Tag: trump inaugural committee
It's Inauguration Day! Welcome To The Grifters Ball

It's Inauguration Day! Welcome To The Grifters Ball

Legalized bribery is still bribery — and there is no other way to describe the celebration that marks the second presidential inauguration of Donald Trump.

With the menacing manner of a mob boss, Trump has extorted million-dollar contributions from dozens of corporations that fear federal retribution against their shareholders or management (as in the case of Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg, who coughed up his million after Trump literally threatened him with "life in prison" not so long ago).

No doubt many of the corporate and billionaire donors are keen to prove their loyalty to a new administration that promises to uphold their interests. They know better than to worry about Republican proclamations that their party now represents "working class" Americans. Nobody who has glanced at Project 2025 or read Elon Musk's posts could harbor any such illusions — and surely the inaugural donors from outfits such as General Motors, the pharmaceutical lobby, Pratt Industries, Uber, Amazon and Microsoft do not.Many of the corporations currently greasing Trump withheld donations from his 2016 festivities, apparently repelled by the racism, misogyny and propensity for violence he had flaunted during the campaign. Some combination of fear and greed has overcome any such scruples this year.

Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, a nonprofit that monitors corporate influence, is tracking the payments of tribute, and even its jaded staffers are shocked by the Trump inaugural's brazen style. Said Craig Holman, a government ethics expert at the Nader group: "The record-breaking cesspool of special interest financing for the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee raises serious concerns about the ability of corporations and wealthy special interests to purchase influence over public policy or lucrative government contracts." Remember last spring when Trump told oil executives that they could have whatever they want, so long as they raised a billion dollars? He just appointed one of them, a fracking magnate and climate denier named Chris Wright, to take over the Department of Energy.

Estimates of the amount that the presidential inauguration committee will collect from both eager and reluctant donors range up to $200 million, a record sum that has prompted boasting from Trump and his minions. Impressive as it is, the inaugural hoard only represents a down payment on what portends to be four years of unprecedented and gluttonous corruption.

If you wonder why Trump needs $200 million for this little event, so does everyone who ever ran a prior inauguration. Due to frigid weather in Washington, the 47th president will take the oath of office indoors at a ceremony paid for by the taxpayers. Then the Trump-Vance committee will host only three inaugural balls — a tiny schedule compared with the number of balls held by his predecessors — plus a few events at his Trump National Golf Club, miles from the capital.

In other words, they're spending almost none of that big haul.

Yet while the actual expense of parties and fireworks will be nominal, the opportunities for grift are vast. As in so many instances during Trump's first presidency, those golf club events are siphoning big money from the inaugural fund into his business accounts. The Trumps ran a similar scam eight years ago, when the 2016 inaugural committee inked massively overpriced contracts for rooms and services purchased from the Trump International Hotel in Washington.

That pattern continued during his administration, with big profits booked from taxpayers footing the bills at Trump resorts for Secret Service agents protecting the president and members of his family.

Where will all the money go this time? In 2017, the Trump inaugural raised $107 million, a total far in excess of what the committee spent on its events. The committee — whose top staff included notorious crooks like Rick Gates and Elliot Broidy — never presented any accounting of its expenditures, let alone an audit. Tens of millions of dollars simply disappeared.

The official story is that funds not spent on this week's festivities will be transferred to the newly formed Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Fund Inc. — ostensibly to establish a repository and museum memorializing his presidency.

Maybe that will happen someday. But the sordid history of the Trump Foundation, ordered to shut down after the New York state attorney general proved its myriad abuses, showed that the Trumps are familiar with every trick for looting a nonprofit. Nobody audits the inaugural committees, which are not required to disclose their spending. The likelihood is that most or all of the tainted inaugural lucre will wind up somehow in their pockets.

Day One won't see a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia, a drop in grocery prices, or anything else that Trump promised during his campaign. The customary grifting will resume promptly, however, as soon as he takes his hand off the Bible. In fact, it has already begun.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism.






Inspector General Urges Ethics Review Of Trump-Connected Official After Pro Publica Report

Inspector General Urges Ethics Review Of Trump-Connected Official After Pro Publica Report

Reprinted with permission from ProPublica

The inspector general for the Federal Election Commission is calling on the agency to review its ethics policies and internal controls after a ProPublica investigation last year revealed that a senior manager openly supported Donald Trump and maintained a close relationship with a Republican attorney who went on to serve as the 2016 Trump campaign's top lawyer.

The report by ProPublica raised questions about the impartiality of the FEC official, Debbie Chacona, a civil servant who oversees the unit responsible for keeping unlawful contributions out of U.S. political campaigns. The division's staffers are supposed to adhere to a strict ethics code and forgo any public partisan activities because such actions could imply preferential treatment for a candidate or party and jeopardize the commission's credibility.

