Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SARose

(1,831 posts)
7. Question
Mon Jul 1, 2024, 12:48 PM
Jul 2024

Trump campaign spent more than $2 million on election lawyers, including Jenna Ellis
By Aram Roston and Brad Heath
December 4, 2020

The FEC filing, which covers the period from Oct. 15 through Nov. 23, classified about $8.8 million in expenses as "recount" related.

Legal consulting was the campaign’s second-biggest recount expense, according to the disclosure report. The first was $3 million to pay the cost of a partial recount in Wisconsin that ended up increasing Biden’s lead by 87 votes. The third largest recount expense was nearly $2.2 million for text message advertising as the campaign bombarded his supporters with requests for money.

Snip
The legal effort has been a powerful fundraising tool. Trump’s campaign reported that it had raised more than $207 million since the election.
Trump’s attorneys have mounted a series of lawsuits in battleground states, hoping to persuade state and federal judges to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the November election. Despite the president’s repeated, and unsubstantiated, claims that the election was “rigged,” the court cases have focused on more narrow claims of mail-in voting irregularities.

Snip

More

Is this the out Robert’s left for Jack Smith?

If Cheeto man paid attorneys from campaign donor funds to overturn the 2020 election, does their work qualify as campaign related?

If so, does Jack Smith have a stronger case now?

Hmmm

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

So, you disagree with the 3 "liberal" justices? intrepidity Jul 2024 #1
He's just here to lay some truth on us plebs BannonsLiver Jul 2024 #8
Op made a reasonable point PatSeg Jul 2024 #11
Start a fan club then. BannonsLiver Jul 2024 #12
No thanks PatSeg Jul 2024 #15
I'm in n/t Polybius Jul 2024 #20
Except the dissenting opinion criticizes the actual decision intrepidity Jul 2024 #14
Understandable PatSeg Jul 2024 #16
In broad terms, I agree, however Fiendish Thingy Jul 2024 #2
+1 dalton99a Jul 2024 #9
Bullshit. Think. Again. Jul 2024 #3
there is another possibility rampartc Jul 2024 #4
Yes, but Trump hasn't "broken the law"..... brooklynite Jul 2024 #6
Nonsense Goodheart Jul 2024 #5
Question SARose Jul 2024 #7
Basically agree. We tend to -- and I guess have to -- look at things in the context of does it help/hurt trump. Silent Type Jul 2024 #10
So, it is remanded back to Judge Chutkan and the Appeals Court? kentuck Jul 2024 #13
"This is a devastating blow to our system of government." LetMyPeopleVote Jul 2024 #17
More from the dissent ScratchCat Jul 2024 #18
Different "reality" check maxrandb Jul 2024 #19
Thank you for cutting through the focus-group-speak bullshit. harumph Jul 2024 #22
So, OPEN and SHUT ruling? bluestarone Jul 2024 #21
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Reality check: this was t...»Reply #7