Home | About | Donate

The Mind-Boggling Corruption of Trump Inc.


#1

The Mind-Boggling Corruption of Trump Inc.

Ryan Cooper

Another week in the Donald Trump presidency, another handful of days so stuffed full of sordid and highly complicated stories that even journalists have trouble keeping track of what's going on.

But the thread tying all the latest news together — from Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's sundry exploits, to Trump's ongoing presidential profiteering, to the Russia investigation — is corruption. The Trump administration will surely go down as one of the most — if not the most — rotten in American history.


#2

Fortunately for Trump he gets a pass from his supporters when it comes to corruption. As long has he perceived as representing the interests exclusively of white Christian Americans, and particularly evangelicals, they are willing to look the other way. And even the fact that he is not religious is okay. Just build the wall, deport, keep Muslims out, etc.


#3

They’ll even turn on private business when they want to:

This is textbook, real, third world strongman corruption. There’s one shot to put a check on it: 2018.


#4

I need someone to give me an example of a country meddling in another countries elections “for good”.
Shouldn’t be that hard to reproduce those missing SAR’s, I would think the bank they came from would have a record of them.
New investigation, find out who disappeared them, and bring them to justice.


#5

We don’t know what happened, but if you think Trump is just going to accept another investigation, you are crazy. The man is a walking emoluments clause violation, abetted by some thoroughly corrupt congressmen.


#6

I’m glad Cooper ended the article the way he did. Trump’s supporters are quick to say that the press and the Democrats are out to get him. They’re right! They should be out to get him! But they’re also right on the implicit charge that the press wasn’t, to the same degree, out to get Obama or Hillary. An honest citizen (with reference to LRX’s first statement on this thread,) has to wonder if a) all other presidents before him weren’t doing the same types of things, only without getting caught and b) if some of Trump’s corruption was encouraged by his colleagues pointing out that this sort of thing happens in Washington all the time.


#7

The press went full throttle on Hillary. The Times in particular, has always been atrocious when it comes to the Clintons, going back to its original—and wrong—Whitewater reporting. Think about it: the Times contracted with Clinton Cash purveyor and the Steve Bannon supported, Peter Schweizer, to run hit pieces on HRC and the Clinton Foundation during the election.. The whole Uranium One idiocy was given life this way. It was and is atrocious, basically propaganda as news.

The above should be front page news, a story in itself. No other candidate was treated this way, none.


#8

To understand the level of corruption that Trump represents, which is beyond anything seen in a presidency in recent times. it is important to remember that he has never released his tax returns, although he originally lied in typical fashion and said he would. The way he has fought against releasing his returns clearly suggests there is stuff in their that would be very damaging. In contrast, the Clintons have released over 30 years of tax returns. When you realize that Bernie Sanders only released one year of tax returns, that demonstrates how open the Clintons are about their financial lives. Yet you never hear people on the left complimenting them for this openness. Seems like a double standard is being applied to me.


#9

Sorry - the Clintons do not nor have they ever smelled like roses. You might want to setep back a bit and broaden your horizons

The Clinton Foundation received millions from investors as Putin took over 20% of US uranium deposits

• Canadian company Uranium One owned uranium mines in the US and Kazakhstan.

• Uranium One’s mines account for 20% of the uranium mined in the US. Uranium is used for nuclear weapons, and it’s considered a strategic asset to the US.

• Russia’s state-owned atomic agency, Rosatom, bought a 17% stake in Uranium One in June 2009.

• The Russian atomic agency decided it wanted to own 51% of Uranium One in June 2010. To take a majority stake in Uranium One, it needed approval from a special committee that included the State Department, which Hillary Clinton led at the time.

• Investors in Uranium One gave money to the Clinton Foundation starting in 2005 and through 2011. On June 29, 2010, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Russia by an investment bank with ties to Russia’s government that had a buy rating on Uranium One’s stock.

• In January 2013, despite assurances to the contrary, a subsidiary of Rosatom took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange.

• Clinton was required to disclose all of her foundation’s contributors before she became secretary of state, but the Clintons did not disclose millions of dollars donated by the chairman of Uranium One while the review of the deal was ongoing.

“Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million,” The Times reports. “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”


#10

Absolutely. A great podcast that discusses the pile-on regarding the Clintons by the press, was at 538 last week. A New York Times journalist basically admits they treated her unfairly versus other candidates. As she notes, whenever Clinton wanted to discuss policy, journalists screamed about emails, and didn’t cover policy. However bad of a campaigner Clinton may have been, she believed the coverage of her to be unfair in hindsight, including her own. And, she notes the press operated through a characiture whereby her speaking plainly was condescended, but men on the campaign were not (they were being “bold,” “anti-establishment,” etc.). So, in effect, Clinton was damned if she did, damned if she didn’t. The journalist noted it was a subtle, sexist, orientation, that gave men breaks she and her colleagues didn’t give Clinton, even when she was being more transparent.


