RNC and Trump Campaign Paid $2.4 Million So Far in Legal Fees For Russia

In September, the Washington Post reported that the RNC was paying out huge bucks for legal fees charged by lawyers for Donald Trump and Donald Trump, Jr. regarding Russia.

The Republican National Committee is using a pool of money stockpiled for election recounts and other legal matters to pay for [Donald] Trump's ballooning lawyer fees related to the multiple Russia investigations, directing more than $427,000 so far to lawyers representing him and his eldest son, party officials confirmed Tuesday.

Today the Washington Post reports that Trump's re-election campaign (not the RNC) shelled out more than $1 million in legal fees for Russia and Trump Sr and Jr just for last quarter. [More...]

The filing shows the committee’s “legal consulting” expenditures came to $1.1 million between July and September, including $802,185 paid to the law firm Jones Day, which has represented the campaign. Another $267,000 was paid to attorneys representing the president’s ­eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., in the Russia investigations.

Since the beginning of the year, the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee have spent $2.4 million on legal fees — and the bills appear to be mounting. The latest FEC reports show that the campaign spent more on legal bills over the past three months than it did during the first and second quarters of this year combined.

It's not my money, but I think it is outrageous that the self-proclaimed billionaire with a desk in the oval office doesn't pick up the tab himself. He never should have put his inexperienced children on the campaign payroll to begin with. Since it was his bad judgment, he should bear the cost.

< Monday Open Thread: This and That | Trump Adviser to Bail Out Weinstein's Company >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If there's anything Trump is good at, it (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 16, 2017 at 06:54:56 AM EST
    might be using OPM: Other People's Money; he seems to be a big believer in always getting something for nothing.

    I'm surprised... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 16, 2017 at 08:17:23 AM EST
    Putin isn't picking up the tab...since Mexico is paying for the border wall and all, it's only fair Russia pay for the legal wall protecting the Trump administration.

    Trump has grifted many throughout his inglorious career...now it's the RNC's turn.  karma, she's a b&tch.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Oct 16, 2017 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    ...since Manafort was being paid by a Russian instead of the campaign he was (nominally) working for, you could say that the attorneys' fees are coming from the money they saved there.

    I suspect there are several attorneys (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 17, 2017 at 09:51:59 PM EST
    who comment on this blog (not to mention our hostess) who would love to get in on this gravy train ... and try to help their client in the process, too, of course. I hope Alan Futerfas, in particular, rakes it in and then can do whatever he wants for the rest of his career. Prof. Barry Scheck, for example, took the money he made as part of OJ's "dream team" and founded the Innocence Project with it, as I understand the story.

    Re Sheck: per Wiki, he and Peter (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 17, 2017 at 11:06:04 PM EST
    Neufield co-founded the Innocence Project.  Good on them.

    They Founded it in 1992 (none / 0) (#17)
    by RickyJim on Wed Oct 18, 2017 at 08:54:02 AM EST
    Three years before the OJ case.  The publicity about it has helped Scheck and Neufeld's business, especially when they defend guilty clients, where the real money is.

    What "business" are you talking about? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Peter G on Wed Oct 18, 2017 at 03:37:06 PM EST
    Barry Scheck is a professor at Cardozo Law School in NYC. Peter Neufeld teaches in the Innocence Clinic and helps run their private law firm which takes civil rights lawsuit. (I was apparently wrong about "founding" the Inno Proj with OJ's money. But I think he did put that money into the project before it was the big operation it is today.) I don't think either of them practices as a criminal defense attorney any more. Are you trying to suggest that they exploit the Innocence Project for private gain? The Innocence Project achieved exoneration for some 350 wrongly (and/or wrongfully) convicted individuals. It would take some pretty extraordinary evidence to knock them off that pedestal.

    I Am Unimpressed (2.00 / 3) (#21)
    by RickyJim on Wed Oct 18, 2017 at 04:45:18 PM EST
    If Scheck and Neufeld really wanted to prevent innocent people getting convicted, they would be trying to get a more accurate judicial system, which would include preventing guilty people from getting acquitted.  We have been through how to do that before.  But again, civil service judges and prosecutors, no plea bargaining, inquisitorial rather than adversarial trials, judges rather than prosecutors being in charge of the police investigation, etc.

