Haberman: Guilfoyle's 60k Payday Went Viral in 'Trump World'
By: Tommy Christopher (Mediaite)
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
Who is online
99 visitors
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.
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.
The rebuttals here are so obvious. Have you heard of the Bidens?
They paid her to go down on anyone who gave her a buck.
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.
It was payment for a ''lap dance'' from Rudy Hands in Pants.
"Rudy Hands in Pants"
reminds me of a joke
Did Kimberly drape that black tent she was wearing over Rudy?
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.
The Rudy Giuliani [ deleted Masterbation Kit. ]
I think all the trumpturds have the micro dick syndrome too - why else are they always over compensating?
Even in my best year, working tons of OT, I never made that much.
Life choices?
It's strange the trivial shit the left will get their panties in a wad over.
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.
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.
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?
According to their reactions, i'm guessing, the Wet Market
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.
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.
Obama has a talent.
Yeah? I bet he can’t do this:
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.
Yeah, really fucking impressive.
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.
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.
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.
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:
But I don't presume to speak for John
I’ll bet you that she raises way more money for them just by showing up to these things.
I think I know how she 'raises money' and it's not just for 'showing up'
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.