Trump biographer raises questions about his wealth as campaign donors foot the bill for his many lawyers.

Trump biographer raises questions about his wealth as campaign donors foot the bill for his many lawyers

Former President Donald Trump’s PACs have spent about $50 million in donor money on his legal bills last year, sources told The New York Times.

The “staggering sum” spent by Trump on his legal fees and investigation-related expenses is about the same amount his lone remaining GOP primary opponent Nikki Haley raised across all her committees last year, the Times’ Maggie Haberman and Shane Goldmacher write. Federal Election Commission filings this week are expected to detail the full extent of Trump’s “enormous financial strain,” they added.

Trump, who has a penchant for relying on campaign donations to pay his lawyers if he actually pays them at all, has used his Save America PAC to cover his legal costs. When the PAC ran low on cash last year, Trump asked for an unusual refund of $60 million that had been transferred to the pro-Trump MAGA Inc. PAC. Trump has also been directing 10% of donations raised through Save America to a PAC that primarily pays his lawyers, according to the Times.

  • Tyfud@lemmy.world
    21·
    9 months ago

    Right, the primary difference being that a criminal trial would be that the statue of limitations would restrict what a prosecutor can achieve, while there is no such limitation for civil suits.

    The amount of evidence and the case proceeding would be largely similar in both.

    So while you are technically correct for calling that out, I just want to be clear that had this been a criminal trial, the result would very likely have been the same from the jury.

    • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
      1·
      9 months ago

      Maybe he would have been, I’m not a lawyer or judge.

      I just believe in America and innocent until proven guilty, and he wasn’t proven guilty of that offense.

      His actions and responses around the allegations are gross and unbecoming for sure.

      Edit:

      Right, the primary difference being that a criminal trial would be that the statue of limitations would restrict what a prosecutor can achieve, while there is no such limitation for civil suits.

      There’s also the vast difference in burden of proof required for a criminal conviction vs a civil trial. It’s not only the statute of limitations that was at play here.

      • Tyfud@lemmy.world
        2·
        9 months ago

        Innocent until proven guilty is not a mantra.

        It is how the legal system needs to work. It does not mean that your are innocent into proven guilty in the eye of the public, or historical records. It’s purely about setting expectations for a working justice system that needs that presumption to function.

        That does not mean that a person is innocent and everyone should treat them as if they’re innocent until the verdict comes down.

        This is an important distinction to make.

        • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
          2·
          9 months ago

          Sure, but there’s a difference between feeling someone is guilty and stating they were convicted. We shouldn’t knowingly be making factually incorrect statements.

          It feeds the right when people are so TDS that they are okay with spreading mistruths or fake news.