Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society

Report: Trump Campaign Paying For Trump Jr. Legal Fees — Is There A Potential Conflict?

TP-45-logo_(revised)Today, Chris Wallace (who continues to make a strong case that he is the best interviewer in news today) crossed swords with President Donald Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow on who is paying his fees to represent the President.  Sekulow said that he does not know since he bills the law firm of Marc E. Kasowitz.  The question was legitimate and the answer does not resolve concerns.  It is common to confirm the source of fees to confirm that there is no conflict of interest or other concerns raised by such fee payment. However, there is another report that confirms one source of fees . . . for Donald Trump Jr.

 

According to various media outlets, President Donald Trump’s campaign made a $50,000 payment last month to the attorney representing Donald Trump Jr. The payment, dated June 27, was made to the Law Offices of Alan Futerfas, for “Legal consulting.”  Other records show payment to the law firm of Jones Day, which represented Trump’s campaign during the 2016 presidential election.

The controversy over fees will likely grow if there continues to be this lack of transparency.

 

 

The story about Donald Jr. does raise an interesting legal issue.  There is an obvious potential conflict with the campaign to the extent that the campaign did not sign off on meeting with someone who said that they were Russian government lawyers bringing information directly from the Russian government to influence the presidential election.  Donald Trump Jr. did not hold any formal position with the campaign that I know of, but, more importantly, the payment of the fees suggests that his actions with regard to the Russian lawyers was attributable to some extent to the campaign.  Of course, the involvement of Paul Manafort in the meeting did encompass a campaign official. There is no indication that Manafort’s fees are being covered by the campaign.

It is certainly legal to use campaign funds to pay for legal services, which has been interpreted broadly in the past. However, that does not answer questions over the appearance of legal and political conflicts of interest.

405 thoughts on “Report: Trump Campaign Paying For Trump Jr. Legal Fees — Is There A Potential Conflict?”

  1. Who paid for the Seth Rich murder?

    Who paid for the Uranium One deal between Hillary and Putin – did Hills “meet” with Russians?

    Who paid for the insolvency of Burlington University?

    Who paid into the Clinton Foundation?

    Who paid for the DNC resignations?

    Who paid for Donna Brazile’s campaign “contribution?”

    Who paid for Bill Clinton’s trip to “Orgy Island?”

    Who paid for James Comey’s finding of “no intent?”

    Who paid for the “BleachBit” disk space cleaner (Oops! BleachBit is free and open-source)?

    Who paid for selective jurisprudence?

    Looks like a whole lotta payin’ goin’ on out there but Trump is the only “criminal.”

  2. I’m amazed that Turley didn’t address one of the main issues which was the date of the Trump campaign payment, before Trump allegedly knew of his son’s “meeting” although his lawyers were certainly aware.

      1. Which part do you want evidence for? The date of the payment from the campaign to the lawyer? That Trump’s lawyers knew three weeks before the word came out about the meeting? Although the information is widely available I’d be happy to find for you what you could easily discover yourself? Notice I didn’t claim that Trump knew although if my campaign was paying $50K to a lawyer for my son I’d probably know about it.

  3. No, Roscoe, Chump was not the electorates’ choice. Never forget that this genital -grabbing swine occupies the White House despite the wishes of the majority of voters. That’s one small reason why fatso is so heavily criticized. Other more important reasons include his complete inability to lead, his emotional immaturity, his alienation of important allies, his lack of accountability, appointment of his totally incompetent and unqualified family members in key positions, and his endless lying. Bear in mind that none of these things are related to politics. His politics suck, too. He sits on his fat behind, waiting to sign a bill certain to screw the poor, aged and disabled, but which is mostly just a huge tax break for people like him, despite campaign promises to deliver better care for everyone, just to claim “victory “. He has historically low poll numbers for 6 months in office, his son and son in law are proven to be liars, but he still thinks he’s “winning”.

    1. If only Trump and his supporters could be as peaceful, and loving toward women as DNC progressive darling, Muslim activist, Sharia law supporter, female genital mutilation endorser, jihad against trump caller Linda Sarsour.