    I am unimpressed ... (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 18, 2017 at 05:58:09 PM EST
    ... with your lay opinion of what you think would be a better use of their time, not to mention your suggestion that they founded the Innocence Project for money - with no evidence, as always.

    The U.S. criminsl procedure (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 19, 2017 at 01:29:08 AM EST
    is much fairer to the accused than what you advocate.

    This (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 16, 2017 at 09:11:33 AM EST
    It's not my money, but I think it is outrageous that the self-proclaimed billionaire with a desk in the oval office doesn't pick up the tab himself.

    It should once and for all expose his idiot supporters for what they are and why they still support him.  Considering his main claim campaigning was he has "all the money he needs"

    These people are largely the Christian right at this point.  These people have the be called out for who and what they are.  And for the vile and corrupted politics of hate they represent and for the hateful hypocrites they are.  

    Pretty sure his supporters would take the (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 16, 2017 at 09:37:02 AM EST
    position that because this is all a witch hunt over a nothingburger that it would be unfair to ask Trump to pay his own legal fees.

    Seriously, I caught more than I wanted to of a discussion at the Values Voters Summit as I was driving the other day - it was a panel discussion about the terrible persecution that good Christians are dealing with, not being able to "live their faith" (which means, allowing them to hate and discriminate) - and they are thrilled that Trump is working to right these terrible wrongs that have been inflicted on them.

    These people are not going to abandon Trump, not when they see him as ushering in a new era of bigotry-disguised-as-evengelical-Christianity.


    This "nothingburger" (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Oct 16, 2017 at 10:45:12 AM EST
    ...is being served with a very expensive whine.

    Donald Trump as spiritual director? (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 16, 2017 at 10:57:54 AM EST
    a man who knows how to grab the godhead by the p*ssy, as it were?

    The Lord truly works in mysterious ways.


    No Happy Holidays, (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 16, 2017 at 12:49:05 PM EST
    Trump told the Values Voters. it's Mammon Christmas, now.

    But they're not (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 16, 2017 at 02:16:22 PM EST

    Grifters gonna grift (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 19, 2017 at 12:02:22 PM EST
    Glad to see the donor's money going for this. It is the least of what they deserve for enabling this monster.

    Both sides are equally corrupt (none / 0) (#10)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 17, 2017 at 02:23:36 PM EST

    Harvey Weinstein... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 17, 2017 at 03:05:11 PM EST
    did allegedly pay some of Bill Clinton's legal bills;)

    I know you're joking (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CST on Wed Oct 18, 2017 at 10:09:00 AM EST
    But I find it incredibly obnoxious Hollywood is now supposedly the face of the Democratic party.

    I don't recall ever voting for any of those f*ckers.


    Tell me about it... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 18, 2017 at 11:31:37 AM EST
    Hollywood and every other special interest who lavish large sums of money on our elected officials campaign funds & PAC's, and/or use their power to sway our elected officials...I didn't vote for any of them either.  Directly...indirectly however, we kinda do. And people tell me there is just no way around it, ya just gotta pick which special interests you want to indirectly vote for.  And in some cases, like Wall St. & Hugh Finance, you're voting for them no matter who you vote for.

    Apparently, maybe (none / 0) (#12)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 17, 2017 at 03:25:49 PM EST
    what's clear is at the time, everyone knew the donations were for a Legal Defense Fund, no flim flam.

    I tend to think it's all flim flam... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 17, 2017 at 03:35:18 PM EST
    but that's just me.

    Technically, this RNC slush fund is intended for legal matters, so one could argue this ain't flim flam either.  The Republicans probably just had hoped these funds could be used to keep people from voting, and not to keep their standard-bearer out of the frying pan.  

    Oh well, sucks for the RNC! Every cloud has a silver lining;)


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 17, 2017 at 06:49:29 PM EST
    no, Trump could set up a legal defense fund and that would be on the up and up. What he is doing is grifting those fools who think he's actually going to do something for them. If they wanted to donate up front to his legal defense fund fine. Funniest thing is one of his talking points was that he wouldn't need anyone's money because he had enough himself.