The New York Times is reporting that Trump Received Millions From Foreign Governments as President, Report Finds. Of course we kinda knew that, but it’s good to see it spelled out. No paywall.
Donald J. Trump’s businesses received at least $7.8 million from 20 foreign governments during his presidency, according to new documents released by House Democrats on Thursday that show how much he received from overseas transactions while he was in the White House, most of it from China.
The transactions, detailed in a 156-page report called “White House For Sale” that was produced by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, offer concrete evidence that the former president engaged in the kind of conduct that House Republicans have labored, so far unsuccessfully, to prove that President Biden did as they work to build an impeachment case against him.
Using documents produced through a court fight, the report describes how foreign governments and their controlled entities, including a top U.S. adversary, interacted with Trump businesses while he was president. They paid millions to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.; Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas; Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York; and Trump World Tower at 845 United Nations Plaza in New York.
The Constitution, of course, says that presidents may receive nothing from foreign governments or monarchs without the consent of Congress. Trump never asked for permission. And I like the bit about China.
Back when trump took office in 2017 there was a lot of grumbbling that he didn’t divest himself of his businesses, or at least put them into a blind trust. In this Reuters article from January 2017 a Trump spokesperson said that profits generated at Trump’s hotels by foreign governments would be donated to the U.S. Treasury. I guess that didn’t happen, either. The Times article quotes Erick Trump saying that any profit the company earned on the hotel stays was returned to the federal government through a voluntary annual payment to the Treasury Department.. But the Chinese bank has a lease at Trump Tower (since 2008) that Eric didn’t think should count.
Typical:
House Republicans also dismissed the revelations, arguing that there was nothing wrong with Mr. Trump receiving revenue from foreign governments while he was president but that Mr. Biden’s family’s business was corrupt.
IOKIYAR. So far the House Republicans have failed to produce evidence that Joe Biden took any money from any corrupt “family business.” From Rolling Stone:
In December, House Republicans formally opened an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, alleging after years of fruitless investigations that the current president — as well as his family — have enriched themselves through corrupt business dealings with countries like Ukraine and China. Republicans have struggled to justify the decision to plow forward with impeachment proceedings despite a lack of concrete evidence against President Biden. That irony is not lost on Oversight Democrats, who wrote that as Chairman of the committee Rep. James Comer intentionally halted the production of documents “relating to President Trump’s receipt of foreign payments—from China or any other country—and launched an investigation of President Joseph Biden’s son, which to date has produced no evidence of any constitutional or criminal wrongdoing by President Biden.”
For more laughs, see Aaron Blake at WaPo, Trump lawyers’ doozy of a filing on voter fraud. It begins,
Prosecutors have repeatedly described Donald Trump’s false claims of voter fraud in 2020 as effectively manufacturing a pretense for illegally overturning the election. Special counsel Jack Smith said in his indictment of the former president that fake electors were meant to “create a fake controversy” that could be used on Jan. 6, 2021.
In a new filing, Trump’s legal team appears bent on helping prosecutors make that case.
The article (no paywall) goes on to describe the arguments and “evidence” in Trump’s latest legal brief in his appeal for presidential immunity in his federal Jan. 6 case. It’s hysterical. It even quotes “reports” that may not exist.
In other news: I hadn’t seen anything in WaPo by Paul Waldman or Greg Sargent, two of my favorite writers, for a while. I have learned they’ve both left WaPo; I don’t know why. Paul Waldman has a Substack — blog? thing? whatever. If Greg Sargent is writing for anybody, I haven’t found it.
Sargent moved to TNR (don't think he's published anything there yet).
Sargent used to write for TNR, but the last thing he published there was in 2018.
Sargent linked a thing on bluesky, an announcement from The New Republic that they'd hired him:
followed by a graphic of a PR.