#11

That’s bullshit, and you know it. Well covered bullshit. It’s been debunked multiple times, but I’ll point to a great summary of why and how it is utter Trumpist claptrap:

I’ll add another easy explainer:

What’s happening here, is a propoganda tactic, blurring the lines. It allows the walking emoluments clause violator, our President, to excuse his blatant corruption on the back of an “everyone does it” claim. So if you want to be a useful tool, go ahead. But I think we are in dangerous territory here when progressives, whatever they feel about Clinton, fall for and propagate Trumpist nonsense.


#12

" Perhaps in the future we can start applying laws to everyone, even the wealthy and powerful"

Nope. Sorry. America gave that hope up when it surrendered it’s democracy to a bunch of fascists. .


#13

Honey, if thats the mirror you want to use to invert interpretations of a PERVASIVE DOCUMENTED PROBLEM… be my guest. Convenient “tool”? You might want to think more than twice - in fact, never stop thinking.


#14

Honey, if your going to try and lay some BS on me that Shep Smith at FOX News called BS—see the clip in my comment above—you are trying to the propogandize the wrong person. You see, Bannon’s outfit peddled this nonsense purposefully for the election. It’s sad to see it work in real-time on someone, but some people are suckers.

For those of you who care about evidence and reality, here’s a rundown and why it’s truly a theory for the dumbest among us:

There’s always a Clinton conspiracy ready for suckers.


#15

Good for you to chase down this one instance. I look at the field as late stage empire that does things like an entire DP “conspiracy” to lock out Bernie Sanders. UO as vomitus is well documented as have been the choices to as you put it ‘do as everyone does’ email ‘oops’. There are any number of instances that are no less conspiratorial in documentation than the instance you present. One instance does not an exoneration (of anyone or thing) make.


#16

What is sad is that it didn’t have to be this way. This entire Russia thing that the Dems embraced to explain their loss, and that the media went rabid over 24/7 for over the last year quickly validated the Trumpers belief that the media was in fact, lying and certainly bias against Trump.

Now you have so many legitimate things you can go after Trump for, but nothing, no matter how legitimate will be perceived by them to be anything but a witch hunt.

Oh what a tangled web you weave…


#17

Uh, the Democratic Party let a man who was registered as an independent for years run as a Democrat in the primary. Said person did the best in party controlled caucuses. If he was going to get “locked out,” 1) the party would not have let him run and 2) they would have “locked” him “out” of the caucus process, which are party controlled. Neither happened, and the first could have easily since, well, he was basically a nobody until Biden announced he wasn’t running and others dropped out later.


#18

You apply the laws of this country to the rich as they have applied the laws to the poor in this country! You take everything they have, then turn your back and turn up the Rock & Roll so you don’t have to listen to them whine and wail! Then when you make new laws for this country, you do to the wealthy what they did to the poor of this country after 9/11. You pass laws so that if a wealthy person is charged with a crime, there is no way in hell that they can’t get anything except a guilty verdict! Because, if we don’t do it this way, the wealthy will come back on us with a vengeance and we will be peons for the rest of our lives!


#19

Perhaps in the future, We the People, can enforce the laws which the Rich and Powerful have been able to evade because of their wealth and influence, by rendering justice ourselves.


#20

“Bernie Sanders only released one year of his tax returns.” Well, with this crap you would be welcomed with open arms over at the Clinton-worshipping Democratic Underground site. So, LRX, you resort to the typical false equivalency tactic used by Rethugs. The fact is that one year of Sanders’ returns is basically all that is necessary. I think the last time I heard he had a total net worth of about $650,000. The Clintons, on the other hand, are a virtual cartel of money and special interests with their Clinton Foundation and the more than $100 million bucks they have made in speaking fees. I believe THEIR net worth is estimated at more than $150 million. I would love to hear a recording from you that shows a Sanders speech kissing the ass of bankers and financiers the way the Clintons (especially Hillary did) in the past. Let’s see, Hillary made as much money with just 3 speeches to Goldman Sachs as Sanders claimed as he entire net worth! Oh, and unlike Sanders, she demands that she be flown in a private jet to the place where she will speak.
There is almost NO comparison between Sanders and the Clintons except that they are in the same political party. Otherwise, I don’t give a shit about the Clintons and I can’t stand their apologists. They are greedy, power-hungry assholes who helped twist the Democratic Party into what it is today.
I ended up calling her “weathervane Hillary” because her “opinions” changed with the poll results. Sanders had far stronger convictions and was the better candidate, one who could have beaten Trump. The "New Democrats with their “triangulation”, “Third Way” and “incrementalism” bullshit closed ranks around Hillary along with the fucking corporate media. I also really hated the smug attitude from the Hillary campaign that “It was her turn”.
Americans smelled a phony and, with their sexism and stupidity as well, they went to Trump.
Its the beginning of a new dark ages in the United States. Part of the reason is that these “New Democrats” gave up being a true opposition party and decided instead to heed the agenda of rich donors and powerful special interests. Even Obama revealed that he admired Reagan and that his politics were “moderate Republican”. This catastrophe isn’t just the fault of the Clintons but they certainly did their part.