      Start video @ 28:58: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IempHJPjZUM

      A real stand up gal for women’s liberation! Go Linda Sarsour! You go girl! Go progressives for women! Burkas are a right and State-sponsored gift from Allah the Almighty!

      And more freedom like at Evergreen College! (Freedom for all except whitey.) “Equal but separate” schools, water fountains, busses, etc. Just like Rev. ML King fought for!

    1. Tank Dog she is not our President again. Once was enough. And it does not take two to tango.

      (by “Tank” I mean “Thank” but I live in Brooklyn)

      1. When was she our president, Jack? Dat’s a lie. (Speaking your language.)

    1. Paul Schulte asked, If it’s legal money, who cares? The point is it hasn’t yet been decided whether it’s legal or not. Would you be so cavalier if the issue involved Democrats? I suspect not.

      1. Louise Hudson – as far as I can tell, you can use campaign funds to defend campaign actions. I am sure that Trump did not do this without clearing it with his legal team.

        1. Just like he “cleared” all of his actions with his legal team when he was dealing with his foundation. Trump doesn’t listen to his legal advisors. That’s why many major law firms have refused to represent him.

    2. Paul there are those that convict people of a crime just because it suits their fancy. They aren’t interested in context or much of anything else. They purvey a type of activity that is generally seen in totalitarian governments. That separates them from the more normal American that believes in innocent until proven guilty.

      1. Yea, Alan. Right wingers do that daily. If you’ll remember birthers convicted Obama of being born in Kenya from the get-go, without a shred of evidence–including our so-called president. What goes around comes around. Trump supporters have nothing to complain about that they haven’t done themselves, in spades.

        1. Louise Hudson – Hillary’s people (probably Podesta) started the ”birther” thing.

          1. Comment only to Paul, the origin of the of the birthers is often forgotten because it doesn’t fit the narrative some wish to promote. I wish Trump hadn’t engaged in it either for I don’t think it was helpful except if he had mentioned that the Clinton campaign spearheaded the birther movement. I think in the future we will find out a lot more about Obama and it won’t be very flattering.

            1. I’m patiently waiting for objective evidence of that claim. Until then I will consider it what it is, pure unadulterated BS.

              1. There is nothing objective that your mind will accept unless it conforms to a very narrow view of the world that is inconsistant with reality. I wish you not to stalk me.

                1. Nobody’s stalking you, Allan. You are a classic case of paranoia. You send your opinions to a blog and then accuse people of stalking you when the disagree. Typical of the paranoid personality. Maybe you think people can shoot you over the Internet.

                  1. You are stalking. All one has to do is review the position of your posts and their content that includes my name. Stalking need not involve the threat of personal harm. That is something I don’t worry about as I have actually had to involve myself in far more dangerous adventures. Don’t act like a brownshirt.

                    1. allan, I thought that it was only liberals who were such delicate little flowers.

                    2. jrdrop, I’m not delicate and don’t mind standing my ground physically or mentally. However, the number of emails that transpired absent of useful information wasn’t fair to the blog or anyone else. There is no purpose to continue that type of debate and it is obvious that a reasonable debate would never happen.

                      Are you interested in debating or just throwing insults? If the former then you understand my point. Liberals are not delicate flowers as we have seen from some of the violence shown on TV. Neither are conservatives or libertarians. I would hope that some of the more Liberal opinions would have better data and a better understanding of the law, but perhaps you would say the same about conservatives.

                      I hope you will do your part to elevate the nature of the debate.

            2. Maybe Trump’s private detectives will finally come home with all they’ve been finding. Hillary dabbled in birtherism, Trump made it his mantra. There was a wee difference in the levels they carried it to. One of them still dabbles in it, guess which one?

          2. Paul Schutte. Of course! How rational an idea is that! Where is your unassailable evidence to support such a claim? Would you have been so quick to blame Trump and his supporters for starting the Russian collusion claims? It woukd make as much sense.

