Need A Primer On Trump's Corruption?

Read this analysis from The New York Times.

It starts with this:

During President Trump’s first term, the idea that special interests and governments were buying meals and booking rooms at his hotels set off legal and ethical alarms about the potential for corruption.

Mr. Trump’s second term is making those concerns look trivial.

The administration’s plan to accept a $400 million luxury jet from the Qatari royal family is only the latest example of an increasingly no-holds-barred atmosphere in Washington under Trump 2.0. Not only would the famously transactional chief executive be able to use the plane while in office, but he is also expected to transfer it to his presidential foundation once he leaves the White House.

And that's just the beginning. There's more:

Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee raked in $239 million from wealthy business interests hoping to curry his favor or at least avoid his wrath, more than doubling the previous record, $107 million, set by his inaugural committee in 2017. There is no way to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on dinners and events, and the committee has not said what will happen to leftover funds.

And then there's stuff about the millions swirling around Trump's cryptocurrency.

And then this:

In April, the Trump administration disbanded a Justice Department unit dedicated to investigating cryptocurrency crimes.

Earlier, Mr. Trump had also ordered the department to suspend enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which makes it a crime for companies that operate in the United States to bribe foreign officials.

And Attorney General Pam Bondi, herself a former highly paid lobbyist for Qatar, narrowed enforcement of a law requiring lobbyists for foreign governments to register such relationships and disclose what they are paid.

Wait. Wasn't that "free plane" a "gift" from Qatar?

How convenient.

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

The New York Times reported that: 

The Trump administration plans to accept a luxury Boeing 747-8 plane as a donation from the Qatari royal family that will be upgraded to serve as Air Force One, which would make it one of the biggest foreign gifts ever received by the U.S. government, several American officials with knowledge of the matter said.

The plane would then be donated to President Trump’s presidential library when he leaves office, two senior officials said. Such a gift raises the possibility that Mr. Trump would have use of the plane even after his presidency ends.

And:

An agreement for the government to accept the luxury aircraft and ultimately pass it along to Mr. Trump’s library would be the clearest example yet of how he has further intertwined his personal and presidential business in his second term.

And, given that the Constitution states: 

[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Wouldn't that "gift" of a $300-400 million jet be, more or less, a gross violation of the Constitution's emolument clause? 

I realize that recently President Trump said that he "didn't know" whether he had an uphold the Constitution (even though he took an oath to do exactly that in January) but shouldn't he be upholding it?

Isn't the gift from Qatar just one big bribe? Don't we deserve better?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll print verbatim whatever response I get.

Fetterman Friday

Another in an on going series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

I'd like your take on the most recent appearance of DHS Secretary Noem before a Senate committee.

ABC reported: 

During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who traveled to El Salvador to meet with Abrego Garcia, asked if the Trump administration would comply with the Supreme Court's decision that the U.S. government must facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, Noem replied that the government is following the law but didn't say yes or no.

And while testifying that the administration is following every court order, Noem also said that there's "no scenario" will be in the US again - despite a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling that the administration "facilitate" his return.

This led your Senate colleague from Connecticut, Senator Chris Murphy to accuse Noem and the administration of "willfully ignoring the [Supreme Court] ruling."

Do you think this is a constitutional crisis, Senator? An administration openly flouting clear instructions from the Supreme Court?

You voted to confirm Secretary Noem, didn't you?

Do you regret that vote, Senator?  

I'm a constituent of yours, I voted for you and I'd like an answer, Senator. 

I'll be dropping this letter in the mail soon.

As always, I'll post verbatim the Senator's (or his office's) reply.

 

I Take No Pleasure In This

On the one hand, there's this from CNN:

Sen. John Fetterman roundly dismissed allegations that he’s unfit to serve in the Senate, attacking a recent report detailing claims of erratic behavior as a “hit piece” and vowing to serve out his term.

In an exclusive sit-down interview with CNN in his Senate office, the Pennsylvania Democrat discussed his treatment for depression and insisted that he is following a strict protocol laid out by his doctors. He pushed back on assertions from former and current staffers recently published in New York Magazine that he had been exhibiting reckless and volatile behavior.

“It’s a one-source hit piece, and it involved maybe two or three and anonymous disgruntled staffers saying just absolute false things,” he said. 

But then there's this from the AP: 

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was meeting last week with representatives from a teachers union in his home state when things quickly devolved.

Before long, Fetterman began repeating himself, shouting and questioning why “everybody is mad at me,” “why does everyone hate me, what did I ever do” and slamming his hands on a desk, according to one person who was briefed on what occurred.

As the meeting deteriorated, a staff member moved to end it and ushered the visitors into the hallway, where she broke down crying. The staffer was comforted by the teachers who were themselves rattled by Fetterman’s behavior, according to a second person who was briefed separately on the meeting.

The only wiggle-room for Fetterman in this is the sourcing:

 ...according to one person who was briefed on what occurred.

And:

...according to a second person who was briefed separately on the meeting.

