months ago

I think trumpturd, jr. offers up her BJ services to anyone willing to have that hateful shrew go down on them.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.3.12  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @2.3.3    2 months ago

She has threeways with trumpturd and trumpturd, jr.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
2.4  al Jizzerror  replied to  Kavika @2    2 months ago
It was payment for a ''lap dance'' from Rudy Hands in Pants.

Ghouliani puts his hands in his pants to caress his micro erection.

When Kimberly was grinding on his lap; Rudy was using his thumb to stimulate her. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.4.1  JBB  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.4    2 months ago

The Rudy Giuliani [ deleted Masterbation Kit. ]

original

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.4.2  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @2.4.1    2 months ago

I think all the trumpturds have the micro dick syndrome too - why else are they always over compensating?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3  Texan1211    2 months ago

Sounds like some jealous people, knowing they will never command that type of payday in their own lives.

Oh, well, another day in America.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3    2 months ago

In most families, they would introduce each other for nothing. She had to be paid 60,000 dollars to introduce HER BOYFRIEND.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 months ago
In most families, they would introduce each other for nothing. She had to be paid 60,000 dollars to introduce HER BOYFRIEND.

She didn't HAVE to be paid that amount.

Someone CHOSE to pay her that amount.

Isn't that one of the cornerstones of a free economy--paying people what you think they are worth?

Sounds like she made herself a great deal, no need to be jealous!

Heck, that 60k is more than I make in a whole two weeks!

Good for her!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 months ago

Again John what is the fucking relevance of this information to Jan 6th? 

Why the fuck was this released by Rep. Zoe Lofgren in an interview? 

Care to still claim the Jan 6th committee is something more than another partisan attempt by Pelosi to get Trump at all costs?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    2 months ago

How is someone "worth" 60,000 dollars to introduce her boyfriend to a rally audience?  Unless he was "introduced" do you think the crowd wouldnt know who he was?

The problem with this , other than it is ridiculous, is who payed the 60,000? Do you think the Trumps did? LOL.  Their suckers in the MAGA public who send them money paid for it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.2    2 months ago
Again John what is the fucking relevance of this information to Jan 6th? 

Nothing, absolutely nothing. Just another left-wing squirrel to chase because, well, Trump.

Why the fuck was this released byRep. Zoe Lofgren in an interview? 

Seeking her 15 minutes of 'fame'.

Care to still claim the Jan 6th committee is something more than another partisan attempt by Pelosi to get Trump at all costs?

No one should ever attempt to deny the Democratic circus is partisan.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    2 months ago
How is someone "worth" 60,000 dollars to introduce her boyfriend to a rally audience? 

Why do you give a fuck what others make? It isn't any of your business, and what gives YOU the right to determine what someone else is worth?  It just makes you appear very jealous.

Unless he was "introduced" do you think the crowd wouldnt know who he was?

I am sure they would know.

Do you think when Michael Buffer announces fighters before a fight, the audience doesn't know who they are already?

That isn't even a legitimate argument about anything.

The problem with this , other than it is ridiculous, is who payed the 60,000? Do you think the Trumps did?

Again, none of your business. Why are you so concerned with what other people get paid, especially in light of the fact that YOU aren't paying a cent of it?

Their suckers in the MAGA public who send them money paid for it. 

Their money--NOT YOURS--to do with as THEY see fit.

Do you now or ever enjoyed someone telling YOU how to spend YOUR money?

If this wasn't Trump-related, you wouldn't even give a shit.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    2 months ago
The problem with this , other than it is ridiculous, is who payed the 60,000?

Curious as to whether you questioned others' worth.

Say, someone with no energy experience being paid millions?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    2 months ago
How is someone "worth" 60,000 dollars to introduce her boyfriend to a rally audience?

The worth of the payee is in the eyes of the payor. Simple.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.8  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.7    2 months ago
The worth of the payee is in the eyes of the payor.

Actually, in the real world, this is what is known as grifting. Con men and women using other people's money to enrich themselves. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.1.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.8    2 months ago

Probably a great gig if you can find it...................but not illegal.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.10  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.9    2 months ago

You just said you think grifting is a great gig. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
3.1.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.10    2 months ago

I guess I forgot the /S  there.......................you must admit, it is pretty lucrative even though unethical

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.8    2 months ago
Con men and women using other people's money to enrich themselves.

Never heard a liberal describe Hunter Biden in quite that way. 

Kudos.

 
 
 
TOM PA
Freshman Silent
4  TOM PA    2 months ago

Even in my best year, working tons of OT, I never made that much.  

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1  bugsy  replied to  TOM PA @4    2 months ago

Life choices?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 months ago

It's strange the trivial shit the left will get their panties in a wad over.  

The committee has found information that Kimberly Guilfoyle was paid $60,000 to speak at the rally on January 6, $60,000 for a speech that was, what, 3 minutes?

If it's not taxpayer money, (which it sounds like it wasn't) then who cares.  But then again, given WHO was introduced is all the explanation for the freak out.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6  Tacos!    2 months ago

A girl’s got to make a living.

Who gives a shit? Do people really expect to be taken seriously when they make this a story? Unless she was paid with taxpayer money, I couldn’t care less. 

I’m confident that any of these people clutching at their pearls and declaring “Tsk! Tsk!” over this would take a job that pays 60K for 3 minutes work in a heartbeat. Bunch of hypocrites.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago

Another ridiculous comment by you. 

People such as us, have every right to comment on a discussion forum about a family of grifters at or near the top of the political food chain in this country. 

I dont think Tom Brady is worth 3 million dollars per NFL game (I think his new contract is somewhere in that ballpark) . Am I right or wrong to comment on it? 

And he's not even a grifter, he is taking part in an open market for NFL talent. 

