Eric Trump Billed Taxpayers $80K for Two-Day Business Trip

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-06-2020, 04:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If Eric and Don Jr are choosing expensive locations and choosing to have the secret service tag along, they are choosing to have the secret service need to pay for lodging at said expensive locations. Compound this with the fact that they are not cutting deals for the government when it stays at Trump properties and you have a family making the tax payer pay a premium for their lifestyle and getting money back into their pockets on the other end. 

Accepting a government benefit while knowing it will cost the tax payers an unnecessary amount that the taxpayers cannot control is absolutely abusive. 

Pushing it all off on hookers isn't a rational defense of this practice. 

Expensive locations? The Grand Hotel wasn't expensive and it was a block away from where they needed to be.
Of course the SS is optional for Adult children, but be honest, if it was your kids and they were going to a foreign country, would you want yours protected or not? I think many parents would chose Yes to that question.

Why they are going has no bearing on that decision.

As I pointed out, the SS is doing a terrible job with the paperwork and it's causing trouble. Do you agree with that?

(03-06-2020, 04:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: Caught?  Please.  Like that would matter.

Yeah, very easy for me to say that if you want to be the POTUS you stop doing business.  Period.

You don't want that?  Don't try to POTUS.

"Fair".

But congrats for bringing up Obama.  That is not usually how someone defends Trump. 

LOL TBH, I am not so sure Trump thought he would actually win against Hillary. I mean everyone and their mother said he would lose.
Initially he was going to do a blind trust, but once he found out exactly how "Blind" the trust actually is, he decided not to do that and seek an alternative to that.

We can argue all day, all I can say is if he's doing something wrong and caught, then that would be grounds for impeachment correct? So until there is actual proof, we can ***** and moan about it back and forth all day, all year long.

(03-06-2020, 04:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Eric could actually only charge the government for housekeeping as he said he would rather than force them to pay the maximum allowed by law. Trump could stop taking constant expensive trips that require that the secret service pay him for the trip. There's a free facility an hour away for weekend vacation. There are free facilities in DC to host foreign guests. Trump could stop the practice of golfing at far greater rates than his predecessors. He could stop the practice of traveling to a Trump property on average every 3 days. 

The Secret Service is filing the paperwork, but the cost is 100% decided on by the Trumps, the requirement for the trips to Trump properties with no ability to price shop is 100% in control of Trump, and those in charge of the department controlling the paperwork are ultimately political appointees of Trump. 

Sure there's lots of things he could do so save money. Why don't we all stay home on the weekends and eat Ramen Noodles instead of going out and save lots of money? Because that's not how we are wired. We do things we enjoy. In Trump's case being at his personal home and golfing, and his home has plenty of space for guests.

[GMDino]

(03-06-2020, 05:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL TBH, I am not so sure Trump thought he would actually win against Hillary. I mean everyone and their mother said he would lose.
Initially he was going to do a blind trust, but once he found out exactly how "Blind" the trust actually is, he decided not to do that and seek an alternative to that.

We can argue all day, all I can say is if he's doing something wrong and caught, then that would be grounds for impeachment correct? So until there is actual proof, we can ***** and moan about it back and forth all day, all year long.

He did get caught "doing something wrong", impeached and then cleared by a Senate majority of republicans because...republican.

Like I said, it wouldn't matter if he was caught.  Not to them and not to you. 

[hollodero]

(03-06-2020, 05:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Initially he was going to do a blind trust, but once he found out exactly how "Blind" the trust actually is, he decided not to do that and seek an alternative to that.

loool... this spin really is a piece of art.

[Benton]

(03-06-2020, 02:37 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: See what I posted above:

I think your math is fluid enough to benefit your support for what you believe.

I guess, simply, why would we be putting up SS agents 365 days a year? 

What the **** is this, the first family of constant vacations?

Why the **** should taxpayers be on the bill for 365 days of personal business/recreation travel?

And why... oh why... the **** would anyone try to justify it?

[BmorePat87]

(03-06-2020, 05:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Expensive locations? The Grand Hotel wasn't expensive and it was a block away from where they needed to be.
Of course the SS is optional for Adult children, but be honest, if it was your kids and they were going to a foreign country, would you want yours protected or not? I think many parents would chose Yes to that question.