In other news of old hands going back to old haunts, Rick Perlstein is back on a recurring gig at the Prospect: https://prospect.org/topics/rick-perlstein/
It's hilarious that Trump and the Republicans keep trying to paint China as enemy #1.
The WaPo is slowly dying. The roster of third-rate wingnut opinion writers only grows, Waldman's gone (I didn't know about Greg Sargent). The one great light is Jennifer Rubin, plus a few lesser writers. Bezos hired a News Corp (Murdoch) alumnus as new publisher in November. Can't hardly wait.
For a paper that's in serious financial trouble, it's beyond comprehension that they retain seriously deluded deadweights like Marc Thiesen, Hugh Hewett, and a few others.
It's beyond comprehension why I still have a subscription. Not much longer.
I get far more cogent and intelligent news, for free, from a few selected substack subscriptions (Robert Hubbell, Heather Cox Richardson, Joyce Vance).
I am starting to hope that 1) Trump's crazy law filings indicate someone who is on the verge of a breakdown, 2) we may see a conviction by mid-year, and 3) it may peel off enough Republican voters to save the country in November. That's my 2024 prayer.
I dropped the WaPo long ago, but they lured me back a few days ago at $20 for a year [then I'll drop it again before it goes up to $70]. Gotta keep an eye on them in 2024.
Also, I need some virtual liner for the virtual cage for my virtual pet bird.
Trump thinks everything is a hustle. No surprise there. I don't see less than ten million as an amount that would or did sway Trump. I do think Trump would and did take notice if money was NOT paid through the Trump Hotels or some other con. I'm reminded of how the Clinton Foundation worked – a few million would get you an audience with HRC, then Sec of State. It was intended by the framers to be illegal and we need to overcome the opposition of almost everyone in politics to shut it down. Only Memendez-style collection of gold bars is left, and that will be a ticket to the big house.
The legal is fascinating when you drill down to the granular level. Trump's argument that he has absolute immunity is preposterous. But a Friend of the Court submission to the appeals court from some high-powered conservative lawyers seems to be getting traction. A written decision by Scalia cited in the brief makes Trump's appeal inappropriate. Scalia wrote for the majority that intermediate appeals after indictment but before sentencing should be denied UNLESS the appeal cites a direct violation of the US Constitution or a direct violation of a federal law. SO the Friends of the Court brief argued that the total immunity defense is a dead issue until AFTER sentencing. All of this might be highly theoretical but the appeals court notified Trump and Smith to be prepared to answer questions on the Friend of the Court brief.
There's one loophole that might keep the appeal alive for a little while. It's also ridiculous but it IS related to a principle in the Constitution. Trump is claiming he can't be tried in criminal court for the offense he was tried for in the second impeachment. I think this will fall apart fast under questioning. If POTUS is removed by impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors", did the framers intend that POTUS would not be charged for those crimes???? The question is if the USSC will play the game of sitting on a decision to give Trump the delay. (I don't think so.)
I think the appeals court will decide the "total immunity" defense is moot until AFTER the J6 trial. Trump's whole point of the defense was to delay the trial, so that's the perfect decision. Trump's lawyers will try to hide behind the double jeopardy clause. I suspect the questioning will expose that the reasoning behind the argument has nothing to do with the intent of the framers. But something yesterday…
Regarding the 14th: Trump's bimbo lawyer, Habba, yesterday said that Trump is worried that the USSC will not rule his way on CO. (The double-talk that surrounded the statement isn't worth dissecting.) The solution, according to Trump is that only Congress can decide the 14th Amendment. Trump has no subtlety. Suppose Trump got the inside scoop on how the USSC leans on the 14th. He does have an inside source named Ginny. So if Trump knows the USSC will not shield him (assuming Habba was telegraphing her master's message.) Trump was also instructing the High Court how they could rule to give Trump the result he wants and still be off the hook. Send it to the House to decide – never mind that there's NOTHING in the 14th to support that. But if Trump knows the USSC isn't going to save him on the 14th, there's no reason to think they will dither forever on the double-jeopardy argument.
