It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: desert
a reply to: MotherMayEye
In my observations of Congress over the years, it often is who sits on the committees, how many of each party is on the committee, the partisan nature of the committee, and who is in charge of the committee. Does either the chairman or a majority of the committee wish to take up an investigation seems to be a driving force.
Ergo, there is nothing wrong with buying books to hand out at the RNC conference.
If he received the $20k or so to boost his $billion(s) dollar empire then there might be some more questions
Regardless I think this is a Daily Beast attempt to smear and deflect from the real issues of the day.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth
To have the evidence that Trump did receive the royalty payments, we would either have to have access to his financial documents, or an investigation would have to be started in which he would be forced to provide said documentation.
Ergo, there is nothing wrong with buying books to hand out at the RNC conference.
That is not the problem. The problem is that he purchased those books from a retailer, not the publisher as is the norm, and may have screwed up in doing so.
If he received the $20k or so to boost his $billion(s) dollar empire then there might be some more questions
So you admit that there may be good reason to ask what is going on.
Regardless I think this is a Daily Beast attempt to smear and deflect from the real issues of the day.
It's not a smear or deflection if they are reporting on a real issue.
You're bias is showing.
originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: UKTruth
Well, your opinion really doesn't mean squat to me. Nor did I try to "decide how others respond". I just pointed out how they did respond, and also point out (correctly) that it was just more deflection from Trump supporters. Apparently, deflection is all you guys have. So yeah, don't make crap up and attribute it to me... or.. improve your reading comprehension... either or. Hopefully both.
My guess is he did receive the money but had no clue about the FEC rule, though there is no evidence of such (yet). Frankly all he has to do is give the money to charity. On a scale of 1 to 10, this is a 2.
Clinton's corruption reported and evidenced this past week (and before) is a 10.
originally posted by: matafuchs
Ok, so if he had bought another book would it be ok?
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Indigo5
It seems like he's running for President just to get rid of his debt.
originally posted by: matafuchs
Where does it say it is illegal? He is not taking funds from his campaign. He is not taking money and putting it in his bank account. That you cannot do.
However, purchasing a book that you have written. You are paying full price. You are paying to the vendor. You then get money for the sale of your book. What, if running for president you cannot buy and give a copy of your own book?
Buy from the distributor to make it cheaper? Why, it would still be 'illegal' as you state.
Jacking up sales numbers? He is 14,813th on the Amazon list.
Finally, why is it ok to pay a spouse from your coffer but you cannot buy your own book to give away?
and, if I was a DNC donor, I would be more worried about the 280 million in TV ads that has done nothing instead of 55k to get people ready my policies.
FEC rules dictate the Republican nominee must forgo royalties on the book’s sales, or else the $55,000 purchase at Barnes & Noble was illegal.
originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: UKTruth
Apparently that must be on the Dark Web or something, because I've seen no evidence of it. And I follow all kinds of media.
What I have seen evidence of, is a bunch of yammering Trump supporters sounding like broken records with their endless iterations of "Yeah, but Hillary did (insert actual or made up evil atrocity here)".
But hey... I understand. Trump is a piece of garbage, who does and says indefensible things. So when you can't find a way to defend the indefensible... of course all you're left with is deflections and attacks on other candidates. Only logical I guess.
originally posted by: Swills
originally posted by: matafuchs
Where does it say it is illegal? He is not taking funds from his campaign. He is not taking money and putting it in his bank account. That you cannot do.
However, purchasing a book that you have written. You are paying full price. You are paying to the vendor. You then get money for the sale of your book. What, if running for president you cannot buy and give a copy of your own book?
Buy from the distributor to make it cheaper? Why, it would still be 'illegal' as you state.
Jacking up sales numbers? He is 14,813th on the Amazon list.
Finally, why is it ok to pay a spouse from your coffer but you cannot buy your own book to give away?
and, if I was a DNC donor, I would be more worried about the 280 million in TV ads that has done nothing instead of 55k to get people ready my policies.
Stop lying because it is completely illegal. Stop lying for Trump. Why do you constantly lie for him? We all see you and you're fooling no one.
www.thedailybeast.com...
FEC rules dictate the Republican nominee must forgo royalties on the book’s sales, or else the $55,000 purchase at Barnes & Noble was illegal.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: matafuchs
Finally, why is it ok to pay a spouse from your coffer but you cannot buy your own book to give away?
That spouse is a former President of the United States.
I can't think of any better consultant, can you?