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
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
Who is online
551 visitors
Lifelong conman, grifter, thug, thief.
maybe if trump super glued his checkbooks to his cellphones he wouldn't lose so many of them.
check out this comment
[Deleted]
It's not true...a big lie
[Deleted]
Anyone who contributes a penny to this steaming pile of shit is a fool.
What about Biden?
Don't think Biden contributed to Trump's election campaign.
Has Biden been influence peddling through his son Hunter?
but, what aboutism Jared receiving TWO BILLION , for WHO, for WHAT ?
“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 .”
Not really. This whole exercise was a let's see what happens expedition. They were prepared.
Evidence presented says no.
trump shaking down his own supporters is hilarious. fools and their money are soon parted.
Ahhh, trolling.
And they continue to line this lifelong thug, thief, grifter, fool, fucking idiot's pockets.
That's all some have.
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.
[Deleted]
FUCK OFF
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
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?
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.
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.
All some have is projection, deflection, denial, delusion.
Start with a winning comment, stay with a winning comment.
Great minds think alike, TiG because that was my perception, also
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?
[Deleted]
Do you have evidence that Biden poured millions in "political contributions into his own businesses"? If not then where is the double standard?
[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?
Yes, trolling.
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.
So, like every other accusation about the former POTUS, there's really no evidence. Just the normal blathering of the left.
YEP!
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.
Easy. It's an article. Not an official report.
Very little of the accusations have been backed by hard evidence.
I'm telling you to prove it's true. Lets see the actual documents. Not a "news" article, the actual documents.
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.
Yeah, that pretty much confirms that you are ignoring what you do not wish to be true.
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.
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.
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.
Does that make it easier to accept that you gave money to this fucking traitor?
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.
I ignore anything without actual proof. So put up or shut up.
FUCK OFF
Gee, he wasn't even talking to you!
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?
It is obvious that you will dismiss anything short of absolute proof. I suspect you would even deny proof.
Evidence ≠ Proof
That's what I was just thinking. I guess somebody's feelings got hurt by proxy.
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
Confirmation bias. Such blatant denial of reality. Truly pathetic.
You sure it's that? Or is it your inability to back up a single claim? I'm going with the latter.
Desperate. Deplorable. Bitter clinger. Pathetic indeed.
Feelings are no facts. Uncorroborated testimony or hearsay or unsupported opinion is not proof
Yes you are
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.
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.
Blogger articles are not "evidence". What about this is so hard for you to comprehend?
Glad you said that. I am going to use that on another article.
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.
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 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".
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.
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.
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!
What evidence presented by this committee is false? Which of the many R witnesses are not credible?