          3. We’ll have to wait and see. It could turn out to be as frivolous and spiteful as the Nixon and Clinton impeachments were to overturn the will of the people. . We have to wait for real evidence. It works both ways.

        2. Why don’t you just leave my name out of your comments and reply to the group, not to me. It is too difficult to deal with your innacuracies and childish behavior. There is no useful conversation when one party refuses to acknowledge anything that doesn’t advance her ideology.

          1. especially when they are just mouthing the words of their programmer.

            1. especially when they are just mouthing the words of their programmer.

              Yes, the right wing at it again,

        3. There’s no “right wing,” there is simply right (i.e. correct).

          The American thesis is Freedom and Self-Reliance.

          Period.

          Freedom and free enterprise without interference by government.

          What the parasites want is “free stuff” paid for by other people’s money (OPM).

          It is no more complex than that.

          Look at you. What would you be were it not for welfare, affirmative action, etc.?

  7. But now an evil has creped across the land. Does the house of trump seems normal to you?

    1. Banks keep records. That will prove their undoing. It’s always been all about the money.

      Time to celebrate this post on fees with another Russian poem.

      Fees

      I think that I shall never see
      A poem lovely as a fee.

      A fee whose awesomeness and power
      grows ever larger by the hour.

      A fee that’s paid by Trump all day
      Which lifts my bank account — Hooray!

      A fee that may in summer grow
      As well as in the sleet and snow.

      A fee so large that Trump’s in pain;
      Each month a bill! And with no shame.

      These posts are made by fools like me,
      But only Trump can pay my fee.

  9. Kind of starting to look like that father son team in North Korea, the hair, the lies, the megalomania, the incompetence. However, North Korea is lucky, the father’s gone. We seem to be gaining a Duke Ferdinand type bunch of inbred buffoons. WTF is the little slicker doing in America’s business anyway? We have a bimbo first lady who made it on her back, a girl advisor who is a colonial clothing manufacturer and hypocrite, two idiot sons, one soon to implode son in law, but great hair.

    2. It was idiotic until it got to the porn but then it became Democratic.

    3. A “bimbo first lady”?? Melania speaks 6 languages – how many do you speak?

      1. autumn – the other important question is does issac look that good in a dress?

  10. Many people assume that when sources are not named that the story is made up. That’s not true when it comes to responsible news organizations. Someone always knows exactly who the sources are, but agrees to keep them anonymous for various reasons. When I wrote for a newspaper no reporter would have gotten away with citing an anonymous source without the editor and others on staff knowing exactly who the source was. If the reporter refused to reveal who it was, his story would not be published. One time when I was a reporter, the editor called the anonymous source and questioned him before allowing the story to run, but he agreed to keep the source’s name out of the paper because if it were revealed it would have blown the source’s cover and he would lose his ability to learn more about the case. This is the usual way anonymous sources are handled by the legitimate press. Reporters are kept in line and often fired for not cooperatong with the editorial staff. Legitimate and respected newspapers (and television news organizations) can’t afford to be accused of anonymous sources not being identified and known by the editor.

    1. Louise – there no longer is a responsible or legitimate news source. Have you seen the numbers for respect of the news media? They like Trump more than the press or Congress.

      1. That hasn’t been my experience. I still have friends in journalism. They say the standards have not slipped. It’s just the constant barrage of criticism from Trump and his minions that make it look that way to people who are not in the know. The legitimate free press is alive and well. It’s the right wing that is trying to drag it down to their level.

        1. Louise Hudson – as a critical reader, the standards of the NYT started really slipping about 8 years ago and has never recovered. Information that should be in the first or second para are now in the 8th, 9th, or 10th, where people give up on the article. The fake news in the NYT is just as bad as CNN, it just isn’t going 24/7. You are probably not reading the whole article anymore so you are unaware of what they are doing.

            1. Louise Hudson – it is called ‘burying the lede’ and it has been going on for years, sadly. And as a Mensa member, I am rarely wrong.

              1. Your modesty outweights your intelligence.

                There is emotional intelligence, too, which no IQ test measures.

