Trump PAC has not used any of the $75M its raised this year to help fund election audits: report

[HenryChinaski]

Trump PAC has not used any of the $75M its raised this year to help fund election audits: report

Former President Trump’s leadership PAC has not yet used any of the roughly $75 million raised to help finance election reviews, The Washington Post reported Thursday. The PAC was formed …

thehill.com

Lol

I mean I hope nobody here sent him money for the stolen election..

Lol

Basically he is using the money for expenses and thats about it.

Of course not, he needs it for legal fees. As for the bolded. yes his idiot cult members are still sending him money, savings, paychecks Social Security, He has them wrapped around his hair piece..

 

[dcsports]

The Washington Post and other true journalistic publications source their findings before publications. When a source is anonymous they check it out.

What you are claiming is essentially that they have a boner for Trump and everything they publish about him is false. That's false. You just are employing your cognitive dissonance -- dismissing evidence as false because it butts up against your preconceived viewpoint. Yes, inconvenient facts are still facts.

WaPo is not the bastion of journalism it once was. It's lost a lot of it's credibility with it's political coverage of Trump. The 'newspaper' clearly has a thing for Trump. Trump and Bezos have had a very public feud, and the publication has come out guns blazing for Trump at every opportunity.

You aren't looking at this objectively. Did I say it was false? No. I said that it lacks objectivity, and doesn't follow journalistic standards. The meat of the 'story' is so vague they can claim it supports virtually anything that comes out.

 

[Tettsuo]

The Trumpists are going to find a way to dismiss any facts that makes their leader look bad. That's what happens when you're brainwashed.

 

[HenryChinaski]

WaPo is not the bastion of journalism it once was. It's lost a lot of it's credibility with it's political coverage of Trump. The 'newspaper' clearly has a thing for Trump. Trump and Bezos have had a very public feud, and the publication has come out guns blazing for Trump at every opportunity.

You aren't looking at this objectively. Did I say it was false? No. I said that it lacks objectivity, and doesn't follow journalistic standards. The meat of the 'story' is so vague they can claim it supports virtually anything that comes out.

Yes, because the whole thing is just so absurd, Trump would never do such a shady thing like Steve Bannon would never hose his followers for cash with a bullshit "build the wall" campaign. How much have you given Trump Is he like the Mormon Church, 20% of your income?

 

[dcsports]

The Washington Post and other true journalistic publications source their findings before publications. When a source is anonymous they check it out.

What you are claiming is essentially that they have a boner for Trump and everything they publish about him is false. That's false. You just are employing your cognitive dissonance -- dismissing evidence as false because it butts up against your preconceived viewpoint. Yes, inconvenient facts are still facts.

I suggest you re-read what I wrote.

WaPo is not a 'true journalistic' publication when it comes to national politics. It is clear that they've pushed a hard bias since Bezos acquired the paper. Given their lack of objectivity, and disregard for journalistic standards, I have little faith that they properly vet their sources, or use them appropriately.

Yes, they have a thing for Trump. If you can't see that, you aren't being objective. That doesn't mean 'everything they publish about him is false' - I'm sure they are careful not to back themselves into a corner with liabel. But they have no qualms about putting opinions, innuendo, and vague accusations, into their stories. They clearly aren't using fact based, objective, reporting.

 

[MTAtech]

WaPo is not the bastion of journalism it once was. It's lost a lot of it's credibility with it's political coverage of Trump. The 'newspaper' clearly has a thing for Trump. Trump and Bezos have had a very public feud, and the publication has come out guns blazing for Trump at every opportunity.

You aren't looking at this objectively. Did I say it was false? No. I said that it lacks objectivity, and doesn't follow journalistic standards. The meat of the 'story' is so vague they can claim it supports virtually anything that comes out.

The OPeds may show that they are anti-Trump. The news coverage is top-rate. If you disagree, please cite an instance where they said something negative about Trump that was untrue.

The test of whether a newspaper is credible is whether the stories are true. I think you are implying that they can't be objective if they are always anti-Trump. Well, facts have a notable anti-Trump bias.

 

[dcsports]

Yes, because the whole thing is just so absurd, Trump would never do such a shady thing like Steve Bannon would never hose his followers for cash with a bullshit "build the wall" campaign. How much have you given Trump Is he like the Mormon Church, 20% of your income?

Quite a fail there. Please see #30. Note that when you lapse into personal attacks like this, it signals that you have lost the discussion.

 

[dcsports]

The OPeds may show that they are anti-Trump. The news coverage is top-rate. If you disagree, please cite an instance where they said something negative about Trump that was untrue.

The test of whether a newspaper is credible is whether the stories are true. I think you are implying that they can't be objective if they are always anti-Trump. Well, facts have a notable anti-Trump bias.

