Trumps PAC donors have some kind of disconnect. Think of this. If you say you are a billionnaire, such as the Trumps, all of them, claim to be, then why can’t you PAY FOR YOUR OWN ATTORNEYS??????
Course this is the era of the Go Fund Me and related Money beg entities. Seems like a lot of people use this to try to upgrade their own lives, instead of, say, for necessary food and rent. But at least, when you read through those scams, most of them are presumably not wealthy people or representing themselves that way. But this is a family that goes around bragging all the time how rich they are, and yet they want regular people to pay for the attorney bills for trouble they themselves get into. Also, why is a fund that is ostensibly for campaign costs paying for Ivanka Trump’s attorneys?
Some people may be perfectly fine to dig into their bank accounts and give money to Trump because they fell for his whining about how unjust the charges against him are, instead of at least entertaining the thought that there there’s smoke there could be fire.
And why does the FEC allow this? It’s like money laundering. On the one hand, you want, as a citizen, to donate to someone running for office, but on the other, do you want them spending the money to keep themselves out of jail? Might some of these chumps wake up and sue Trump later?
Critton, Luttier & Coleman, a law firm in West Palm Beach, Florida, received $3 million from Save America, according to the FEC filings. The firm did not respond to a request for comment about the work it did.
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor at Stetson University College of Law in Florida, said the risk of paying defense attorneys with contributions is that the FEC or the Justice Department may later decide that it was an illegal personal use of campaign funds. She doubted such a case would be brought against Trump now because doing so might slow the ongoing federal prosecutions overseen by Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith.
“But after the Mar-a-Lago and January 6th cases are done, I would not be surprised to see a personal use case against Trump for using these millions in donations that are meant to go to his political campaign going instead for the personal use of keeping him out of prison,” Torres-Spelliscy said.
There’s one other factor in all of this that needs more attention. In what world is it okay to use Save America PAc money to pay off legal fees of witnesses against Trump? Imagine you or me doing that. You get caught robbing a bank and there are some witnesses against you and you PAY THEM OFF using a fund that others pay into because you told them that it’s All So UnFair and a Witchhunt against you. From a filing Jack Smith did re: Twitter last year
More recently, the former President has taken several steps to undermine or otherwise influence the investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information following the end of his
presidency, including publicizing the existence of the Mar-a-Lago Warrant. See id. 6-9; ECF No. 30, at 23 n.6 (citing Mar-a-Lago Affidavit and Declaration). The former President’s obstructive efforts continue unabated with respect to this investigation here, in which he has determined to pay the legal fees of potential witnesses against him and repeatedly disparaged the lead prosecutor on his Truth Social platform. See Ex Parte Opposition, at 5, 9.
Though Twitter has no basis to challenge the application of the Section 2705(b) factors here, see infra at 29-31, this pattern of obstructive conduct amply supports the district court’s conclusion that the former President presents a significant risk of tampering with evidence, seeking to influence or intimidate potential witnesses, and “otherwise seriously jeopardizing” the Government’s ongoing
In Texas, doing that type of thing is called “Witness Tampering”.
Sec. 36.02. BRIBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:(1) any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter;(2) any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding;(3) any benefit as consideration for a violation of a duty imposed by law on a public servant or party official; or(4) any benefit that is a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code, or that is an expenditure made and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code, if the benefit was offered, conferred, solicited, accepted, or agreed to pursuant to an express agreement to take or withhold a specific exercise of official discretion if such exercise of official discretion would not have been taken or withheld but for the benefit; notwithstanding any rule of evidence or jury instruction allowing factual inferences in the absence of certain evidence, direct evidence of the express agreement shall be required in any prosecution under this subdivision.(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office or he lacked jurisdiction or for any other reason.(c) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the benefit is not offered or conferred or that the benefit is not solicited or accepted until after:(1) the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion has occurred; or(2) the public servant ceases to be a public servant.(d) It is an exception to the application of Subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of Subsection (a) that the benefit is a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code, or an expenditure made and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code.(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 915, ch. 342, Sec. 11, eff. Sept. 1, 1975; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3237, ch. 558, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 304, Sec. 4.02, eff. Jan. 1, 1992; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Maybe you believe it’s okay for someone, anyone, to try to obstruct investigations, by taking money asked for and spreading it around to potential witnesses. In other words, whether Trump pretends to be rich and grifts off people, the money he receives is going out to people who could testify against him in a court of law. That is hugely dishonest. I don’t and I believe that anyone that thinks that is okay does not care about the rule of law and should stop pretending to honor cops, judges, etc.