                1. Louise Hudson – this emotional intelligence is another hoax from the faux science people over in sociology. Don’t lay any money on it.

                  1. I don’t. I also don’t lay any money on IQ tests or on Mensa and certainly not on people who claim to have high IQ scores. I have no respect for people who advertise their IQ score. It’s a sure sign of emotional and social immaturity and insecuruty. I’ve never known a oerson who would even mention his IQ score whose opinions were worth a bucket of spit.

                    1. Louise Hudson – weren’t you the person who first said I was stupid and I defended myself.
                      Then you said you were also a member of Mensa. Were you lying? This just sounds like another typical liberal ad hominem attack by a hack journalist.

                    2. That’s exactly the response I would expect from someone who advertises his IQ score and repeats it over and ober again whenever anyone challeges his opinions.

  11. All these allegations are in flux and amount to very little. I am surprised that Chris Wallace spent so much time on this one point when the public needs to voice their opinions on the healthcare debate (or another important issue such as American policy pushing China and Russia together to oppose the US) since a Senate bill may or may not pass very soon.

    I give Wallace a demerit for paying attention to ratings and the lowest common denominator rather than the problems facing the nation. Wallace could take Mother Teresa and make her look like a criminal, but that doesn’t help advance the public’s interests. It does, however, permit stupid people the ability to feel good about themselves.

    1. Whenever an interviewer asks hard questions and a reader doesn’t like it, they often claim the interviewer is doing it for ratings rather than legitimate information. . This is usually not true, but it does happen Eben more often on the right-wing side.

      1. Some people believe that each allegation should occupy the time of our legislative bodies and our news cycles even when these allegations have not been additive or proven true. That type of belief is what we see in those with little understanding of the world around us. It is a news cycle much like the Enquirer’s that constantly lets us know who is sleeping with who. That seems to be what you like and that is fine with me, but that doesn’t refllect reality and the security of the American people.

        We have a special investigator and legislative committees that are looking into these things in context something that eludes the one littlilated by nude pictures of their next door neighbor. I think we should wait and focus on the claims of both the right and left as far as healthcare, taxes and national security. You can stick with the naked pictures, but leave me out of it.

        1. Allan, I have no interest in who is sleeping with whom or in naked pictures. Speak for yourself.

          You say we should wait for investigative and legislaive bodies to come to their conclusions, but people will continue to form and offer their opinions, just as you do. That’s what free speech is all about. Investigators abd legislative bodies have been shown to be biased and wrong in many cases. Why should the public not weigh in? You seem to be saying that we should stand aside and act like lambs to the slaughter and accept everything we’re fed as if we lived in a totalitarian state. I suspect you’d have a different opinion if the investigative and legislative bodies concluded that the Republicans were wrong.

          1. That seems to be your sole interest.

            I am not interested in engaging with you at all. You have no understanding of the meaning behind free speech. Go ahead and speak to whomever you wish. Leave my name out of this idiocy.

            1. I’ll be glad to leave your name out as soon as you stop posting your wild and unsupported opinions on this blog.

              1. I will post what I wish. If you take issue with what I say you can speak to the theory of it and say what you wish leaving my name out of it and not posting responses to me directly. We don’t get along. I prefer engagements in ideas and am repulsed by those like you (not your ideology) so it is best we stay as far apart as possible.

                1. You can post what you wish but you’ll have to suffer the consequences. That’s how blogs work. Whatever you say can and will be contradicted. Stop whining.

                  David Sedaris has a great line.

                  “If you’re looking for sympathy, you can find it in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.”

                  1. You continue to stalk me. Your thinking is obviously a result of what comes after the word sh-t. That can explain your personality. But, you don’t have to suffer quietly. You can say what you wish by refuting any ideas I might have to the blog in general not to me.

                    1. Ok, I’ll refrain mentioning you by name. But, please educate yourself on the meaning of “stalking.” I don’t know who you are, where you live or what you look like so I’d have a pretty hard time stalking you, unless you think I have psychic powers. Your paranoia is showing.