Why they are going has no bearing on that decision.

As I pointed out, the SS is doing a terrible job with the paperwork and it's causing trouble. Do you agree with that?



Sure there's lots of things he could do so save money. Why don't we all stay home on the weekends and eat Ramen Noodles instead of going out and save lots of money? Because that's not how we are wired. We do things we enjoy. In Trump's case being at his personal home and golfing, and his home has plenty of space for guests.

Whether or not the adult children of the President should accept protection is secondary to whether or not it is acceptable to make the secret service pay a premium for their lifestyle. 

Your defense of Trump taking frequent weekend trips that cost the tax payers millions of dollars is odd considering you complained about the Obamas taking occasional family vacations in this same thread. And it needs to be noted that while you're saying "plenty of room for guests" they're charging the government for those rooms...

I also don't know whether or not the secret service is doing a bad job with paperwork or whether they are being directed to falsify reports. Either way, that's also secondary to the question of the Trump family purposefully making money off them. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-06-2020, 09:08 PM)hollodero Wrote: loool... this spin really is a piece of art.

LOL Glad you liked it. But seriously, he said he was going to do a BT in the beginning, But I'm guessing once he discovered it required him to sell off ALL properties (and shares of properties) and pretty much only be able to keep his personal property, is when he changed his mind on that. Face it, his wealth is based off of his investments in Real Estate. If he was being forced to sell, then he probably wouldn't have gotten good value, OR you all would be bitching cause some Saudi Prince/Russian Ogliarch paid 3x what it's worth and would be wanting to impeach cause of favors etc. Pretty much some people will always complain about anything he does.

(03-07-2020, 01:50 AM)Benton Wrote: I think your math is fluid enough to benefit your support for what you believe.

I guess, simply, why would we be putting up SS agents 365 days a year? 

What the **** is this, the first family of constant vacations?

Why the **** should taxpayers be on the bill for 365 days of personal business/recreation travel?

And why... oh why... the **** would anyone try to justify it?

We are not putting them there for 365 days a year, but as I said, they are paying to keep those specific rooms available for the SS and not allowed to rent them out to anyone else and that's because he frequents the Mars-A-Lago quite often.

I did the math based on the numbers provided ($ by the expense report) and by what Eric said about $50 per night and scarily enough, it worked out to 22 agents. I don't know about you, but that number seems about right to me that would be there protecting the POTUS and his family.

Anyhow, I'm done talking about it, it's not gonna matter or how much math I do or what I say, you got your opinion and not budging.

[hollodero]

(03-09-2020, 05:52 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL Glad you liked it.

Oh it was wonderful. Blaming some kind of "blind trust rules" is really creative.

Thing is, the mere fact that he did not use a blind trust at all shows me that he could have chosen any model he pleased, he did not have to sell anything or whatever.
He chose the alternative of putting out tons of paper as a prop while in fact not walking away from his businesses at all.

(03-09-2020, 05:52 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: OR you all would be bitching cause some Saudi Prince/Russian Ogliarch paid 3x what it's worth

Well he does that anyway, so.
Also diplomats and lobbyists use his hotels to stay in his good graces, he doubled the fees of his golf club etc.
- Jeez, how much bitching would be going on if Hillary kept her foundation as president and got money from all kinds of people while in office. And then used that foundation money to buy portraits of herself and whatnot :) while Chelsea had to do some mandatory charity training because of all the blatant misuse... this would all have been political scandals of the century.

(03-09-2020, 05:52 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Pretty much some people will always complain about anything he does.

And some people use this phrase to excuse anything he does.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-09-2020, 07:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh it was wonderful. Blaming some kind of "blind trust rules" is really creative.

Thing is, the mere fact that he did not use a blind trust at all shows me that he could have chosen any model he pleased, he did not have to sell anything or whatever.
He chose the alternative of putting out tons of paper as a prop while in fact not walking away from his businesses at all.



Well he does that anyway, so.
Also diplomats and lobbyists use his hotels to stay in his good graces, he doubled the fees of his golf club etc.
- Jeez, how much bitching would be going on if Hillary kept her foundation as president and got money from all kinds of people while in office. And then used that foundation money to buy portraits of herself and whatnot :) while Chelsea had to do some mandatory charity training because of all the blatant misuse... this would all have been political scandals of the century.



