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.
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.