In its findings, the inspector general said Chacona, head of the FEC's Reports Analysis Division, or RAD, did not improperly intervene in a review of the Trump inaugural committee's fundraising and acted “consistent with relevant law and policy" by allowing career analysts to handle the filings.

But the inspector general said “it is important to address the ethical principle that federal employees should avoid even the appearance of impropriety." It added that the FEC's “unique mission raises heightened concerns when allegations of personal or political bias are raised against FEC senior personnel that could undermine the public's confidence in the agency" and recommended the commission “evaluate the current agency policies on ethical behavior and update them, as may be appropriate."

Chacona displayed her support for Trump in Facebook posts, including one in which she posed with her family around a “Make America Great Again" sign at Trump's January 2017 inaugural. Separately, emails obtained by ProPublica showed that she also consulted regularly on matters personal and professional with the Republican lawyer, Donald McGahn, when he was an FEC commissioner from 2008 to September 2013.

After Trump's election, the fundraising practices of his inaugural committee prompted complaints that the FEC failed to properly examine contributions. As head of RAD, Chacona signed off on amended filings by the committee intended to address some of those complaints even though the revised reports continued to list problematic donations, including ones from donors whose addresses didn't exist in public records.

The 300-employee FEC is an independent regulatory agency that was created by Congress to enforce campaign finance law. It is headed by six presidentially appointed commissioners, four of whom must vote together for the agency to take any official action, a requirement that was meant to bolster nonpartisan compromise but has resulted in chronic gridlock.

The inspector general also took issue with the way the FEC regulates presidential inaugural committees, which are nonprofit entities separate from campaign committees. Trump's inaugural committee raised a record-breaking $107 million from more than 1,000 contributors. Its initial disclosure report was 510 pages.

The inspector general found that unlike with campaign committees, FEC policy confers “broad, subjective discretion to the RAD senior manager to determine what potential violations of law warrant further inquiry" when it comes to inaugural committees. It called such a standard “ill-defined and subjective," cautioning that it could create “a reasonable likelihood of inconsistent results and arbitrary or capricious application (in fact or appearance)."

The inspector general also said that unlike political committees, which file their reports to the FEC electronically, inaugural committee disclosure reports are filed on paper to the commission and then manually reviewed by agency staffers — a system the inspector general said was “antiquated and lacks adequate internal controls."

Asked what the agency has done to address the appearance of a conflict of interest at RAD and whether the agency planned on adopting any of the inspector general recommendations, an FEC spokesperson declined to comment.

McGahn, who was appointed White House counsel after serving as the Trump campaign's top lawyer, now heads the government regulations group at the law firm Jones Day. He did not respond to messages seeking comment; in a response for the earlier ProPublica story, he said he doesn't comment on “nonsense." Chacona did not respond to a message seeking comment. A spokesperson for Trump's inaugural committee didn't return a message seeking comment.

The inspector general said that it interviewed FEC lawyers and RAD staffers, and that it obtained and reviewed agency records to conduct its inquiry. Commissioners were notified of the investigators' findings at the end of July.

With its unprecedented haul and its questionable outlays, Trump's inaugural committee drew swift attention from journalists and regulators. The Washington, D.C., attorney general has sued the committee, accusing it of enriching the Trump family business by spending lavishly at Trump-owned properties, claims the committee has denied in court papers. Separately, federal prosecutors subpoenaed the committee's donor records as part of an inquiry into illegal contributions made by foreign nationals.

Both inaugural and political committees are prohibited from accepting contributions from foreign nationals. But Trump's inaugural committee included in its disclosure reports donations from contributors outside the U.S., and RAD relied on the word of the committee that the donors were indeed U.S. citizens, the inspector general report found. Investigators took issue with that practice. They noted that RAD's policy of accepting a committee's “self-certification" wasn't memorialized in any policy, and they recommended that the division set a threshold when such a contribution would trigger further inquiry to independently verify the source of the money.

Fred Wertheimer, whose advocacy group Democracy 21 helped file a 2017 FEC complaint against Trump's inaugural committee, which the agency's general counsel later dismissed, said the head of RAD should have recused herself from overseeing the committee's filings.

“In my view Ms. Chacona had a clear appearance of conflict and never should've gone anywhere near the inaugural committee's report," said Wertheimer, who was derided by Chacona and McGahn in the email exchanges obtained by ProPublica.

Did Don Jr. Lie To Prosecutors Under Oath? Watch The Videotape

Did Don Jr. Lie To Prosecutors Under Oath? Watch The Videotape

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

The news cycle during the last White House administration was a never-ending stream of corruption and nepotism. The Trumps (and Kushners) participated in such transparent acts of self-dealing and corruption that it became clear they believed their positions in government would immunize them from any prosecution of their actions. Added to this cocktail of criminality and power, is the fact that the Trump family is filled with starkly third-rate people, like Donald Trump Jr. It isn't hard to see how they have broken the laws, stolen Americans' money, and abused their positions in government.

