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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      American justice system in a nutshell.

      Guy can be found to have done sexual assault, but criminal prosecutors wouldn’t touch him because he did it in a city where his close personal friend was the mayor. It took 30 years to reach a judgement against him, and even that was for a relatively piddly sum given the time and effort involved in the pursuit. The thing that really got Trump in trouble wasn’t the act of physical and sexual violence. It wasn’t the defamation that followed. It was the way he and his lawyer were shitty on the stand in a second trial resulting from his remarks on the results of the first trial.

      This is what it takes to bring a rich man to something approaching the possibility justice in America. And even after all this bullshit, there’s almost zero chance that a Florida court or Sheriff’s Department will assist Carroll in collecting on the damages because… Trump is close personal friends with the governor.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Trump is close personal friends with the governor.

        They’re definitely not friends. They just follow the same hateful ideology and will put their differences aside for it.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Now that Trump’s the inevitably nominee, Ron’s falling back into brown-noser mode and will do everything in his power to get Trump to like him. And even if DeSantis wasn’t bending over backwards to please the party’s kingpin, he wouldn’t be terribly inclined to aid a New York feminist and advice columnist in pursuing legal action against The Don.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yup, he’s putting his dislike of Trump aside for the sake of advancing the Christofascist agenda.

    • Tyfud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            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.