Connect with us

The Dictatorship

This staggering new calculation of Trump’s presidential profiteering barely made headlines

Published

on

This staggering new calculation of Trump’s presidential profiteering barely made headlines

Donald Trump and his family are profiting off the presidency.

This is something we’ve heard over and over since Trump’s first inauguration in January 2017. But I’ve heard it more than most — my organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), has spent countless hours tracking and calculating those profits. At the end of Trump’s first term, CREW calculated that Trump made more than $1.6 billion in outside revenue and income during his four years as president. Recently, however, The New Yorker staff writer David D. Kirkpatrick tallied up a new number, encompassing ventures from both Trump’s first and second terms: $3.4 billion.

That is an astounding amount without any historical equivalent. But at the same time, it’s a new Trump normal. Of course he’s using his public office for private gain. Of course he’s launched another business venture. Don’t presidents get rich all the time? What’s the big deal?

The fact is, while this may feel like a new normal, nothing about it is normal, and it’s a real problem worthy of the American people’s attention.

The fact is, while this may feel like a new normal, nothing about it is normal, and it’s a real problem worthy of the American people’s attention.

Indeed, anything that smacks of presidential profiteering has always struck the American public as a big deal, regardless of the person or party in office. We want to trust that our leaders are working in our best interests, not using a position of trust to line their own pockets.

After leaving office in 2001, Bill Clinton signed a “record book deal” for $10 million, which would amount to approximately $18.5 million today. Hillary Clinton received an $8 million advance for her book about being first lady, which drew particular conflicts of interest concerns, as she had just been elected to the Senate. As a New York Times editorial from the time remarked: “It would have been far better if she had avoided this entanglement. As she above all others should know, not every deal that is legally permissible is smart for a politic[i]an who wants and needs to inspire public trust.”

When a book published in 2007 reported that then-President George W. Bush wanted to hop on the speaker circuit after his time in office to “replenish the ol’ coffers,” critics reportedly accused him “of venality, greed and capitalizing on his presidency in a time of war.”

Barack Obama’s book profits also made headlines. His jump in household income from $1 million to $4 million was considered “substantial” in 2008. Upon leaving office, he and former first lady Michelle Obama signed a book deal that included a $65 million joint advance. Trump, perhaps in an attempt to distract from investigations into his own misconduct, called for an investigation into that book deal in 2019. Barack Obama also received criticism from both sides of the aisle for taking a $400,000 Wall Street speaking engagement after leaving office.

There are a couple of reasons Trump’s profiteering is so different from these past incidents. Historically, former presidents and presidential candidates voluntarily released their tax returns prior to and while serving in office. This gave the public a window into their wealth and clearly showed how their net worth changed after they left office. Trump infamously has refused to release his tax returns, leaving the public in the dark.

Second, past presidents and their families largely made money after leaving office, not while they served. Presidents have routinely divested from business interests when they’ve taken office; only Trump maintained ownership of a large international company while serving, although he handed over daily management to his sons. And he has started his second term by not just holding on to, but by growing his business empire, including the publicly traded social media company, cryptocurrency venture, and new international developments.

CREW maintains this means that Trump is very likely violating the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses — key anti-corruption clauses in our founding document, the Constitution —as he did in his first term. (The Department of Justice defended his behavior during his administration by arguing for a much narrower interpretation of the clause; The Supreme Court has also declined to hear several cases on the issue.) It also means that he is regularly in business with, and benefiting from, those who may want to influence his decision-making as president, from a fund tied to the United Arab Emirates entering into a lucrative crypto transaction that will benefit him, to a Saudi-backed golf league holding tournaments at his propertiesto wealthy investors with clear policy interests buying his meme coin and attending an exclusive dinner with him.

And of course, the scale is vastly different from anything this country has ever seen before: Tens of millions of dollars in book deals is enormous, but billions of dollars in profit is truly staggering, and Trump seems to just be getting started. We cannot get so used to his constant, growing corruption that even profits of this gargantuan scale from the presidency stop seeming outrageous.

The dizzying amount of scandals and unethical behavior coming from the second Trump administration can make even a $3.4 billion profit feel like a drop of water in the ocean. But this kind of profiteering is changing the conception of what the office of presidency even is. No longer a public servant, its current occupant is a salesman, focused on enriching himself and his family. That is — and has to be – unacceptable, and Americans must continue to speak out against it.

