You know what this means: "1 for 43: Former President Bush gets hole-in-one"

[gratuitous]

Trump's already been bragging about how he authorized John McCain to have a funeral, and he made it happen, and seven months later he's never been thanked for it, but it's okay, he doesn't mind (yeah, right).

Well, now Trump's going to have to dip into the Brag Bag again:

Link to ESPN story

1 for 43: Former President Bush gets hole-in-one

DALLAS -- Former President George W. Bush has made a hole-in-one at a Dallas golf course that will soon host his institute's Warrior Open honoring wounded U.S. military personnel.

Thanks again, Dubya. Asshole.

[louis-t]

1. Aw jeez, what fresh hell are we going to have to put up with

now? "I got 2 holes in one in one day once. In fact, I aced the entire back 9 once."

[Kingofalldems]

2. He'll claim he has already had 5 or so holes in one.

[Tanuki]

3. Remember when Trump stiffed the winner of a $1 million hole in one contest?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.golf.com/tour-and-news/donald-trump-stiffed-winner-1m-hole-one-contest-report-says/amp/

45 "refused to pay the winner of a hole-in-one contest at a charity golf tournament held at one of his courses and later used money from his charitable foundation to settle the resulting lawsuit, actions that might have violated laws against “self-dealing.”

In August of 2010, Martin Greenberg, CEO of Sterling Commodities Corp., hit a hole-in-one on the 13th hole at Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, N.Y., winning a $1 million prize. Or so he thought.

The contest’s rules stipulated that the shot had to travel at least 150 yards, and according to The Post, tournament organizers had set up the tee short of the mark.

Greenberg sued, and when the parties settled, the Trump Foundation donated $158,000 to the Martin Greenberg Foundation, which Rosemary Fei, an expert in nonprofit law, says is illegal.

“Yes, Trump pledged as part of the settlement to make a payment to a charity, and yes, the foundation is writing a check to a charity,” Fei told The Post. “But the obligation was Trump’s. And you can’t have a charitable foundation paying off Trump’s personal obligations. That would be classic self-dealing.”......(more)

[former9thward]

4. That would not be a personal obligation of Trump.

The implied contract is between the golf course and the golfer. Trump is not involved personally no matter if he profits from the course. The course is a separate business entity. The suit would be against the golf course. The facts are not clear at the link but if it was settled for about 16% of the prize money the facts were mostly on the side of the golf course.