Their op-eds 'may show' they are anti Trump??? Are you serious? They are clearly anti-trump.

Their news coverage is NOT "top rate". See the post you quoted. This story is a good example.

 

[MTAtech]

The Trumpists are going to find a way to dismiss any facts that makes their leader look bad. That's what happens when you're brainwashed.

It's a cult. The 1970s Jim Jones cult literally swallowed poison at the direction of the cult leader. Now, they refuse to get vaccinations because it may appear disloyal to the cult master. These people really do believe he's the second coming (that's not what Stormy said) and he can do no wrong and is a genius. No mountain of facts convinces them otherwise.

 

[bearpoker]

You aren't looking at this objectively. Did I say it was false? No. I said that it lacks objectivity, and doesn't follow journalistic standards.

This makes no sense. You don't deny the truth. You just say it's not objective? Has Ayn Rand fried your brain?

 

[dcsports]

This makes no sense. You don't deny the truth. You just say it's not objective? Has Ayn Rand fried your brain?

Take a step back then. You are trying too hard to point fingers.

It's not objective journalism. The focus on opinion and innuendo, from vague sources, rather than clear, documented facts.

 

[bearpoker]

Take a step back then. You are trying too hard to point fingers.

It's not objective journalism. The focus on opinion and innuendo, from vague sources, rather than clear, documented facts.

You call facts not objective and claim I'm pointing fingers. Fun times!

 

[dcsports]

You call facts not objective and claim I'm pointing fingers. Fun times!

That's the point. We don't know what's objective facts. WaPo isn't looking for that. It's largely speculation and innuendo. The only real pertinent 'fact' in this story is that the PAC must submit it's report by the end of the month.

 

[Luce]

Trump PAC has not used any of the $75M its raised this year to help fund election audits: report

Former President Trump’s leadership PAC has not yet used any of the roughly $75 million raised to help finance election reviews, The Washington Post reported Thursday. The PAC was formed …

thehill.com

Lol

I mean I hope nobody here sent him money for the stolen election..

Lol

Basically he is using the money for expenses and thats about it.

LOL, I hope they did.

Because it's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money.

 

[bearpoker]

That's the point. We don't know what's objective facts. WaPo isn't looking for that. It's largely speculation and innuendo. The only real pertinent 'fact' in this story is that the PAC must submit it's report by the end of the month.

You said that you don't deny the facts. You just said they weren't "objective". Whatever that means in this context. After that vagary you accused WaPo of being vague. You problem isn't really with WaPo. It's with Trump and his lies and grifts that keep getting exposed.

 

[dcsports]

You said that you don't deny the facts. You just said they weren't "objective". Whatever that means in this context. After that vagary you accused WaPo of being vague. You problem isn't really with WaPo. It's with Trump and his lies and grifts that keep getting exposed.

lol. You are trying WAY too hard to defend Wapo here.

My issue is with WaPo and it's lack of journalistic standards. This story is a great example - anonymous 'sources' that could be anyone, and a bunch of vague innuendo. The issue isn't 'facts' in the story, but the lack of them.

 

[TimPatriot]

Basically he is using the money for expenses and thats about it.

Anonymous sources in a WaPo hit piece on Trump? Shocking!

 

[TomFitz]

Cognative dissonance in action?

Yes it is. That’s pretty much normal with this crowd.

But rather then learn from teh experience, they all run away to their talk radio and their social media safe spaces.

 

[TomFitz]

lol. You are trying WAY too hard to defend Wapo here.

My issue is with WaPo and it's lack of journalistic standards. This story is a great example - anonymous 'sources' that could be anyone, and a bunch of vague innuendo. The issue isn't 'facts' in the story, but the lack of them.

Folks like you have no particular interest in journalistic standards.

And your claim that the Post doesn’t adhere to them is patently false.

As for this story being a “great example”……… well, the information in the story came right out of the Trump scam’s FEC filing in which they admitted that they got the money out of folks like you, and aren’t actually spending it on the audits they told you it was for. Not that this is any different from teh normal Trump practice.

“Anonymous sources” is one of those stupid trumpster slogans that you trot out every time a story about trumpian corruption and malfeasance comes out.

Most of the stories turned out to be true, btw

 

[TomFitz]

Anonymous sources in a WaPo hit piece on Trump? Shocking!

The Federal Elections Commission is an “anonymous source”

Trumpster denials are beyond pathetic at this point.

 

[dcsports]

Folks like you have no particular interest in journalistic standards.

And your claim that the Post doesn’t adhere to them is patently false.

As for this story being a “great example”……… well, the information in the story came right out of the Trump scam’s FEC filing in which they admitted that they got the money out of folks like you, and aren’t actually spending it on the audits they told you it was for. Not that this is any different from teh normal Trump practice.

“Anonymous sources” is one of those stupid trumpster slogans that you trot out every time a story about trumpian corruption and malfeasance comes out.

Most of the stories turned out to be true, btw

That's funny, given that I've advocated repeatedly for higher journalistic standards. It's clear that those on the left don't care. Please read my posts above - I've covered all of that.

While this article refers to a previous filing ($31M collected) - the information it's talking about is NOT from the current filing - it's from 'anonymous sources familiar with...' It points out that the filing hasn't been released yet - and is due July 31.

'Anonymous sources' is also straight from the story. Overused (and WaPo definitely overuses it) it's bad journalism, and a sign of sloppy, unsupported, material. It should be pointed out any time there is an accusatory story based on this.

 

[dcsports]

The Federal Elections Commission is an “anonymous source”

Trumpster denials are beyond pathetic at this point.

Again, the FEC isn't the basis of this report. Repeating this is either dishonesty, or highlights the deceptive nature of this type of reporting. From the story...

"Yet people familiar with the PAC’s finances told the news outlet that the committee has held onto much of the money, while a portion has been used to pay for some of Trump’s expenses, including travel and legal costs, as well as staff pay. The PAC, which will need to publicly disclose its fundraising and spending for the first half of the year by July 31, previously reported in Federal Election Commission filings earlier this year that it had collected nearly $31.2 million by the end of 2020. The details shared by the sources, who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity to describe the group’s finances, ..."
"

 

[TomFitz]

Of course not, he needs it for legal fees. As for the bolded. yes his idiot cult members are still sending him money, savings, paychecks Social Security, He has them wrapped around his hair piece..

I’ll bet half of them are still having their checking accounts drained because they didn’t uncheck the box!

And I doubt that Fox Noise or any of the trash blogs had the integrity to tell their audience about that scam, either.

 

[TomFitz]

Again, the FEC isn't the basis of this report. Repeating this is either dishonesty, or highlights the deceptive nature of this type of reporting. From the story...

"Yet people familiar with the PAC’s finances told the news outlet that the committee has held onto much of the money, while a portion has been used to pay for some of Trump’s expenses, including travel and legal costs, as well as staff pay. The PAC, which will need to publicly disclose its fundraising and spending for the first half of the year by July 31, previously reported in Federal Election Commission filings earlier this year that it had collected nearly $31.2 million by the end of 2020. The details shared by the sources, who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity to describe the group’s finances, ..."
"

FEC.reports are public record, as I’ve pointed out to at least one of you trump dead enders before.

Eight days from now, it will be a matter of public record.

How much do you want to bet that the story is false????

The man who gave you Trump U, the slush fund known as Trump Foundation, defaults on nearly every project he was involved in, tried to excuse away blackmail with a made up “perfect phone call”, and who fomented an insurrection, after running a scam on folks like you called “Stop the Steal” in which he scammed your ilk into making continuous contributions by pre checking the box.

If you haven’t yet figured out that your failed fool’s gold fuhrer is a deadbeat and a sleazy con man, I can’t help you/

I knew that in 1982. You apparantly haven’t figured it out yet.

 

[TomFitz]

That's funny, given that I've advocated repeatedly for higher journalistic standards. It's clear that those on the left don't care. Please read my posts above - I've covered all of that.

While this article refers to a previous filing ($31M collected) - the information it's talking about is NOT from the current filing - it's from 'anonymous sources familiar with...' It points out that the filing hasn't been released yet - and is due July 31.

'Anonymous sources' is also straight from the story. Overused (and WaPo definitely overuses it) it's bad journalism, and a sign of sloppy, unsupported, material. It should be pointed out any time there is an accusatory story based on this.

You can say it all you want, but if you‘re running back to the trashy right wing blogs and AM talk radio, and the crawl under Tucker Carlson for your “news”, you don’t practice what you preach. Most of you don’t.

The anonymous sources initially quoted in most of the Post’s stories on the Trump regime turned out to be true. And each time, you yelled ”anonymous sources”, and then got quiet when the stories turned out to be true. And most of them did. The Trump cabal is a rat’s nest of back biting and office politics, and the leakiest White House in history. Ask Tucker Carlson if you don’t believe me!

The press uses anonymous sources all the time. Journalistic integrity demands that the information those sources provide is confirmed by another reliable source before the story runs.

Sorry, but the GOP tried to defend Nixon in the early days by playing this “anonymous sources” game to try and dance past the increasingly dire revelations during Watergate.

you’re trying to play the same game.

Again, how much do you want to bet that the gist of this story turns out to be true, once the reports are filed?

You’re the guy using any excuse you can dream up to defend your con man hero, not me.