Trump’s Sleazy $1 Billion Shakedown of Oil Execs

[SaltyTiger 7,901]

Just now, aubiefifty said:

well gummies help me with the extra pains chemo gives me but thanx for trying. i think you are probably a good guy sometimes..........huge and kisses saltster...........

Did think of you when I saw the place so took a pic. It is next to a Dollar Tree store that the wife wanted to run into. Thanks to Biden’s inflation most things in the Dollar store are now $1.25.

[homersapien 11,500]

18 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I am just saying if indeed “bribery” then bribery is the issue. Should alarming to more folks than just those with an interest in intent. I also said I doubt it will ever amount to anything.

I am not a lawyer nor do I know the law - if any- that would cover this incident.

But to me - and I think to most people - this constitutes a clear quid pro quo situation.  It's pretty specific.  What is the difference between this and what Menendez did?

But again, my point is this obviously good campaign material, assuming that a majority of Americans disapprove of his "intent" which was quite apparent.

Edited May 14 by homersapien

[aubiefifty 17,073]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Did think of you when I saw the place so took a pic. It is next to a Dollar Tree store that the wife wanted to run into. Thanks to Biden’s inflation most things in the Dollar store are now $1.25.

um dollar tree was a dollar for many years and they went up whjen trump was in office for the record but nice try salty. you gonna bang trump now or give him a pass?

[SaltyTiger 7,901]

3 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

um dollar tree was a dollar for many years and they went up whjen trump was in office for the record but nice try salty. you gonna bang trump now or give him a pass?

I had enough money during the Trump days that my wife didn’t have to shop at dollar store. 

[SaltyTiger 7,901]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

But again, my point is this obviously good campaign material, assuming that a majority of Americans disapprove of his "intent" which was quite apparent.

Once again a low priority issue. Everything about “crime” is speculative. Nothing for Trump to offer at this date. We will see.

[homersapien 11,500]

14 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Once again a low priority issue. Everything about “crime” is speculative. Nothing for Trump to offer at this date. We will see.

"Crime"? 

I am not talking about crime. I am talking about refuting/rejecting policies meant to address AGW which is simply politics.

[SaltyTiger 7,901]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Crime"? 

I am not talking about crime. I am talking about refuting/rejecting policies meant to address AGW which is simply politics.

I am because you mentioned it.

“And - assuming attempted bribery is a crime - the Justice Department as well.)”

[AU9377 5,134]

On 5/14/2024 at 2:03 PM, SaltyTiger said:

Did think of you when I saw the place so took a pic. It is next to a Dollar Tree store that the wife wanted to run into. Thanks to Biden’s inflation most things in the Dollar store are now $1.25.

Yeah... that is Biden's fault too.  LOL  The sad thing is that there are people that actually believe that.

[homersapien 11,500]

22 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I am because you mentioned it.

“And - assuming attempted bribery is a crime - the Justice Department as well.)”

My mistake.  I shouldn't have mentioned it knowing that some MAGA would jump on it as an opening to avoid my main point. This why I later "crawfished" on it:

"Given the context there's nothing illegal about it (as I questioned in an earlier post).  It's just blatantly transactional and morally/ethically revealing.  (But then we already knew that about Trump.)

But I stand by my comment that this is a political gift for the Democrats. 

But thanks for confirming my instincts Salty.  You are a predictable passive-aggressive MAGA.

[SaltyTiger 7,901]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

My mistake.  I shouldn't have mentioned it knowing that some MAGA would jump on it as an opening to avoid my main point. This why I later "crawfished" on it:

"Given the context there's nothing illegal about it (as I questioned in an earlier post).  It's just blatantly transactional and morally/ethically revealing.  (But then we already knew that about Trump.)

But I stand by my comment that this is a political gift for the Democrats. 

But thanks for confirming my instincts Salty.  You are a predictable passive-aggressive MAGA.

What is a passive aggressive maga?

[homersapien 11,500]

5 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

What is a passive aggressive maga?

One who expresses their support for Trump indirectly.

[homersapien 11,500]

 

Pay-to-play in Mar-a-Lago: “House Democrats are launching an investigation into Donald Trump’s meeting with oil executives last month at his Mar-a-Lago Club, where the former president asked the executives to steer $1 billion to his 2024 campaign and promised to reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental policies,” The Post reported. This news followed an earlier report that Trump said a $1 billion donation to his campaign would be a great “deal” because he could save the oil companies far more.

The Post’s original report, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation, stated, “Trump vowed at dinner to immediately end the Biden administration’s freeze on permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports” and to “start auctioning off more leases for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico” and to “reverse restrictions on drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.”

If you’re thinking, Shouldn’t this be illegal? — you’re not alone. Once upon a time, a story like this would have caused an uproar and sparked criminal investigations. However, the Supreme Court has made it very tough to prosecute corruption cases. An April report from Just Security explained:

In a series of cases decided over the past 37 years, the Supreme Court has systematically gutted the country’s public corruption laws, including by undermining the long-standing “honest services” doctrine. At its core, the honest services doctrine is an anti-corruption principle protecting the people’s right to an honest and impartial government and a fair provision of government services. Officials, in government or in other positions of authority, who misuse their positions to enrich themselves deprive the people of that right and are subject to federal wire and mail fraud charges.

 

Taken together, these rulings formalized the idea that money moving from private hands to official pockets is not illegal in itself. According to the Supreme Court, the conduct is unlawful only when there is some tangible clear official action to which an exchange of money or property can be obviously tied.

Most recently, the court overturned the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell for accepting lavish loans and gifts from a businessman in exchange for arranging important connections with state and industry leaders. The Trump incident might be even more problematic than McDonnell’s case because Trump allegedly promised concrete action on specific items, although nailing down precisely what was said and proving a quid pro quo that meets exacting legal standards could be tricky.

Meanwhile, the muted reaction from the political class and public speaks to how far we have defined political deviance downward. The incident serves to underscore the casual sleaziness that is routine in Trump’s inner circle (consider the New York trial involving the payment of hush money and business falsification) — and how low many in the press have set the bar for Trump.

“Drain the swamp”? You must be joking! Perhaps the Justice Department will act swiftly. Maybe the rest of the media will give the attention this deserves and register appropriate condemnation of paying to bury off Earth-saving climate change measures. But don’t bet on either.

 - Jennifer Rubin