PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on June 21, 2016, 08:47:39 PM
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284249-trump-campaign-poured-6m-into-trump-companies
GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump has cycled more than $6 million in campaign funds into his corporate products and services, according to an Associated Press review.
The news service's analysis of federal finance reports through the end of May pegged the amount at $6.2 million, about 10 percent of the real estate mogul's total campaign expenditures.
So, the guy who claimed to be self funding is instead funneling millions in donors money to his own businesses. And he calls Hillary crooked.
-
Hey, he doesn't need the money. He's self-funding. He's just paying out of pocket expenses. He's a business man. He makes deals. He makes excellent deals. His deals are beautiful.
I wonder how much Don Junior, Eric, and Evonka were paid from the campaign.
-
I'm not sure that's a problem. For example, the campaign could be paying his aviation arm for his campaign travel.
-
There could be several logical and legal explanations for this. But I'll wait for more information before I jump on it.
But if you already have your mind made up and if an internet blog post supports it, I guess in your mind it must be true.
In other news, The FBI has been ordered not to investigate any Muslims for anything and agents are in fear of losing their jobs if they do. I have no doubt that is true because it fits my preconceptions.
-
I'm not sure that's a problem. For example, the campaign could be paying his aviation arm for his campaign travel.
There's another 3 mil for that.
-
What's the opposite of self-funding? democrats
-
There could be several logical and legal explanations for this. But I'll wait for more information before I jump on it.
Legal probably, but hypocritical regardless
But if you already have your mind made up and if an internet blog post supports it, I guess in your mind it must be true.
The Hill is a major newspaper, not an internet blog, and they cite their sources. But I guess if it's negative about The Orange One, it must be false, right?