politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
This seems obvious to most rational people, so I wouldn't be surprised if the guy you're replying to fails to understand this.
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.
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?
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.
I would say "try to" is an unsubstantiated addition.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
St Judes is not the same as the Clinton Foundation and you know that.
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).
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.
Wrong
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.
Six months after leaving the White House, Jared Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from a fund led by the Saudi crown prince, a close ally during the Trump administration
Thoughts?
fucked up. hate jared kushner and he should never have been in power.
Objection, irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Lmao, weird that they accepted the money in that case, no?