Noah Bookbinder

Noah Bookbinder is the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. He is a former federal corruption prosecutor.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Judge blocks Trump order to end funding for NPR and PBS

Published

on

Judge blocks Trump order to end funding for NPR and PBS

WASHINGTON (AP) — Citing the First Amendment, a federal judge on Tuesday agreed to permanently block the Trump administration from implementing a presidential directive to end federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, two media entities that the White House has said are counterproductive to American priorities.

The operational impact of U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss’ decision was not immediately clear — both because it will likely be appealed and because too much damage to the public-broadcasting system has already been done, both by the president and Congress.

Moss ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order to cease funding for NPR and PBS is unlawful and unenforceable. The judge said the First Amendment right to free speech “does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type.”

“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” wrote Moss, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Moss’ decision is “a ridiculous ruling by an activist judge attempting to undermine the law.”

“NPR and PBS have no right to receive taxpayer funds, and Congress already voted to defund them. The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue,” Jackson said in a statement.

PBS, with programming ranging from “Sesame Street” and “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” to Ken Burns’ documentaries, has been operating for more than half a century. NPR has news programming from “All Things Considered” and cultural shows like the “Tiny Desk” concerts. For decades, the fates of both systems have been part of a philosophical debate over whether government should help fund their operations.

Punishment for ‘past speech’ cited in decision

The judge noted that Trump’s executive order simply directs that all federal agencies “cut off any and all funding” to NPR, which is based in Washington, and PBS, based in Arlington, Virginia.

“The Federal Defendants fail to cite a single case in which a court has ever upheld a statute or executive action that bars a particular person or entity from participating in any federally funded activity based on that person or entity’s past speech,” the judge wrote.

Last year, Trump, a Republican, said at a news conference he would “love to” defund NPR and PBS because he believes they’re biased in favor of Democrats.

“The message is clear: NPR and PBS need not apply for any federal benefit because the President disapproves of their ‘left wing’ coverage of the news,” Moss wrote.

NPR accused the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of violating its First Amendment free speech rights when it moved to cut off its access to grant money appropriated by Congress. NPR also claims Trump wants to punish it for the content of its journalism.

“Public media exists to serve the public interest — that of Americans — not that of any political agenda or elected official,” said Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO. She called the decision a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press.

PBS chief Paula Kerger said she was thrilled with the decision. The executive order, she said, is “textbook” unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. “At PBS, we will continue to do what we’ve always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation’s most trusted media institution.”

Last August, CPB announced it would take steps toward closing itself down after being defunded by Congress.

A victory, though incremental, for press freedom

Plaintiffs’ attorney Theodore Boutrous said Tuesday’s ruling is “a victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press.”

“As the Court expressly recognized, the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power — including the power of the purse — ‘to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others,” Boutrous said in a statement. “The Executive Order crossed that line.”

The judge agreed with government attorneys that some of the news outlets’ legal claims are moot, partly because the CPB no longer exists.

“But that does not end the matter because the Executive Order sweeps beyond the CPB,” Moss added. “It also directs that all federal agencies refrain from funding NPR and PBS — regardless of the nature of the program or the merits of their applications or requests for funding.”

NPR and three public radio stations sued administration officials last May. While Trump was named as a defendant, the case did not include Congress — and the legislative body has played a large role in the public-broadcasting saga in the past year.

Trump’s executive order immediately cut millions of dollars in funding from the Education Department to PBS for its children’s programming, forcing the system to lay off one-third of the PBS Kids staff. The Trump order didn’t impact Congress’ vote to eliminate the overall federal appropriations for PBS and NPR, which forced the closure of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the entity that funneled that money to the TV and radio networks.

___

AP Media Writer David Bauder and AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

‘I don’t care about that’: Trump moves the goal posts on Iran’s uranium stockpile

Published

on

‘I don’t care about that’: Trump moves the goal posts on Iran’s uranium stockpile

More than a month into the war in Iran, there’s still great uncertainty about why the United States launched this military offensive in the first place. There’s reason to believe, however, that the conflict has something to do with Iran’s nuclear program.

At an unrelated White House event on Tuesday, for example, Donald Trump said“I had one goal: They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”

It was a curious comment, in part because by the president’s own assessmentIran didn’t have a nuclear weapon before he decided to launch the war, and in part because Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week presented the administration’s four major objectives in the conflict, none of which had anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program.

