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.

 

Trump spent $55K in donations on copies of his book

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   

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.


If you've ever watched an oversight hearing, then you have seen how partisans on these committees completely abandon their duties to investigate and ask substantive questions, based purely on party.

It's disgusting, unacceptable, a huge breach of the public's trust, and a waste of money & resources.

Infuriating.


edit on 24-8-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
It seems there is no actual evidence that any royalties have been received.
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.
edit on 24/8/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The first thing I learned from being a C-Span junkie is 'holy cow, our representatives are idiots!'***; the second thing I learned is that nothing seems to come from all the Committee meetings and hearings.

You might get a 'censure' now and then, very rarely you get BJ Clinton hauled in and his hand slapped (which he recovers from immediately and starts somehow getting huge speaking fees and being regarded as an elder statesman and all around real popular dude); but when was the last time someone high up actually obviously broke the law and got arrested for it? Seems to be the highest level that gets incarcerated is your random governor, once in awhile a Rep or two but they're invariably low level scuppers without any power base around them whatsoever.

Even the loathsome Newt Gingrich is back again, getting huge fees on cable news shows to enlighten us, when he never should have darkened any doors, ever again.

*** Most famous idiot EVER in case you missed it.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Smart Guy , he knows his Finances . You Jealous ?



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

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.


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.

As for the smearing by the Daily Beast, I challenge you to look at their home page and tell me there is no bias. If they were concerned with honest reporting then they would be as vociferous about the Clinton Foundation, but it's comparative radio silence. They are biased, plain and simple, and are nothing more than shills for Clinton, so I choose to downplay this 'story' until the FEC and/or Trumps campaign come to the party.
edit on 24/8/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   

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.


'We' have more, much more.. but you just need to follow the news across a range of media for that.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



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.


Like I said earlier, you cannot make up for misconduct by letting the money move elsewhere on the back end.



Clinton's corruption reported and evidenced this past week (and before) is a 10.


Yes, yes. The standard "what about Hillary" argument.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
According to the article if the money went to charity then the FEC would likely be OK with it.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
Ok, so if he had bought another book would it be ok?


Only if he didn't receive royalties from said book.

Jesus, you know what Trump is doing is completely unethical at best yet you still make excuses for him. You do realize you are completely embracing ignorance right? So my question to you is, why?



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

It seems like he's running for President just to get rid of his debt.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Indigo5

It seems like he's running for President just to get rid of his debt.


LOL. He'd have to spend around $2 Billion on books to do that... it would certainly be a best seller then

Perhaps he could buy one for every American as part of his advertising campaign !



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

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.


Substitute Trump for Clinton in your post and you see what i see.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

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.


It's only illegal if the royalties went into Trump's pocket.
Can you post confirmation of this?

Not saying they didn't, but you will need some confirmation before you accuse others of lying... at least I hope you would.
edit on 24/8/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

What kind of a question is that?

Of course they can't.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Why should I? I'm not a Clinton supporter. I despise HRC. She's corrupt to the core.... So again... you can't defend your chosen candidate without invoking Hillary's name... completely pathetic.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

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?


Well, can't argue with that.

You know what really pisses me off about Trump's candidacy, besides the ignorant bigotry and all around stupidity? I find myself defending Clinton because I will always argue for the facts and not indulge fantastical conspiracies and straight up lies. This has all been brought to you by Trump, his right wing media cohorts, and of course his hardcore online following. The political pool is no longer murky, now the pool is completely black.

DC needs a pool boy and Trump nor Clinton are it.




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join