                    2. “act of pursuing or harrassing” Learn to use a dictionary. Goodbye.

      2. Name them. The responsible ones. Illinois Valley Weekly News? Beaver Banner in Oklahoma? The Best Kept Secret In Journalism Joke?”

        1. You know as well as anyone which ones they are. You just refuse to admit it because it makes the right wing look bad, not that it needs any help.

        1. consistent
          left streamest
          propaganda machine
          artistic modern
          no capital commas
          honeyless knife full of peas.

          .

    1. For the record, I was thanking of Roscoe Coltrane for his reasoned reply. My response landed in the wrong placewhich could have been confusing.

  13. The answer JT asks for is a piece of cake. I charge $1400/hr @ 18hr days for 10 months. I don’t shine shoes anymore & no wash room attendant work.

  14. Professor Turley writes:” There is an obvious potential conflict with the campaign to the extent that the campaign did not sign off on meeting with someone who said that they were Russian government lawyers bringing information directly from the Russian government to influence the presidential election”.
    How about to TRY to influence the election.

    Russian jets buzz our aircraft, are they influencing our military or are they TRYING to influence our military.

    Actually I’m tired of this notion that the Russians are the most adept, clever, sinister operatives in the world able to manipulate our elections with results that gave one of our candidates the win.

    Prove they changed votes and I’ll change my view.

    Until then here’s an old favorite:
    “No Autopsy, No Foul”

    1. It’snot that the Russians are the most adept and clever operatives in the world. They just look adept compared to the bumbling Trump.

      1. Louise, I don’t think the Trump people are bumbling, they just are playing by a different set of rules, the deal making financial transactional ones. I think when this is all said and done the Panama Papers will be the most telling to help reveal how shady and obfuscated major global transactions are handled between major players that don’t want any scrutiny.
        The other angle I’m following is Jared Kushner’s relationship to Lev Leviev.
        Trump is not Jewish but Kushner is.
        Lots to plow thru and chew on with this Leviev.

  15. This has to be the most stupid remark made today, if not all week on the internet
    Chris Wallace (who continues to make a strong case that he is the best interviewer in news today)
    Wallace is a fool does not let Sekulow answer and avoids all hard questions himself as he is too low IQ and a Liberal Hack to reply

  16. Having read everything I’m still waitng for confirmatin of a source which was conspicuoulsy absent other than ‘ various media sources’ and those was we know are the same as saying there are no sources. Why not drop the subject other than saying IF valid sources are found we can or continue and put in the same category of this collusion junk. After all neither of the unsourced subjects would lead to any crime. Enough of this ‘if this and if that if the other thing. Does no one use ‘facts in evidence’ anymore or have you all embraced the the Patriot Act version of ‘probable cause’ using ‘suspicion of’ as the new national standard? And that one of the major reasons the self moderate centrists en masse voted against the tyranny of the left and it’s anti civil rights posture.

    I see in another interview ‘some’ Democrats are now accusing the President of having no understanding of civil rights. That from the party that went from being the Party of Slaver to the Party of No Civil Rights to the Party of one party system of government? Secular Devil Get Behind My self governing citizen back.

    1. There’s a link to the “various media sources.” If you follow it, it indicates the source of the actual numbers is Pres. Trump’s campaign filings. So, are those numbers real, or made by the Trump campaign?

      Try to do a tiny modicum of looking before you foolishly squawk about “fake news”.

    2. I’m amazed, too. He’s a real journalist and not a shill forTrump . What does Fox want with one of those?

    3. Pre-election, Mika Brzezenski suggested the likelihood of Trump’s winning was some number greater than zero. The MSM, especially her peers, universally lambasted her for such an ignorant, ridiculous hypothesis.

      The non-Fox MSM “news” has no corollary to Chris Wallace.

      Tucker Carlson is another anti-“conservative” meme star at Fox News. He constantly points out the errors and anti-American results of foreign military excursions, especially constantly shopping for allegedly “better” nation leaders in the ME.