And some people use this phrase to excuse anything he does.

You're right, I'd probably be bitching a little about it if Hills was doing that with her Foundation, but at same time, there's not much I can do, so Id rather spend my time bitching about her policies or lack thereof. If the Reps tried to impeach her, it would end up with the same results, except backwards. Pass in Senate and Blocked in House. So, what difference, at this point, does it make? Just another waste of Congress time and tax payer money in chase of some quixotic exercise. But that belongs in another thread.

This one is about the POTUS's kids using the SS when they travel.

The kids are on Trump's list of people that are allowed to have SS protection 24/7. Where they go, what they do, none of that matters. Sure they can decline it on their own, but why? To them, it's just free body guards.

Even if I was POTUS, I don't care where my Eldest is going, he will be afforded SS Protection, declining it is up to him. My youngest can't decline, so he's stuck with it.

[hollodero]

(03-10-2020, 01:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You're right, I'd probably be bitching a little about it if Hills was doing that with her Foundation, but at same time, there's not much I can do, so Id rather spend my time bitching about her policies or lack thereof. If the Reps tried to impeach her, it would end up with the same results, except backwards. Pass in Senate and Blocked in House. So, what difference, at this point, does it make?

This seems like you yedi-mindtricking yourself out of the obvious observation that you apply double standards.

Also, Trump was impeached for something quite different. No way to prove it, but I severely doubg Hillary would have an united party and electorate behind her if she had pulled all the stuff Trump has pulled. The loyalty on the left usually knows limits.

(03-10-2020, 01:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: This one is about the POTUS's kids using the SS when they travel.

Yeah right. I hesitantly agree with your stance on that debate.

[GMDino]

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/lara-trump-kimberly-guilfoyle-donald-trump-jr-brad-parscale-trump-reelection-campaign-021035622.html

Quote:President Donald Trump’s campaign manager is quietly channeling money to Eric Trump’s wife, Lara Trump, and Donald Trump Jr.’s girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, The New York Times reported Monday.



The payments are hidden from public view because they’re made through campaign manager Brad Parscale’s private company, Parscale Strategy, based in San Antonio, sources told the Times. Typically, such payments would be part of public filings required by the Federal Election Commission so that donors can find out how their contributions are being used — in this case, to pay members of the president’s family.

The family benefits are linked to a network of politically connected private companies — operating with the support and help of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner — that have charged roughly $75 million since 2017 to the Trump reelection campaign, the Republican National Committee and other Republican clients, according to the Times. 

Guilfoyle last year angrily confronted Parscale about late checks owed to her, two witnesses told the Times. He reportedly promised that the situation would be rectified by his wife, Candice Parscale, who often handles his company accounts.

One of Lara Trump’s most notorious contributions to her father-in-law’s campaign early this year was to mock rival Joe Biden’s stutter, which he has grappled with since he was a child.

She was initially hired as a senior consultant in early 2017 by another Parscale company, digital vendor Giles-Parscale, also based in San Antonio, The Associated Press reported. Lara Trump was to serve as a liaison between the company and Donald Trump’s campaign, headquartered in Manhattan’s Trump Tower, which is owned by the president’s Trump Organization. Parscale was named Trump’s reelection campaign manager the following year. 

The Trump campaign announced in January that Guilfoyle, a former Fox News personality who started dating Trump Jr. two years ago, would lead the joint fundraising drive between the campaign and the RNC.

Guilfoyle left Fox News in 2018 following a human resources investigation into allegations of inappropriate behavior, including sexual misconduct, HuffPost reported at the time. An attorney for Guilfoyle denied all accusations as “unequivocally baseless.”

HuffPost could not immediately reach Parscale for comment.

Parscale declined to comment to the Times “in detail” on the article, the paper reported. He has, however, said in the past that private companies provide greater flexibility in a campaign, given campaign finance law requirements, noted the Times.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misidentified Brad Parscale as “Paul.”

[basballguy]

What an interesting thread. I read most of it and I'll say this....

The headline is sensational (per usual when it's anti trump)....I didn't receive a bill from the government...nor do i expect one. Eric Trump did not "bill taxpayers".

