A question to be asked. Last Sunday’s New York Times included a “Guest Essay” by Casey Michel, author of Foreign Agents: How American Lobbyists and Lawmakers Threaten Democracy Around the World, headlined Trump Isn’t the First Politician to Sell the Office, whose literal meaning is “Donald Trump isn’t first politician to be corrupt”. Well, yeah! But so what? No one, I think, is complaining that Donald Trump is a corrupt politician. They’re complaining that he’s a grotesquely corrupt President of the United States, a man whose limitless greed and utterly shamelessness is entirely without precedent in our history! What is the point of the Times paying Mr. Michel good money to normalize Trump, to drone on and on for eight minutes and twelve seconds in order to manipulate us into believing that Trump’s conduct is indistinguishable from his predecessors? Something that, by the way, is completely untrue!
Look at the examples that Mr. Michel gives us. We learn, for instance, that
Even after Hunter Biden apparently lobbied American officials to aid at least one foreign client — a clear violation of U.S. foreign lobbying laws — he paid no legal price, making a mockery of his father’s campaign pledge to crack down on the practice.
What? He “apparently” lobbied on behalf of foreign clients and didn’t register? No one’s ever done that before! Though one might point out that one can’t be held criminally liable for “apparently” doing something. It has to be established that, you know, you actually did it! Hearsay don’t cut it, Mr. Expert! On top of which, since when is indulging a fucked up son the same as accepting a $400 million aircraft from a foreign country for your own personal use? Since never, that’s when!
Mr. Michel also devotes a lot of energy to finding parallels between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, to wit:
It’s no secret that foreign governments view the Trump Organization as a means to influence Mr. Trump. This was the case throughout the president’s first term. Now foreign governments are even more explicit, with regimes — especially with the threat of tariffs now looming — openly expediting the process for new Trump Organization investments in their countries, all as a means of succoring Mr. Trump.
This is hardly the first time foreign dictatorships have funded American politicians’ pet projects in the hopes of currying favor. It was not long ago that the most popular nexus between foreign regimes and American political leaders was the Clinton Foundation. For years, it accepted millions of dollars linked to some of the most rapacious regimes extant, including those of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in addition to a number of Russian, Kazakh and other oligarchs.
First off, one might remark that “succor” means “to provide assistance and support in times of hardship and distress”, not “suck up to”, something that both Mr. Martin and the Times might be expected to be aware of, but, well, whatever. More substantially, it might be noted that the “Trump Organization” is a for profit (and how) organization which stands to garner literally billions from its numerous activities, while the Clinton Foundation was/is a nonprofit. Also, one might point out that neither Bill nor Hillary was president when the Foundation was functioning, so, again, Mr. Michel’s “they did it too” pitch is scarcely on point. In fact, it could scarcely be more off point.
As part of his assault on the Clinton Foundation, Mr. Michel quotes Sarah Chayes, author of the well-received study, On Corruption in America: And What Is at Stake, as saying that the Clinton Foundation was hardly an anodyne nonprofit but instead resembled “the U.S. versions of the ‘charities’ run by corrupt ruling families from Honduras to Uzbekistan.”
Now, Sarah Chayes has, hands down, a c.v. to die for. Unlike Sarah, I do not have two degrees from Harvard, nor do I speak Pashto (“an eastern Iranian language in the Indo-European language family, natively spoken in northwestern Pakistan and southern and eastern Afghanistan”), French, and Arabic in addition to English. But, well, so what?
First of all, On Corruption in America: And What Is at Stake is a “funny” book. It begins with King Midas (literally), back in 650 BC, doesn’t reach the 1980s until page 95, doesn’t “officially” reach the 1990s until page 258 and concludes on page 306. Furthermore, the comment by Chayes that Martin quotes is simple nonsense. The Clinton Foundation bears no resemblance to the “the ‘charities’ run by corrupt ruling families from Honduras to Uzbekistan.” Those charities are immune to any meaningful oversight because, first of all, they are subject to no reporting requirements at all (the very idea is laughable), much less investigations for criminal fraud.
