If you’re following along with what happened with the 2 women, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, that Trump paid off secretly before his first election, then you know this is something he does. BUT you didn’t know, nor did I, that this was not only a common thing to do (hide the payments) but A J Delgado says there were more women. CREW has filed a complaint asking the FEC to investigate this.
Meanwhile piecing some of this together from memory. And this is sleazy
Back in 2017, it came out that one of Trump’s campaign staffers, A j Delgado gave birth to a baby as the result of an affair with another Trump staffer, Jason Miller. Miller was married at the time to someone else (maybe he still is, don’t know) and tried to make it look like, via a post on Page Six like he had something to do with the baby, despite, A J said, doing nothing financially. After that, Miller stepped down (with a typical need to spend more time with my family type excuse) from being Trump’s communication director although Trump brought him back in 2023 (Sleazebells like their sleazeballs, I guess) Miller was also alleged to have slipped an abortion pill into a drink of a pregnant girlfriend, a dancer he met at a strip club. In 2019, Delgado filed a federal lawsuit alleging discrimination from the Trump campaign and transition team, including Stephen Bannon, Sean Spicer and Reince Preibus. Here’s the PDF of that – According to page 8 of that, the defendants entered into a settlement amount with Delgado but then reneged on the agreement. The case is Delgado v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. et al., 19-cv-11764 (Torres / Parker)
That brings us to 2024. Trump campaign lawyers, in early May, tried to quit the case, and a judge ruled they couldn’t do it, for now.
Miller, who was married to another woman, in 2017 confirmed that the son Delgado had that year was his.
The suit alleges the defendants reneged on an agreement in 2017 to privately settle her complaint for an undisclosed amount of money.
Parker’s order Thursday noted that because the Trump campaign “is an entity” — not a person — “it may not represent itself.”
Delgado entered an objection to Trump Campaign lawyers being able to withdraw (PDF)
BUT then on May 8, 2024, Delgado, in this same case, filed a declaration alleging secret settlements meant to evade the FEC were made (does this remind you of the SAME type of thing Trump did with Stormy Daniels, ie, laundering money through a passthrough?) From CREW (PDF)
- On May 8, 2024, a former employee of Respondent when it was operating under
the name Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. filed a declaration under penalty of perjury in her
pending lawsuit against Respondent over her claims of pregnancy discrimination. In the
declaration, she stated that in 2017, a lawyer then representing Respondent offered to work as a
pass-through for a settlement payment to her to evade federal campaign finance law’s
requirement that political committees report the recipients and purposes of their disbursements.
Specifically, she states that in the course of discussing a potential settlement of her claims, “it
was expressed that ‘Trump’ is known for ‘not settling’ and that Trump and the Campaign would
need to keep this confidential.” Ex. A. She states that when her lawyer expressed this would not
be possible due to federal reporting requirements, the lawyer representing Respondent
“dismissed the concerns easily, stating words to the effect of, ‘That is not a problem at all. What
we would do is the Campaign pays me and then I cut a check to you guys.’” Id. The former
employee explains she understood the lawyer to be suggesting that “the payment would be
routed through a middleman, to hide the fact that the Campaign had settled, from the public and
the FEC.” Id. - The former employee further asserts in her declaration that “I have information
and reason to believe that payments made” to the lawyer’s firm and to “Red Curve Solutions . .
reflect legal services related to, and monetary settlements paid to, women who raised complaints
of gender discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, and sexual harassment.” Id.
- Respondent has reported making payments to the lawyer’s firm amounting to
approximately $4.4 million. Make America Great Again PAC, Disbursements (last visited May
9, 2024),
https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&committee_id=C00580100&rec
ipient_name=kasowitz. The latest payment of $2.5 million on January 13, 2021, was described as
a payment for “General: Legal Consulting.” Make America Great Again PAC, FEC Form 3X,
Amended July 31 Mid-Year Report, at 74876 (Dec. 12, 2021), https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-
bin/fecimg/?202112029469645517. - More recently, Respondent has reported over $4.5 million in
“reimbursement for legal” fees or expenses to Red Curve Solutions, LLC. Make
American Great Again PAC, Disbursements, (last visited May 9, 2024)
https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&committee_id=C005801
00&recipient_name=red+curve&disbursement_description=reimbursement+for+legal
(detailing expenses from December 7, 2022 to March 15, 2024). Red Curve is associated
with Bradley T. Crate, the treasurer to Respondent. See, e.g., Donald J. Trump for
President, Inc., FEC Form 1, Statement of Organization, Amended Line 7 (Mar. 4, 2020),
https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/510/202003049203747510/202003049203747510.pdf. - Red Curve does not appear to be a law firm or otherwise capable of providing
legal services. See Sollenberger, Trump’s New Legal Bills Are Hiding an $8 Million Mystery.