I also do not think the dudes business life should just stop because his daddy is president. Maybe he should've picked a better hotel but i would guess the SS has some say so in which hotels he can stay at if they're to protect him. I doubt they'd wanna protect him at the HoJo Inn.

I can't imagine secret service is cheap. You for whatever reason see it as some sort of abuse of privilege...I see it as a cost of doing business.

If i was him, i would never refuse SS protection...have you seen the crazy shit people say about Trump and his family? Perhaps if Trump haters were a bit more human then maybe he wouldn't think he needs protection.

Disclaimer....I vote republican but did not vote in last election...will likely vote Trump in next one though.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-10-2020, 03:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: This seems like you yedi-mindtricking yourself out of the obvious observation that you apply double standards.

Also, Trump was impeached for something quite different. No way to prove it, but I severely doubg Hillary would have an united party and electorate behind her if she had pulled all the stuff Trump has pulled. The loyalty on the left usually knows limits.



Yeah right. I hesitantly agree with your stance on that debate.

Nah, both do the same.
Public support until it costs voters. Then it's either withdraw support publicly or deflect the questions.

At least we agree on the SS part. I mean I never complained about it when the Obama's, Bush's, Clinton's etc used it, or HOW or WHEN they used it. Most people are good and wouldn't hurt others, but that few will and that's the ones that they need to be protected from cause those types LOOK for those golden opportunities.

Seriously, if I ran into Obama or one of his family members, I wouldn't stress them. I would shake their hands and get a selfie if they will allow. Hell even Hillary, although I'd much rather run into Bill haha

[hollodero]

(03-10-2020, 04:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Nah, both do the same.
Public support until it costs voters. Then it's either withdraw support publicly or deflect the questions.

Sure, that's one way to look at it. The totally unwavering loyalty to Trump from his voters makes him get away with anything. A kind of unwavering loyalty no Democrat would ever get from their electorate.

[Dill]

(03-10-2020, 04:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Nah, both do the same.
Public support until it costs voters. Then it's either withdraw support publicly or deflect the questions.

This surprises me. 

You are surely not saying that Hillary would have had full Dem backing if she had shaken down the Ukraine president to get dirt on an opponent, using all manner of "unofficial" representatives mired in corruption, all beginning the day after she had dodged an FBI investigation which found she had obstructed justice by ordering a WH lawyer to falsify evidence.

Why do you think Trump said he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and wouldn't lose any voters?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-11-2020, 08:35 AM)Dill Wrote: This surprises me. 

You are surely not saying that Hillary would have had full Dem backing if she had shaken down the Ukraine president to get dirt on an opponent, using all manner of "unofficial" representatives mired in corruption, all beginning the day after she had dodged an FBI investigation which found she had obstructed justice by ordering a WH lawyer to falsify evidence.

Why do you think Trump said he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and wouldn't lose any voters?

Are you arguing Full Repub backing vs Voter backing vs Party line? That's 3 different things.

Quite a few Repubs  have made it clear they don't like Trump, but they will still vote along party lines.

Didn't all 45 (+5 Repubs) Senate Democrats vote not guilty for Clinton when he was going thru his Impeachment Trial and it resulted in an Acquittal? So don't feed me that line of BS about Dems being any different. They still followed the party line just like the Repubs did (except for Romney).

And I have no Doubt they would have with Hillary if was the one doing this.

[Belsnickel]

(03-11-2020, 01:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Are you arguing Full Repub backing vs Voter backing vs Party line? That's 3 different things.

Quite a few Repubs  have made it clear they don't like Trump, but they will still vote along party lines.

Didn't all 45 (+5 Repubs) Senate Democrats vote not guilty for Clinton when he was going thru his Impeachment Trial and it resulted in an Acquittal? So don't feed me that line of BS about Dems being any different. They still followed the party line just like the Repubs did (except for Romney).

And I have no Doubt they would have with Hillary if was the one doing this.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't find the Clinton and Trump impeachments as comparable when one involved an egregious abuse of power and one was for perjury about a blowjob. I mean, I would have voted guilty in both instances, but trying to compare those two when discussing toeing the party line is a tough sell.

[Dill]

(03-11-2020, 01:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Are you arguing Full Repub backing vs Voter backing vs Party line? That's 3 different things.