So neither of the sources was actually there at that meeting.

That's the only wiggle room for Fetterman I'm seeing. And it's pretty weak.

Then there's this from The Philadelphia Inquirer. After referencing both pieces above, there's this:

Now, as the fallout from the story continues, some of Fetterman’s behaviors once dismissed as typical of an unconventional and often introverted lawmaker are being revisited. And behind the scenes, former staffers say the teachers’ union meeting is emblematic of Fetterman’s unpredictable and inconsistent conduct across a tumultuous first few years in office.  

Half a dozen former Fetterman staffers who spoke to The Inquirer on the condition of anonymity, for fear of career repercussions working in Democratic politics, said Fetterman isn’t doing the basic job of a U.S. senator. The former staffers described a frequently absent senator, spending many hours on the Hill alone in his office, avoiding colleagues or meetings.

“It’s pretty impossible to overstate how disengaged he is,” a recently departed staffer said. “He doesn’t read memos, he’s taking very few meetings … the job is just a platform for him to run for president, that’s all he cares about.”

Uh-oh. This is not the way to run for president.

He has a job now. He should be doing that job now. If he can't do that job now, then he has a few decisions to make.

 

Um, What??

From The New York Times:

 From the article:

President Trump on Tuesday had a ready answer when reporters asked who he would like to see become the next supreme pontiff. “I’d like to be pope,” he joked to reporters at the White House. “That would be my number one choice.”

He took the joke a step further on Saturday, sharing on social media what appeared to be an A.I.-generated photo of himself wearing the traditional vestments of the pope. The photo depicts him in a white cassock with a cross around his neck, his face solemn as he raises a pointed finger. 

 The origins of the photo were not immediately clear, and Mr. Trump did not include any commentary in his post. He shared the image on Truth Social, Instagram and X, and the White House reposted it on its official Instagram and X accounts.

From The Hill:

The president was asked about Catholics disapproving of the image, such as New York’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who said the late Friday post “wasn’t good.”

“You mean they can’t take a joke. You don’t mean the Catholics, you mean the fake news media. Not the — the Catholics loved it,” Trump said.

He said, "the Catholics loved it." 

Which Catholics, exactly?

How about these Catholic bishops?

Then there's this from the BBC:

The backlash continued on Sunday, as New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan - who has been friendly with Trump for years - told reporters that he disliked the image.

"It wasn't good," he said, after attending a Mass in Rome. "I hope he didn't have anything to do with that."

Switching to Italian, he called it a "brutta figura", a phrase meaning a bad or embarrassing impression.

Bad. Embarrassing.

And then from the Catholic News Agency, there's this:

[Bishop Thomas Paprocki], who is the bishop of Springfield, Illinois, said on X that the photo “mocks God, the Catholic Church, and the papacy.”

“This is deeply offensive to Catholics especially during this sacred time that we are still mourning the death of Pope Francis and praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the election of our new pope,” Paprocki wrote. “He owes an apology.”

An apology? From Donald Trump? 

And then there's this from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

"I guess I find it to be an unfortunate thing," said Milwaukee Archbishop Jeffrey S. Grob in an interview with the Journal Sentinel May 4 at the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist.

"In my own understanding just of what it means to be a Christian and a person of good will is to be respectful of other people's circumstances," Grob said. "The church, Catholic Church, is in a period of mourning over the death of Pope Francis, and now it's a pivotal moment, looking into the future.

"And so, it's a very serious time. And whoever it is, wants to quip and make fun, be it Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam. ... We've lost great respect for moments like this. And so it is what is, I guess, but it's very unfortunate."

The Catholics loved it!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

The New York Times reported yesterday that:

President Trump said in an interview that aired on Sunday that he did not know whether every person on American soil was entitled to due process, despite constitutional guarantees, and complained that adhering to that principle would result in an unmanageable slowdown of his mass deportation program.

The revealing exchange, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” was prompted by the interviewer Kristen Welker asking Mr. Trump if he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio that citizens and noncitizens in the United States were entitled to due process.

“I don’t know,” Mr. Trump replied. “I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know.”

I'm also not a lawyer but I do know that the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution reads (in part): 

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

And the Fourteenth Amendment reads (also in part):

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Senator, you'll note that the text clearly uses the word "person" and not "citizen."

Under the Constitution, everyone is entitled to due process, Senator. One does not need to be a lawyer to know that. 

Does his response concern you, Senator?  That The President of the United States either does not know that everyone is entitled to due process or (worse yet) does not believe that everyone is entitled to due process?

How about you, Senator? Is everyone entitled to due process?

How will you and the rest of the GOP led Senate be dealing with this?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

Note: As always, I'll be posting to this blog whatever the Senator sends back as a response.

 

Oh. My. God. You MUST Read This

Let's start with a piece about the piece.

Newsweek: 

Current and former staffers to Democratic Senator Jon Fetterman raised concerns about his health in an article published by New York Magazine's Intelligencer on Friday, with Adam Jentleson, his former chief of staff, telling a Walter Reed medical director last year that he worried the senator "is on a bad trajectory."