Respondent has never reportedly paid Red Curve for legal services, but only for
“reimbursement” of such services. The recipient and purpose of the legal expenses has not been
reported.
Count I
- The FECA and FEC regulations require political committees to report “the name
and address of each” person to receive a disbursement over $200 in the calendar year, along with
the date, amount, and purpose of the disbursement. 52 U.S.C.§ 30104(b)(5), (6); 11
C.F.R. §§ 104.3(b), 104.9. FEC regulations state that, as used in the regulations, “purpose means
a brief statement or description of why the disbursement was made.” 11 C.F.R.
§ 104.3(b)(3)(i)(A), (b)(4)(i)(A). - The Commission has recognized “that merely reporting the immediate recipient of
a committee’s payment will not satisfy the requirements of section 30104(b)(5) … when the facts
indicate that the immediate recipient is merely a conduit for the intended recipient of the funds.”
Factual and Legal Analysis at 9, MUR 6800 (Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee,
Inc.), June 30, 2016, https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6800/6800_18.pdf. - The recent declaration of a former employee of Respondent gives rise to a reason
to believe Respondent was and is using intermediaries, potentially including law firms and its
compliance firm, as “merely a conduit for the intended recipient of funds” and improperly
reporting the conduit as the ultimate recipient of the payments, in violation of federal law. - Accordingly, based on both the former employee’s statements of an offer to pay
her through an intermediary and the evidence of broader use of that practice, there is reason to
believe Respondent has failed to truthfully report the name and address of each person to whom
a disbursement is made, and the purpose of that disbursement, in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30104;
“reimbursement” of such services. The recipient and purpose of the legal expenses has not been
reported.
Count I
- The FECA and FEC regulations require political committees to report “the name
and address of each” person to receive a disbursement over $200 in the calendar year, along with
the date, amount, and purpose of the disbursement. 52 U.S.C.§ 30104(b)(5), (6); 11
C.F.R. §§ 104.3(b), 104.9. FEC regulations state that, as used in the regulations, “purpose means
a brief statement or description of why the disbursement was made.” 11 C.F.R.
§ 104.3(b)(3)(i)(A), (b)(4)(i)(A). - The Commission has recognized “that merely reporting the immediate recipient of
a committee’s payment will not satisfy the requirements of section 30104(b)(5) … when the facts
indicate that the immediate recipient is merely a conduit for the intended recipient of the funds.”
Factual and Legal Analysis at 9, MUR 6800 (Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee,
Inc.), June 30, 2016, https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6800/6800_18.pdf. - The recent declaration of a former employee of Respondent gives rise to a reason
to believe Respondent was and is using intermediaries, potentially including law firms and its
compliance firm, as “merely a conduit for the intended recipient of funds” and improperly
reporting the conduit as the ultimate recipient of the payments, in violation of federal law. - Accordingly, based on both the former employee’s statements of an offer to pay
her through an intermediary and the evidence of broader use of that practice, there is reason to
believe Respondent has failed to truthfully report the name and address of each person to whom
a disbursement is made, and the purpose of that disbursement, in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30104;
What this shows me, is that this was a common way for Trump to hide campaign money by paying off women or maybe other people too that had scandals the Trump campaign didn’t want to come to light. And rather than try to be honest people filling out FEC campaign finance reports, Trump’s campaign created 3rd party entities to launder money through. Wonder if he did this for Republicans in Congress? I remember, for example that Kevin McCarthy was screwing somebody behind his wife’s back. and, in 2015 abruptly withdrew from running for Speaker of the House. And remember, oh, everybody remembers, how much Lindsey Graham despised Trump, and then all of sudden turned into a mewly servile puppet. Did he have some scandal that was paid off my campaign money?
Putting it another way. How much of YOUR money that you thought was going to help someone get elected has actually been used for hush money settlements laundered through a third party? Ew. And you know, I have been loathe to call what is doing on with Trump’s criminal trial in New York the Hush Money trial because it really is about election fraud. BUT I guess you could call ALL of this type of thing Trump’s hush money schemes done behind the FEC’s back in order to either help himself or his cronies from embarrassing scandals that would interfere with the Republican party’s attempts to stay elected, all with the explicit blessing and assistance of the Trump campaign. You know what? That is STEALING. Maybe there are some people who ARE contributing to Trump because they like the idea of his hiding immoral secrets, but I’ll bet most people are not. Great dirty piggy bank for Trump off the backs of what I hope are mostly honest folks.