Quite a few Repubs  have made it clear they don't like Trump, but they will still vote along party lines.

Didn't all 45 (+5 Repubs) Senate Democrats vote not guilty for Clinton when he was going thru his Impeachment Trial and it resulted in an Acquittal? So don't feed me that line of BS about Dems being any different. They still followed the party line just like the Repubs did (except for Romney).

And I have no Doubt they would have with Hillary if was the one doing this.

I'll just have to repeat that I'm amazed at the faulty equivalence.

The Clinton impeachment was based upon a finding of "obstruction" when he lied about a private liaison with an intern.  The Republican claim was that ANY violation of legal integrity about any matter unfit a president for an office whose prime directive was to uphold the law. That brought a bipartisan vote of not guilty. (probably from a number on both sides guilty of similar liaisons and ready to "understand" such a lie.)

Trump's most recent obstruction followed the Mueller Report's finding that Trump ORDERED the obstruction of an FBI investigation hinging on national security. And when impeached he refused to depose and withheld material documents and witnesses--in a matter touching on foreign policy and national security and drawing in criminal activity of others. That obstruction clearly signaled a scofflaw's willingness to continue breaking the law and brought a bipartisan vote of guilty--the first in history. Today's Republican party--now the T-Party--protected their man's corruption in a way that the Republican party of 1974 would not.

To conclude from this comparison that "both sides do it," you have to massively collapse the scale of Trump's violation and its implications for rule of law and Congressional oversight--

and to assume Hillary, too, (no doubt?) would lose no votes if she shot someone on 5th Avenue.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-11-2020, 02:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Maybe it's just me, but I can't find the Clinton and Trump impeachments as comparable when one involved an egregious abuse of power and one was for perjury about a blowjob. I mean, I would have voted guilty in both instances, but trying to compare those two when discussing toeing the party line is a tough sell.

My response was to Dill about Repubs supporting Repubs no matter what.

It is 2 examples of the sitting POTUS being brought up on Impeachment charges. One was Abuse of Power and Obstruction, other was Perjury and Obstruction. But in both examples at least 1 Repub didn't "toe the party line". So what Dill said was rather hypocritical with all things considered. It really has nothing to do with which was worse.

What both did was stupid in my opinion.

EDIT: And Dill's response was pretty much the same.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-11-2020, 08:35 AM)Dill Wrote: This surprises me. 

You are surely not saying that Hillary would have had full Dem backing if she had shaken down the Ukraine president to get dirt on an opponent, using all manner of "unofficial" representatives mired in corruption, all beginning the day after she had dodged an FBI investigation which found she had obstructed justice by ordering a WH lawyer to falsify evidence.

Why do you think Trump said he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and wouldn't lose any voters?

Did you or did you not say FULL DEM BACKING?

(03-11-2020, 03:15 PM)Dill Wrote: I'll just have to repeat that I'm amazed at the faulty equivalence.


and to assume Hillary, too, (no doubt?) would lose no votes if she shot someone on 5th Avenue.

Why not?
Just like with Trump, no one would believe it and she's already been linked to numerous kills already.
Epstein, Boudain, and many more

[Dill]

(03-11-2020, 04:13 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: My response was to Dill about Repubs supporting Repubs no matter what.

It is 2 examples of the sitting POTUS being brought up on Impeachment charges. One was Abuse of Power and Obstruction, other was Perjury and Obstruction. But in both examples at least 1 Repub didn't "toe the party line". So what Dill said was rather hypocritical with all things considered. It really has nothing to do with which was worse.

What both did was stupid in my opinion.

EDIT: And Dill's response was pretty much the same.

46 years ago a Republican Senate told their president they would vote to remove him from office, once it was clear he sought to quash investigation into his abuse of power and fired his own investigators. No reason to believe they'd have done that had he lied about a BJ. 

If we are talking about party double standards based upon false equivalence,
then which was "worse" has everything to do with it.

You are dismissing the vast difference in the nature and degree of violation recorded in these impeachments 
by restricting your comparison to no more than Senate voting tallies.

That's what produces the false equivalence. 

The Democratic party is no mirror image of the Republican.
No Dem could remain in power doing what Trump does; s/he would lose voter and party backing.