The Clinton Foundation, on the other hand, operated for its first eight years under the Bush administration, which counted among its members many right-wingers who loathed the Clintons and all they stood for. The federal judiciary was stacked with any number of Clinton haters who had made life as miserable as possible for the Clintons for the eight years they were in the White House. (It was Bill Clinton, not Donald Trump, who suffered from “lawfare”.) Republicans controlled the U.S. Congress for six of the eight years of the Obama administration and they investigated Mrs. Clinton every way they could. Most striking of all, Wikipedia tells us that in October 2016 the Wall Street Journal “reported that the FBI had started investigating the Clinton Foundation for possible criminal misconduct” (October surprise, anyone?)
But that, of course, was only the beginning. Once the Trump Administration was in power, the “real” investigations began, urged on by who else, President Trump himself, who tweeted “Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary and the Dems”. (Hey, no pressure.) Sadly, despite the “best efforts” of the despicably corrupt William Barr, the most dishonest U.S. Attorney General since John Mitchell, on January 9, 2020, the Washington Post headlined “Justice Dept. winds down Clinton-related inquiry once championed by Trump. It found nothing of consequence.”. Barr, a blindly right-wing Catholic who surely regarded Hillary as literal Hellspawn, didn’t even issue a subpoena to Mrs. Clinton, much less an indictment.
I am baffled by Chayes’ comment on the Clinton Foundation, which strikes me as nothing more than a deliberate lie. Few public figures have had the “gift” of antagonizing others that seems to come so naturally to the Clintons, and I can only guess that, one way or another, Bill and Hillary incurred Sarah’s wrath. But if there is a “grounding” for her statement other than mere malice, I can’t find it.
Okay, I got sort of far afield pissing (if that is the right word) on the distinguished Ms. Chayes, so let me return to Casey Michel, who is, after all, the chief offender here. You see, I did a little “checking” on Mr. Michel, who, it turns out, is a former adjunct fellow with the Hudson Institute’s Kleptocracy Initiative. Now, the Hudson Institute has itself an “interesting” history. Founded back in 1961 by Cold War four-dimensional chess player Herman Kahn, the Institute seems to have drifted a bit from the hyper-rational tone set by Dr. Kahn, giving birth, in 1990, to the Discovery Institute, “famous” for insisting that evolutionary theory was, you know, just one dude’s opinion, man, and that schools should “teach the controversy” rather than treating Darwin’s rap as, you know, gospel. In 2004, the Institute moved from Indianapolis, Indiana to Washington, DC, locating only a few blocks from the White House in its own building, designed by the prestigious FOX Architects firm. (Fancy architecture is very much a thing among high-end think tanks in DC. Apparently, it helps you think.)
In 2012, Sarah May Stern became chair of the Institute’s board of trustees, replacing her father. Stern is also a trustee of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a “front organization” of sorts set up the American Israel Political Action Committee to give its propaganda analysis a less obviously pro-Israel image. So is Mr. Michel trying to “normalize” Trump, the man who, you know, tried to overthrow our system of government, as a “plot” to assist Israel? Dunno, but I also dunno why the New York Times gives its imprimatur to such devious nonsense. Because Mr. Michel is not giving us his “opinion” here. Rather, he is telling us what he hopes will deceive us into believing that Donald Trump, that soulless monster of greed and hate, is “no different” than his predecessors, instead of what he truly is, the destroyer of what future generations will think of as the “First Republic” of the United States of America. Why does the Times think of this malignant deceit as “journalism”? Good question!
Afterwords
I have written extensively on the decline and fall of American democracy. To learn more, try such posts as How the Federalist Society Destroyed the U. S. Constitution and The Republicans: WTF Happened to this Party? Part II Part 2: Matthew Continetti and The Right.