In the article, Fetterman called the various concerns and allegations raised by staffers "past and present" as "disgruntled employees saying things that are either untrue or, so, that's kind of the business that we are in."

So the basic frame is that Jentleson (and some others) assert and Fetterman denies. 

You can find the article here.

Here's how it begins:

When John Fetterman was released from Walter Reed hospital in March 2023, Adam Jentleson, then his chief of staff, was proud of his boss for seeking help for what the senator’s office and his doctor had said was a case of clinical depression. His six weeks of inpatient care had been the latest medical setback for the Pennsylvania Democrat, who had had a stroke mere months before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2022, nearly derailing his campaign against Republican Mehmet Oz. But a year after his release from the hospital, Fetterman’s behavior had so alarmed Jentleson that he resigned his position. In May 2024, he wrote an urgent letter to David Williamson, the medical director of the traumatic-brain-injury and neuropsychiatry unit at Walter Reed, who had overseen Fetterman’s care at the hospital. “I think John is on a bad trajectory and I’m really worried about him,” the email began. If things didn’t change, Jentleson continued, he was concerned Fetterman “won’t be with us for much longer.”

His 1,600-word email came with the subject line “concerns,” and it contained a list of them, from the seemingly mundane (“He eats fast food multiple times a day”) to the scary (“We do not know if he is taking his meds and his behavior frequently suggests he is not”). “We often see the kind of warning signs we discussed,” Jentleson wrote. “Conspiratorial thinking; megalomania (for example, he claims to be the most knowledgeable source on Israel and Gaza around but his sources are just what he reads in the news — he declines most briefings and never reads memos); high highs and low lows; long, rambling, repetitive and self centered monologues; lying in ways that are painfully, awkwardly obvious to everyone in the room.”

After reading the piece, I'm worried about John Fetterman, too.

What follows in the piece fleshing out the concerns. For example:

Former and current staffers paint a picture of an erratic senator who has become almost impossible to work for and whose mental-health situation is more serious and complicated than previously reported.

And:

Many of the staffers I spoke with are angry. They are troubled. And they are sad. These were some of Fetterman’s truest believers, and they now question his fitness to be a senator. They worry he may present a risk to the Democratic Party and maybe even to himself. 

This makes it clear that it's not just Jentleson.

Let's look at a few episodes from the piece. The Senate Retreat in February 2023:

Members of his team told me this was an early warning sign that something was off with their boss. In early February 2023 — after Fetterman had indeed been sworn in — members of the Senate gathered at the Library of Congress for a caucus retreat. Fetterman, fresh off a hard-fought victory in the cycle’s marquee race, should have been riding high. Only he wasn’t. A staffer recalled getting a text from a person at the retreat asking if their boss was okay. Fetterman was sitting at a table by himself, slowly sipping a Coke and refusing to talk with anybody. Later that day, another staffer heard an alarming report from a journalist: Fetterman had just walked, obliviously, into the road and was nearly struck by a car.

An aide found Fetterman wandering on Capitol Hill a short time later. Worried that he had suffered another stroke, the staffer whisked him to George Washington University Hospital. Doctors there determined there had been no new stroke and that the “dizziness and confusion” he’d experienced was partly owed to severe dehydration. Fetterman also consulted with a psychiatrist there and, according to someone briefed by doctors, was prescribed medications for depression. Doctors discharged Fetterman, and his team told the press that he had been briefly hospitalized after “feeling lightheaded while attending a Democratic retreat.”

For the record (this image is from Google Maps) The Capitol is just across First Street from The Library of Congress:

 

It's a pretty good guess Fetterman was walking across First Street (or possibly East Capitol Street) on the way to The Capitol.

Some of the details conflict with some of the contemporaneous reporting. For example this from NPR:

Fetterman was at a Senate Democratic retreat when he started feeling unwell, his communications director, Joe Calvello, said in a statement to journalists. That retreat was reportedly held at the Library of Congress.

"He left and called his staff, who picked him up and drove him to the George Washington University Hospital," Calvello said.

And this from The New York Times:

He attended President Biden’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night and was participating in a daylong party retreat at the Library of Congress when he felt lightheaded and decided to seek help at George Washington University Hospital.

So Fetterman called his staff to pick him up? So no journalist with the alarming report he'd almost got hit by a car crossing a DC street? I suppose the aide who found him "wandering on" The Hill could have been answering Fetterman's call. But did the staffer or Fetterman himself made the decision to go to the hospital?

Minor point, to be sure. Chalk it up to the contemporaneous news being the first rough draft of history and Terris' piece being a somewhat later draft.

Read the piece for yourself. It's a long hard slog.

It's also worrisome and unsettling and alarming and saddening and disturbing and troubling and distressing and depressing.

John Fetterman needs help. He needs help, in part, in order to do his job. If he refuses to get that help, he should step down from that job.