Stump on the take, that’s old fake news, we already knew Stump took money from China, he filmed it, down in his trash palace it was all over the tee-vee in 2017. The magats or the speaker of the house will say Stump owns hotels; of course they paid for the rooms, pillows, blankets, mints, mini bars, room service, it adds up. The GQP says Biden got paid because he was on he take and his son has a laptop with penis pics. Who you gonna believe? Stump is a businessman who we have video of hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein, Joe Biden isn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfw05CH7YAA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N9xFcxS6EM
If my memory is correct, didn't the Saudi's lease an entire floor of suites from Trump at his Trump Hotel in Washington D.C.? Aside from Jared's take of Saudi money I'm sure Trump got his palms greased with a lot of Saudi money. His golf courses? I think they are just scratching the surface reporting his take from China.
That's pretty much was Jamie Raskin was saying on MSNBC last night. The report offers data from unassailable sources that covers only a couple of years. There's bound to be a lot more.
What Swami said!
"All hell done broke loose…"
The USSC will hear oral arguments on the 14th Amendment re the Colorado state Supreme Court decision to drop Trump from the ballot. That's going to be AFTER the appellate court hears the case on absolute immunity. I think there's a good chance the appeals court will punt on absolute immunity. They may have to consider (and deny) the double jeopardy defense. So if the case is appealed to the USSC, I'm not sure they will accept it. Why? Because I think the USSC would prefer if Trump stands trial for the DC and GA charges. If Trump wins in November it's almost certain the USSC will have to decide, based on the 14th Amendment, if Trump is disqualified. This is not a decision they want to face. The polls say that if Trump is convicted of a felony related to J6, Biden wins. Everything Trump is doing suggests he's read and believes the polls. The USSC can delay the trial in DC but that might open the calendar for GA. I don't see how both can be blocked before the election.
Flip side. The USSC could clear the way for trials without ruling decisively on the 14th or absolute immunity. They could decide on the 14th that it's a state's rights option – each state can, depending on the state constitution and state election laws, can disqualify a candidate so long as it does not violate the US Constitution or federal election law. That opens the door for other states to pull Trump with confidence that the USSC will tolerate a lawful application of state rules. Just ONE swing state pulling Trump off the ballot could ruin Trump's plans. If the USSC leaves it to the states, it might shake the inevitability of Trump in the primaries. Toss in a felony conviction and watch the GOP look for an off-ramp in early summer. Not everybody is gonna want to go down with the ship. Others will stay with Trump to the bitter end. The stress will split the GOP like the Titanic.
Florida got a state constitutional amendment on the ballot to preserve a woman's right to an abortion to 24 weeks. It needs 60% to pass. So that will drive up voter turnout in November – bigly. That will affect any close US House races. I'm feeling good about taking back the House but I don't want a super-narrow majority because that gives oversize leverage to nincompoops.
We'll need help in the Senate but Trump may assist by recruiting MAGA radicals who will get past the primaries but be unpalatable to voters in November, especially if Trump is clearly headed to prison and screaming for an insurrection because Trump's going to jail for an insurrection. The MAGA candidates may not be able to distance themselves from Trump without risking their lives. But it could shift a few seats in the Senate.
The NY civil trial is going into final arguments. The prosecution upped the ante by asking for $350 million. I don't see any prospect for Trump to derail the E. Jean Carroll case. The award may be much bigger than anyone expects. These are both January events with decisions no later than early Feb. Feb 8 is when the USSC hears oral arguments on the 14th Amendment. The appeals court will have ruled on absolute immunity and the USSC might just let the verdict stand without hearing an appeal.
They could decide on the 14th that it's a state's rights option –
That's the equivalent to making a decision that he did engage in an insurection. There is no way they can sidestep the insurection question, maybe they can employ the same tactic to avoid confronting that question by doing what the Senate did during Trump's impeachment by employing a process argument, but ultimately the question of insurrection has to be answered. And when it is we'll know whether democracy and the rule of law will survive.
