• abraxas@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    He spent it in hopes trump would return the favor. There is no evidence Trump requested it.

    There is no evidence he spent it in a vain hope without knowledge he was buying something, either. There’s an extremely suspicious money trail, and it should be investigated. There may be a criminal presumption of innocence, but there is at least probable cause of illegal activity here.

    I hope you keep the same attitude when looking at people who donated to the Clinton foundation.

    The Clinton Foundation is a charity. IF there was evidence of the Clintons using it to launder money, it should be investigated as well. You’ve already agreed there’s one side to the quid pro quo here. Nobody in their right mind would think donating to help children or the environment would earn them favors from the Clintons… but laundering dirty money through the rental of unused hotel rooms is actually the plot a crime show and security articles. Spending $1m on hotel rooms you don’t intend to use is a massive red flag on both sides of the equation. I’d go so far as to say that most hotels that became aware that kind of transaction was happening would reject it for liability reasons because it looks too much like a blatant laundering scheme…

    In the typical laundering scheme, you then request a refund and receive it in clean money. When it’s a payment for something, obviously, you receive that something right at the end of the return window, turning the Hotel into an illegal semi-escrow.

    Don’t get me wrong, charities can be used for the illicit transfer of money. But there’s a paper trail for that and inordinate amounts of money needs to go to someone.

    • cricket97@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      There’s an extremely suspicious money trail, and it should be investigated. There may be a criminal presumption of innocence, but there is at least probable cause of illegal activity here.

      The title literally says “Trump is actually guilty” despite there being no evidence he is guilty. Rich guys try to bribe politicians in roundabout ways all the time. I’m not discounting the possibility of it Trump being involved in it but there’s no evidence of it now yet the article is stating that he’s guilty. How is he supposed to prevent someone from buying up all the rooms in his hotels in an attempt to get on his good side? Trump is not involved in the day to day of his business and its not out of the question that he had no idea it was happening until after it happened.

      The Clinton Foundation is a charity. Don’t get me wrong, charities can be used for the illicit transfer of money

      Give me a break. What’s the point of bringing up the fact that it’s a charity if you admit charities are used for this exact purpose all the time. Why do you think the Saudi’s donated 10 figure amounts to the Clinton foundation? Because they believe in its charitable goals?