      Carlson absolutely nailed scum of the earth (an understatement) Retired Gen. Ralph Peters last week for suggesting it’s better we topple Al Assad in favor of the Kurds running Syria.

      What’s Trump’s one action which all MSM including CNN, MSNBC praised to high heaven? Sending missiles into Syria!!!!! Maybe the most honest line ever spoken in a movie: in “Cliffhangar,” bad guy Eric Qualen shoots and kills his “girlfriend” point blank because she’s of no more use to him. Everyone looks at Eric shocked, to which he replies calmly and snidely, “Kill a few dozen, you’re a mass murderer. Kill thousands, and you’re a conqueror.”

      1. The pollsters said they based their election prediction primarily on information from the campaigns. Based on the polls, Hillary supporters may have thought that she was guaranteed a win and stayed home instead of voting. Would CAP and Podesto be the campaign providing info.? Check who funds CAP. Gates gave CAP $2.2 mil between 2013-2015.

      2. There is no Non FOX MSM they are the only one’s left standing. You refer prerhaps to the left stream?

    1. We are paying for Trump’s legal team.These people don’t want to dip into their own billions.

    1. And that includes counter suits on a number of issues. So what happened to the BFD impeachment crap? Tabled, junked, laughed at and disregarded?

      1. It’s still on the table, called for and being discussed widely. If you’d ake your Trump blinders off and read something other than the extreme right wing press you’d know that.

        1. Louise, I think it really depends on wether Trump strands Mitch McConnell Et al, when they present a final repeal/ replace AFCA bill for him to sign. He needs the support of the GOP and he could poke a finger in their collective eye by vetoing a bill. He wins with the people, but screws his own party.
          Only then could I imagine that impeachment won’t look like a frivolous spiteful way to over turn the electorate’s wishes, which at this point only makes the purveyors look like partisan sore losers and apologists for HRC’s and the DNC’s miserable showing last November.
          For your review:
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/14/no-matter-how-bad-it-gets-for-him-heres-why-trump-isnt-getting-impeached-this-year/?utm_term=.1cf08a2c858d

          1. Hillary won the popular vote–how is this a “miserable showing”? You watch Fox too much .

            1. “how is this a “miserable showing”?”

              Donald Trump won the popular votes that bear in a majority of fifty state elections.

              The “popular vote” only matters in your mind.

              Hillary Clinton lost the election and Donald Trump is the President.

              Does that explain it for you?

              Hillary won the “foreign parasite invader” vote in California.

              That needs to be vigorously corrected.

          1. Checked again widely discussed ended up as two articles one that didn’t say anything and the other that quoted Pelosi etc. as not happy with her colleagues for going rogue without anything of substance to compress the BS. CNN was suitably unimpressed and like Pelosi etc sort of distanced themselves tossing the ball back to the Special Counselor Team. The excitement was excrutiatingly….boring.

          2. Then you’re using a computyer infected with notoriously destructive right wing virus.

        3. the extreme right wing are the RINO’s of the left. The Left at this point are either non existent OR extremel y left sort of huddled up on the cliff’s edge. the whole left right thing is an invention and a fiction. which places the center in the center of the left. It doesn’t work. But I’m sure is in the PC Fictionary. See the French Revolution the one with the guillotines and Michelle Antoinette.

    2. Matea Gold. Even if it’s illegal activity? Should taxpayers have to pay for that too.,

      1. Louise Hudson – Hillary would be nowhere if she had to use her money to defend herself.

        1. You’ve proven my contention. Criticize a right winger and the next word out of his mouth is Clinton or Obama. Works every time. They can’t help thenselves.

          1. Louise – My contention is there is nothing illegal about it. If Hillary did it, it must be alright, she the smartest person in the room.

            1. “she’s the smartest person in the room.”

              You are right about that.

              1. Louise – so you will agree that if Hillary can do it, Trump can do it?

                1. Do what? Run the country? Trump has proven he can’t do that no matter who else could.

                    3. Yet again, your modesty outweighs your intelligence and buries it.

                    4. Louise Hudson – when you have a light you should not hide it under your hat.

Comments are closed.