I hear Justice Kavanaugh is going to 'step up' and rule in Trump's favor as a payback for the hell that Trump went through to get him on the court. Trump has offically called in a favor. You owe me, buddy! I made you.
"That's the equivalent to making a decision that he did engage in an insurrection."
Exactly true! But it doesn't quite leave the blood on the hands of the USSC. The USSC has no Herod to send the case to. If they uphold only the right of the states to apply the rules (qualification and disqualification), by implication the USSC is suggesting that if pressed to decide the 14th regarding a President Trump who was elected in November but has not yet been sworn in, the Justices might decide against Trump.
If the GOP and Republican voters take the issue away from the high court by selecting someone different or if Biden wins, the problem also goes away. Like Pilate, the USSC doesn't want this case. Trump is aware that the court might not clear him of insurrection which is (IMO) why his defense lawyer has suggested the 14th should be decided only by Congress (though nothing in the 14th suggests that even remotely.)
Why would the USSC be so timid? They have 70% of the country pissed at them about Roe. The only people who are defending the high court are evangelical cultists. If they rule against Trump, their standing will sink even lower. But the upcoming trials will likely establish in open trial that Trump is guilty of insurrection. I don't see how the Supremes would justify reversing a guilty verdict in GA when everyone has seen the evidence.
With a few exceptions, the GOP has been an alliance of cowards who won't criticize Trump. When the winds change and the verdict(s) are being read, I think a bunch of Republicans will express wishy-washy doubts and deny they knew Trump. (Echos of Peter before the cock crowed.)
BTW, I'm not a Christian as I define the term, but sometimes a Biblical story personifies human nature so perfectly, it's the proper frame to predict modern craven cowardice.
Twice now, David Brooks has had to be corrected on PBS about who initiated and pushed the 14th amendment argument by Capeheart. Brooks continues to push a false narrative which slants things in quite the revisionist direction. As well documented on this Blog the push for the idea began from conservative republicans and their are a solid group of republicans who on board with its implementation in this election to disqualify Trump. Just when you think Brooks has seen the light, he pulls a boner like this. It won't help. It just enlarges the audience who ignores him.
Brooks and Capehart on Supreme Court deciding if Trump can remain on ballots | PBS NewsHour</
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Brooks reminds me of Elmer Fudd.
Brooks said that if the SCOTUS upholds the Colorado SC ruling then "half" the country will think the government is corrupt and we'll have even worse divisiveness than we already have.
Actually it would be 35%. And it seems like he doesn't realize that if the SCOTUS overturns Colorado a significant portion of the citizenry will think the SCOTUS is corrupt and is helping the radical right dividers. It is the Dems that are willing to work across the aisle and compromise. The Reps have adopted a my-way-or-the-highway, no-compromise position. I'm probably overstating it because moderates and liberals will be okay with an overturning of Colorado so long as the reasoning makes sense. If they just echo the conspiracy theories then a majority of the citizenry will be appalled.
But my point is that Brooks was talking as if allowing TFG ballot access would be fine with 90% of the public. I can tell you, when I was talking with my son about the danger in the upcoming election, he said "Why the F is that guy even allowed to run???!!???" He's not a political junkie, he just knows a con man when he sees one. Brooks is blind to this.
I just keep shaking my head, because it seems like the entire sensible media ecosphere thinks that anyone who declares to be a candidate for president is then entitled automatically to be on the ballot in all 50 states. I think that's flat out horrible thinking. Anyone can decide to run for office at any level in the USA, but every single "candidate" has an obligation to prove that he/she meets the qualification requirements. It is not the duty of society at large or the government of the people to make sure that any candidate is on the ballot everywhere. That seems so obvious to me, that I cannot understand why that is not the dominant narrative here.