611

Trump Is Actually Guilty of the Kind of Bribery Republicans Imagine Biden Did (nymag.com)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by spaceghoti@lemmy.one to c/politics@lemmy.world

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The New York Times reports that Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt privately recorded his intentions to give Donald Trump money in order to advance his business interests in the United States. Pratt wrote, “If Potus is having his election party at mar Lago I’ll book as many rooms as available,” because doing so would not only help Trump win the election but also “be good for business.”

The Times reports that, according to witness testimony to federal prosecutors, Pratt “spent $1 million to attend the party, well in excess of the normal charge.” That is to say, Pratt was not merely indulging himself in amenities offered by Trump’s private club but consciously using those payments as a vehicle to pay Trump directly.

While there is no evidence this alleged scheme violates any criminal statute, the colloquial term for this behavior is bribery.

Meanwhile, House Republicans are continuing to circulate allegations that President Biden was connected to his son Hunter’s influence-peddling business. Representative James Comer has made a series of uncorroborated allegations that the conservative media have uncritically promoted, insinuating that Joe Biden personally benefited from his son’s business. Republicans have produced communications between Hunter Biden and his father, which might be expected between a father and a son, but no clear evidence that Joe Biden received any payments stemming from Hunter’s work.

They are attempting, so far without success, to show Biden did what Donald Trump is proven to have done.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago

The title literally says “Trump is actually guilty” despite there being no evidence he is guilty

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.

Rich guys try to bribe politicians in roundabout ways all the time

I would say "try to" is an unsubstantiated addition.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Why do you think the Saudi’s donated 10 figure amounts to the Clinton foundation?

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?

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

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...

[-] abraxas@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

I can't stop laughing. Yes indeed. Too bad that guy isn't going to engage, since he was just here to troll.

this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023

611 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29342 readers

1459 users here now

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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News