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.
- 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.
- 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
I was expecting a much more solid claim based on the headline. Instead it's "dude buys a bunch of hotel rooms in hopes it would make trump return favors" yet no evidence favors were promised.
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.
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?
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?