In January of 2020, Washington, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine filed a civil complaint against the Trump Organization and the Presidential Inaugural Committee. Racine alleged that these two Trumpian groups acted a lot like money laundering operations. A year later, while the Trump and Republican machine tried to overthrow our democratically elected government, Racine was asking for depositions from both Ivanka and Junior. Reportedly, Racine was asking the conman's progeny about money purportedly spent by Trump's Inaugural Committee on the Trump Organization—the latter technically being the family business. Ivanka worked the Inaugural Committee while Junior worked the Trump Organization. At the time, Racine reportedly said Trump Jr.'s deposition "raised further questions," that his office would continue to pursue.

Mother Jonesreports that some of the questions raised during Junior's deposition may revolve around him lying during his testimony.

Donald Trump Jr.'s deposition is filled with his inability to "recall" whether or not he was involved at all in the deals and moves being made to bring together Donald Trump's 2017 inauguration. One might say he pleads ignorance to most questions asked of him by attorneys. And even though the words "ignorance" and "Donald Trump Jr.," go together like peanut butter and chocolate, Junior possibly being a liar is more believable.

In documents and video obtained by Mother Jones, Donald Trump, Jr. seems to have lied or at the very least misled, prosecutors when he was asked about knowing close Melania Trump friend, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, who raised concerns about price-gouging by the Trump organization, when the Trump hotel was charging the Inaugural Committee "twice the market rate for event space." According to Racine, the committee's deal with the hotel ended up being well above market rates.

During his deposition, Trump Jr. was asked about Winston Wolkoff: "Do you know her?" He replied, "I know of her. I think I've met her, but I don't know her. If she was in this room I'm not sure I would recognize her." He added, "I had no involvement with her."

Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, you might remember, is the former senior adviser to Melania Trump. She's the lady who wrote the tell-all memoir about her time with the former first lady. Mother Jones has video from inauguration night of Junior telling a camera how great Winston Wolkoff is, and they also have text exchanges showing that Winston Wolkoff and Junior likely spoke on the phone a bit, and emails from Trump Jr. to Winston Wolkoff asking about helping out with inauguration festivities.

Winston Wolkoff didn't comment on Junior's testimony but she told Mother Jones: "I did not think it was right for the Trump Family or the Trump Family's businesses to be financially profiting from the presidential inauguration. It was a gross mismanagement of funds and an abuse of authority, and I made it very clear to people in the Trump Family and the inauguration committee how I felt."

The video where Trump Jr. is praising Winston Wolkoff also happens to be at an inauguration event that Junior also didn't recall attending. Video evidence says he definitely attended it. Most of Junior's testimony is evasive. Many of the questions directed at him were about private Trump organization events that seem likely to have been paid for, or in part funded by, the Trump Inauguration Committee—something that would be the definition of self-dealing. Prosecutors have receipts for all of these expenditures and whether or not it matters if Junior is lying or simply an ignoramus, will be a legal question decided by the courts.

To be clear, the Republican Party is fully complicit in self-dealing under the guise of self-promotion. And both the Trumps and the GOP use made-up cultural changes to try and obfuscate the real issues of their corruption and impotence as leaders. But lawyers don't care about your incitements to overthrow the government on Fox News when they are investigating whether or not you stole money.

Here's Trump Jr. talking about how great a person he told lawyers he didn't really know was, at an event he couldn't recall attending.


Watch Donald Trump, Jr. Praise Stephanie Winston Wolkoffwww.youtube.com

Report: Former Adviser Taped Melania Trump Disparaging Ivanka

Report: Former Adviser Taped Melania Trump Disparaging Ivanka

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Melania Trump made disparaging remarks about Ivanka Trump and President Donald Trump's other adult children, a former friend and senior advisor to the First Lady says.

Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, who produced the 2017 Presidential Inauguration, says she taped Mrs. Trump making the remarks, and is including them in a new book, Melania and Me: The Rise and Fall of My Friendship with The First Lady, to be released September 1. Journalist Yashar Ali, who writes for HuffPost and New York magazine, was the first to report the news.

Ali reports that "two sources familiar with the contents of her book confirmed that she reveals the details in her book, including harsh comments about Ivanka Trump."

"Wolkoff was friends with the First Lady for over a decade before Trump ran for president and was the director of special events at Vogue," Ali adds.

"How did Melania react to the Access Hollywood tape and her husband's affair with Stormy Daniels?" a description of the book asks. "Does she get along well with Ivanka? Why did she wear that jacket with 'I really don't care, do u?' printed on the back? Is Melania happy being First Lady? And what really happened with the inauguration's funding of $107 million? Wolkoff has some ideas…"

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World