What market was Kimberly Guilfoyle's talents subjected to that day? 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    2 months ago
What market was Kimberly Guilfoyle's talents subjected to that day?

According to their reactions, i'm guessing, the Wet Market

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    2 months ago
What market was Kimberly Guilfoyle's talents subjected to that day? 

Uh, just about anyone who can speak could have introduced Trump.

The people running things decided they wanted her to do it, and paid her for it.

What exactly is the problem you have with other people spending their money in the manner they choose? Or making as much as possible from employers willing to pay them?

Or is the problem really just that this story is Trump-related?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    2 months ago
Another ridiculous comment by you.  People such as us, have every right to comment on a discussion forum about a family of grifters at or near the top of the political food chain in this country. 

Do you even see the bizarre, hypocritical double standard in your whiny comment? You attack my comment as ridiculous, and somehow infer that my comment means I think you don’t have a right to comment. 

So therefore, if you call my comment ridiculous, does that mean you are saying I don’t have right to comment? Do you see how irrational your approach is? I didn’t say anything about you having the right to comment. Geez, how insecure does a person have to be to make that leap of logic?

I said the topic was unimportant. I didn’t say you had no right to comment. Just. Freakin. Wow.

What market was Kimberly Guilfoyle's talents subjected to that day?

The market of famous people making appearances. Barack Obama gets like 400K to make a speech. Now he might put in a whole hour’s work, or it might be far less. It’s by the appearance, as far as I know, and not the minute. For that matter, we don’t know else Guilfoyle did that day. She probably was there for quite a while, shaking hands and talking to people. 

These Has-Been Celebrities Still Charge Staggering Fees Per Appearance

Do I care? Not even a nickel’s worth.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.3    2 months ago

Obama has a talent. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.3    2 months ago
Do I care? Not even a nickel’s worth.

Are you trying to tell us you just don't care how much someone makes and some employer chooses to pay them?

Why, you nasty capitalist, you!

LMAO!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.4    2 months ago
Obama has a talent. 

Yeah? I bet he can’t do this:

original

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.3    2 months ago

If you didn't care, you wouldn't comment.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.7    2 months ago
If you didn't care, you wouldn't comment.

True. And I haven’t actually commented on whether her salary is a good thing or a bad thing. Why? Because I don’t care. 

I am impressed that Kimberly Guilfoyle can make 60K for a few minutes work (apparently), but I’m not bothered by it. There’s no reason I - or anyone else - should be. If I could do that, I’d be thrilled. And I bet everyone else in America would be, too. That’s why I say the haters are hypocrites.

Instead, I commented on the seed. I do care that people make a fuss over unimportant things.

We blow things out of proportion just because they get posted to the internet. One or two people say something random on Twitter, and someone else repeats it with headlines that imply lots of people are thinking and saying the same thing, when there is no evidence for that.

As a society, we do this a lot, now. We worry about how much money someone else is making or other things that are insignificant. Partisanship feeds the flame of these unwarranted obsessions. Then we vote, and make law or policy based on this corruption of priorities.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.8    2 months ago

Yeah, really fucking impressive.

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.10  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.8    2 months ago

Imo the problem is not necessarily them yet the whole thing of all the cash flow surrounding candidates and/or people in office.

They are getting rich while supposedly doing work for us.

There is way too much dark money floating around.

My personal opinion is anyone that gives money to a candidate is a moron. I never have and never will.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.9    2 months ago
Yeah, really fucking impressive.

You know, it’s funny. I knew I’d get this kind of childish response from you. It’s absolutely par for the course. And so I thought, “should I bother? I’ll just get the usual emoji and maybe an ignorant attack from Tessylo, because that’s her typical contribution.”

But then I thought about it and I remembered that other people read these comments, too, and even if I knew that for you, it would fall on deaf ears, someone else might appreciate my much more thoughtful offering.

So, I’m doubly satisfied. I made what I think is a valuable contribution to the conversation and you confirmed my expectations.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @6.1.10    2 months ago
Imo the problem is not necessarily them yet the whole thing of all the cash flow surrounding candidates and/or people in office.

Yeah, I think there’s something to that. I think that money has made the whole business of politics into a scam that the worst of us feed on like parasites. Just imagine the billions that goes into politics that could go into other things, like feeding people or medicine, etc.

Other countries don’t seem to suffer from this as much, and I know they have limits on campaigning. I would like to see us make some fundamental changes, but it’s hard to do that without trampling on the First Amendment.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 months ago

I think John's point is that her payment came from trmp supporter donations. And some are not happy about it. As a matter of fact there is a quote from Jon Berman in the seed:

JOHN BERMAN: So I want to say two things about that. People in Trumpworld are sharing that clip. They are aghast that this is the amount of money that she got for a speech to introduce her boyfriend. They couldn't really get over, I had one one former adviser say to me, essentially, these were folks who were raising money in small amounts from retirees, telling them this was going to some legal fight that didn't really happen. And instead, Kimberly Guilfoyle is getting paid. But this is the whole ecosystem. So it's fine that some people are upset about this. But this is, there's some level of this that often goes on around Trump, and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

But I don't presume to speak for John

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2    2 months ago
I think John's point is that her payment came from trmp supporter donations. And some are not happy about it.

I’ll bet you that she raises way more money for them just by showing up to these things.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2    2 months ago

I think I know how she 'raises money' and it's not just for 'showing up'

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
6.2.3  al Jizzerror  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.2    2 months ago
she 'raises money'

That not all she raises.

Kimberly commands the attention of the members of the Retrumplican Party.

Fox Noise was forced to fire her because she caused problems with the audio.

There was a lot of echo when Kimberly was on the set.

 
 

Who is online


dennis smith


24 visitors