The president’s offshore account, history erased and no indictments
Trump’s offshore account
Did you know that the president is putting the money generated from the sale of Venezuelan oil in several bank accounts, the largest being in Qatar? Pardon me if I think this is a bit weird? What is wrong with putting the money in the US Treasury? But no. the U.S. has now completed its first sale of Venezuelan oil for $500 million and deposited most of it in Qatar. Qatar? The official Trump apologists are saying that putting the money in Qatar rather than in U.S. banks means that this is a neutral location from which the funds could be freely and safely moved without risk of seizure. Huh? Seizure by whom? Is some country going to hack the US Treasury or are these so-called officials talking about US commercial bank deposits being subject to seizure? This makes no sense. Recall that the president had earlier said that the US would get the proceeds from the sale and that he personally would decide what to do with it. Well it looks like he decided to put the money in an offshore account.
Well only the Congressional democrats are demanding oversight of the Venezuelan oil proceeds asserting that this is a situation ripe for corruption. Where are the Senate republicans? Only the democrats introduced legislation that the White House submit to independent accounting of the funds and their uses. Maybe the republicans were getting a cut. The democrats want the administration to close the offshore accounts and use domestic financial institutions that would be subject to congressional oversight. Elizabeth Warren said “There is no basis in law for a president to set up an offshore account that he controls so that he can sell assets seized by the American military. That is precisely a move that a corrupt politician would be attracted to.” This may be the first time I have agreed with Warren. But of course, the president will veto the bill.
Hey, maybe this is just a bit of quid pro quo for the $400 million jet that Qatar had gifted to the president. Remember that?
More history my way
In its continuing effort to counter the democrats where everything was about race in American history, the Trump administration has taken the opposite approach – trying to ignore it. The latest effort being the Interior Department removing all information about George Washington being a slaveholder at his Philadelphia house. Washington lived in that house at the founding of the United States and its government. The department was ordered by a federal judge to stop the removal of the information and to restore what was removed earlier by the National Park Service commemorating the nine slaves who served Washington’s household on the site. Those items were removed by the Trump administration as part of a broader effort to use its control of the park system to rewrite American history by eliminating materials that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.” Translation: let’s’ try to purge slavery and black history American government officials and their actions. Not being a lawyer, I presume that the ruling only applies to the Philadelphia house and not to any other site where the Trump administration is continuing to whitewash American history.
Another grand jury loss for the Administration
A federal grand jury has refused to indict Mark Kelly and 6 other democrat legislators for advising troops to disobey “illegal” orders. All of the democrats were veterans. Trump had said in his ransom note “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.” Those were marching orders for Jeanine Pirro (of Fox’s The Five) who is now the US attorney for the District of Columbia obliging her to bring criminal charges against the democrats – else she be fired. She lost. It is very rare for a grand jury to decline an indictment sought by prosecutors, because it only hears the government’s version of events and doesn’t require unanimity. It is even rarer for a grand jury not to have a single member vote for the indictment but this was the case here. I once wrote that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. But apparently not Trump’s ham sandwich. Speaking of sandwich, remember them trying to prosecute the guy who threw a Subway sandwich at a federal agent? This was another loss for the administration. Earlier a grand jury in Virginia did not return an indictment against New York attorney general Lititia James. At least they got James Comey indicted but the charges were promptly dismissed because Trump’s replacement prosecutor – one of his personal attorneys – was improperly appointed.
This is now a pattern where the president insists on prosecuting his enemies and his attorneys try to find charges under which to indict regardless of the merit of the cases. As demonstrated in Virginia, if the attorney refuses to indict Trump fires that attorney and replaces with another, even if the choice is completely unqualified. Another example is the spurious investigation of Fed chairman Jerome Powell ordered by Trump. Pirro’s office is tasked with trying to find some charges on which to take before another grand jury. Want to bet that no indictment will be forthcoming? But these indictments will continue because most of Trump’s people like their jobs and know that if they tell the president something that he doesn’t want to hear, that they are out the door.
I know that there are those who deflect the blame from Trump and his attorneys to say that all this is a result of “activist” judges and grand juries composed of Trump haters. But the search for a punishable crime is evident amongst the Trump legal team. In fact, one judge chastised Piro and her attorneys taking her office to task for a series of major errors during what he described as a “rush” to charge individuals during Trump’s takeover of the DC police department accusing them of “playing cops and robbers like children.” Importantly, Trump’s “Justice” Department is losing credibility. One former prosecutor has said that now “The judges do not trust the AUSAs (assistant US attorneys) to make good faith presentations in the most important cases, and the public now routinely refuses to issue indictments in the grand jury.”
Also the judge in the Mark Kelly indictment was no liberal activist and was obviously appalled by the charges brought against the senator. While acknowledging that first Amendment rights are less rigorous for active duty military, the judge ruled that full protections exist for those who are retired – especially members of the Congress who exercise responsibility over the military. In essence, the judge said that separation of powers meant that members of Congress were free to express their views without fear of reprisals from the Executive Branch. Again this was no activist judge but rather a conservative one citing the fundamental foundations of this country.