Trump campaign paid law firm employing RFK Jr. weeks after he endorsed Trump

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Yahoo! News/NBC News

Fri, December 6, 2024 at 9:22 PM EST


Weeks after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dropped out of the presidential race in August and endorsed Donald Trump, the Trump campaign paid a California law firm that lists Kennedy among its lawyers, according to Federal Election Commission records.

The Trump campaign — now known as Never Surrender Inc. — disbursed $100,000 to “JW Howard Attorneys” on Sept. 13, just three weeks after Kennedy bowed out of the race and backed Trump, FEC records show. Financial data for Trump’s campaign, which was converted to a leadership PAC, appears in FEC filings under the new Never Surrender name.

The website of a law firm bearing that name has offices in San Diego and Pasadena, California, features a photo of Kennedy and lists him as a “constitutional and environmental litigator” and one of three lawyers working from its “Los Angeles area” location.

The Trump campaign made no other payments to JW Howard Attorneys during the 2023-24 election cycle, according to FEC records. Team Kennedy paid the firm on five occasions between August 2023 and April 2024. JW Howard did not receive payments from any other campaign or committee as of mid-October 2024, according to the records.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-campaign-paid-law-firm-022249292.html

[tinymontgomery]

1. Don't worry, the supreme court ruled it wasn't a bribe. n/t

[Irish_Dem]

3. It's just a gratuity to say thanks for the good service.

The kind the Supreme Court justices get all the time.

[Baitball Blogger]

2. I'm sure I'm not reading this right.

I thought RFK Jr. was hired by Morgan and Morgan?

[cadoman]

4. endorsement goes out and just a moment later cash shows up?

Seems highly suspicious. I asked a gpt for analysis of this and it seems the tests are:

Arm's Length Transaction: The payment must be for legitimate goods or services at fair market value. It should not be an indirect way to compensate for the endorsement. If the payment exceeds the value of the goods or services, it could be considered an illegal contribution or payment for the endorsement.

So what exactly was the campaign getting that was worth exactly $100k?

Disclosure: Seems to be satisfied here.

Contribution Limits: If the value above fair market exceeds campaign finance law limits, this would obviously be a violation.

Avoiding Quid Pro Quo: That appears to be the case here, though it may be hard to convince a juror infected with both-siderism.

If I worked at the DoJ I'd be all over this one. It'd have the potential to remove both tfg AND rfk.

[GiqueCee]

5. A pattern of acquiescence...

... is emerging here. Well, actually, it's a long and sordid pattern of a certain party putting his concern for appearing "nonpartisan" ahead of doing his job. It appears that this "certain party" may have a lot to answer for. But for him, we might not be staring down the barrel of unbridled evil with Trump's itchy trigger finger at the other end.