As for whether Trump’s newly manufactured “goal” has actually been “attained,” The New York Times reported“Unless something changes over the next two weeks — the target Mr. Trump set to begin withdrawing from the conflict — he will have left the Iranians with 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium, enough for 10 to a dozen bombs. The country will retain control over an even larger inventory of medium-enriched uranium that, with further enrichment, could be turned into bomb fuel, if the Iranians can rebuild that capacity after a month of steady bombing.”

The American president has acknowledged that these details are true, though he apparently no longer cares. Ahead of an Oval Office address to the nation about the war in Iran, the Republican spoke to Reuters about his perspective:

Of the enriched uranium, Trump said: ‘That’s so far ⁠underground, I ​don’t care about that.’

‘We’ll always be watching it by satellite,’ he added. He said Iran was ‘incapable’ of developing a weapon ​now.

The president’s comments definitely have a practical element: It’s been an open question for weeks as to whether Trump intends to try to seize Iran’s uranium stockpile, which would require ground troops and be profoundly dangerous for U.S. military service members.

If Trump told Reuters the truth and is prepared to let Iran keep the uranium it already has because he no longer “cares about that,” it would drastically reduce the likelihood of a ground invasion — one that would almost certainly cost lives.

But there’s another element to this worth keeping in mind as the process moves forward: Ever since the Obama administration struck the original nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015, Trump has insisted that it was wrong to allow the country to hold onto nuclear materials that might someday be used in a nuclear weapon.

A decade later, he’s suddenly indifferent to Iran’s uranium stockpile — which has only grown larger since Trump abandoned the Obama-era policy.

Trump’s goalposts, in other words, are on the move.

Indeed, if the American president’s comments reflect his true perspective (and with this guy, one never really knows), we’re due for a serious public conversation about the motives and objectives for the war. Because as things stand, before the war, Iran had a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country had a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz was open.

And now, Trump’s apparent vision for a successful offensive will include Iran with a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country still holding a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz will be open.

Mission accomplished, I guess?

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Mike Johnson caves to the Senate, paving the way for likely DHS shutdown deal

Published

on

Just days after labeling the Senate deal to end the record-breaking shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security a “crap sandwich,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., now appears ready to swallow it whole.

Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., announced Wednesday they will move forward with the two-track approach senators unanimously backed last Friday. They will pass a bill to fund most of DHS — with the exception of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and parts of Customs and Border Patrol — and then look to approve money for ICE and CBP in a separate reconciliation package.

“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited,” Johnson and Thune said in a joint statement.

The announcement amounts to a stunning reversal for Johnson, who was facing pressure from conservatives to oppose the Senate deal. Their objections centered on the lack of money for ICE, as well as the Senate’s failure to include new voter ID restrictions, championed by President Donald Trump, with the so-called SAVE America Act.

Instead, Johnson on Friday forced a House vote on an alternative measure to fund all of DHS for eight weeks. While it passed almost entirely along party linesthe stopgap measure stood no chance in the Senate, where Democrats have repeatedly rejected a similar proposal in recent weeks.

Lawmakers were back to square one.

But it turns out, all they needed was a little push from Trump.

Less than three hours before Johnson and Thune’s announcement, Trump urged Republicans — in a lengthy statement on Truth Social — to pass funding for ICE and border patrol through budget reconciliation. While that approach allows GOP lawmakers to bypass Democratic opposition, it requires near-unanimous GOP support.

Trump said he wants the legislation on his desk by June 1 — an ambitious timeline that dramatically increased pressure on Republicans.

“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them. I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st.”

With Johnson suddenly on board, lawmakers appear poised to end the DHS shutdown just as soon as the House can reconvene. It’s unclear exactly when that might happen. The House isn’t due back until April 14. But Johnson could always call lawmakers back sooner — or look to pass the Senate bill while both chambers are out on recess through a special process.

Because the House never technically sent its 60-day continuing resolution to the Senate, the House could just recede from its amendment of the Senate-passed bill and immediately send the legislation to the president.

Either way, barring another sudden shift from Trump or House leadership, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history may soon be over — and Democrats are already taking a victory lap.

“Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. “We were clear from the start: fund critical security, protect Americans, and no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement.”

“We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win,” Schumer added.

Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.

Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending