"Like a MAGA-themed Cheers"
October 12, 2020 5:22 AM Subscribe
The Swamp that Trump Built A businessman-president transplanted favor-seeking in Washington to his family's hotels and resorts--and earned millions as a gatekeeper to his own administration (the latest in an ongoing NYT investigation) (previously)
...we will find out that Trump helped facilaitate a huge Russian money laundering scheme.
And the thing about a scheme that's so big is that it implicates a lot of people: bankers, real estate agents, lawyers, even some people in oversight roles... You know, "decent people" -- and who could possibly think that those good people, who we know from the country club, could possibly break the law??
It's like Too Big To Fail a dozen years ago, only now it's more like Too Respectable To Fail. Or, honestly, Too White & Rich To Fail.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:04 AM on October 12, 2020 [15 favorites]
And the thing about a scheme that's so big is that it implicates a lot of people: bankers, real estate agents, lawyers, even some people in oversight roles... You know, "decent people" -- and who could possibly think that those good people, who we know from the country club, could possibly break the law??
It's like Too Big To Fail a dozen years ago, only now it's more like Too Respectable To Fail. Or, honestly, Too White & Rich To Fail.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:04 AM on October 12, 2020 [15 favorites]
Too Despicable to Fail
posted by boogieboy at 9:09 AM on October 12, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by boogieboy at 9:09 AM on October 12, 2020 [6 favorites]
...we will find out that Trump helped facilaitate a huge Russian money laundering scheme.
Y'don't say?
posted by Thorzdad at 9:24 AM on October 12, 2020 [4 favorites]
Y'don't say?
posted by Thorzdad at 9:24 AM on October 12, 2020 [4 favorites]
Real estate has long been a key asset used for money laundering. Unlike moving money to a bank, stock/hedge fund, or other regulated investment vehicle, the buyer and seller do not need to check or verify the source of funds. A foreign individual or entity can own real estate in the US, UK, Canada, and elsewhere.
When the property is mortgaged or sold, ‘clean’ money is created. If there’s a loss, it still is much cheaper than other forms of money laundering where the cost may be up to 40%. The article linked by @Thorzdad is one report on this ongoing scheme which dates at least from the casino days.
posted by sudogeek at 9:31 AM on October 12, 2020 [7 favorites]
When the property is mortgaged or sold, ‘clean’ money is created. If there’s a loss, it still is much cheaper than other forms of money laundering where the cost may be up to 40%. The article linked by @Thorzdad is one report on this ongoing scheme which dates at least from the casino days.
posted by sudogeek at 9:31 AM on October 12, 2020 [7 favorites]
And we knew about the money laundering since before the 2016 election, too. There was a detailed article in The Atlantic, I think, that September or October.
But Democrats have never been as good at making actual dirt stick as the Republicans have with fake dirt like Benghazi or fucking emails. Democratic strategists and politicians seem not to realize that it's not enough to say something once and hope people start caring about it; you need to repeat it again and again and again, you need to make the case about why to care repeatedly using clear words, especially when you're dealing with entrenched power structures or institutional corruption. You can get people to care -- it turns out that voters don't like corruption! -- but you have to do more than just calling someone Putin's puppet during a debate.
We've failed so badly as a country at this point.
posted by Gadarene at 9:50 AM on October 12, 2020 [15 favorites]
But Democrats have never been as good at making actual dirt stick as the Republicans have with fake dirt like Benghazi or fucking emails. Democratic strategists and politicians seem not to realize that it's not enough to say something once and hope people start caring about it; you need to repeat it again and again and again, you need to make the case about why to care repeatedly using clear words, especially when you're dealing with entrenched power structures or institutional corruption. You can get people to care -- it turns out that voters don't like corruption! -- but you have to do more than just calling someone Putin's puppet during a debate.
We've failed so badly as a country at this point.
posted by Gadarene at 9:50 AM on October 12, 2020 [15 favorites]
Property is theft. You can keep your Playstation and your car, but this shit is ridiculous. I do not remember voting for capitalism?
posted by Meatbomb at 9:53 AM on October 12, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 9:53 AM on October 12, 2020 [7 favorites]
But Democrats have never been as good at making actual dirt stick as the Republicans have with fake dirt like Benghazi or fucking emails. Democratic strategists and politicians seem not to realize that it's not enough to say something once and hope people start caring about it; you need to repeat it again and again and again, you need to make the case about why to care repeatedly using clear words, especially when you're dealing with entrenched power structures or institutional corruption. You can get people to care -- it turns out that voters don't like corruption! -- but you have to do more than just calling someone Putin's puppet during a debate.
Nah, the thing is that Trump's voters believe that all politicians are corrupt and lie. So they vote for the corrupt and lying guy whose values align with theirs, which are White Men First. The people who care already vote for Democrats, which is why Hillary won the popular vote.
What will change the minds of some, not all, Trump voters is if Trump and his gang are prosecuted and sent to jail, preferably by conservative judges. People who like Trump are fearful, and they are afraid of the law. Same as with Nixon.
posted by mumimor at 9:59 AM on October 12, 2020 [13 favorites]
Nah, the thing is that Trump's voters believe that all politicians are corrupt and lie. So they vote for the corrupt and lying guy whose values align with theirs, which are White Men First. The people who care already vote for Democrats, which is why Hillary won the popular vote.
What will change the minds of some, not all, Trump voters is if Trump and his gang are prosecuted and sent to jail, preferably by conservative judges. People who like Trump are fearful, and they are afraid of the law. Same as with Nixon.
posted by mumimor at 9:59 AM on October 12, 2020 [13 favorites]
Nah, the thing is that Trump's voters believe that all politicians are corrupt and lie. So they vote for the corrupt and lying guy whose values align with theirs, which are White Men First. The people who care already vote for Democrats, which is why Hillary won the popular vote.
This isn't true, or at least is nowhere near the complete truth, but I don't want to hijack the thread. Suffice to say that if it was common knowledge on the level of Hillary's emails that Trump had spent decades laundering money for the Russian mob after they bailed him out of his business failures in Atlantic City, the 2016 election would have had a different result. I am absolutely positive of that.
The idea of a 2 percent wealth tax has majority support among Republicans. People don't like cheaters. They don't like rich people getting away with crime because they're rich, or otherwise not paying their fair share. Many Trump voters would still have voted Trump, but some would not, and I promise you that voter turnout overall would have been higher so that the guy who was demonstrably in the pocket of the Russian mob couldn't get anywhere near the Oval Office. If it had been common knowledge at the time the way those fucking emails were.
posted by Gadarene at 10:37 AM on October 12, 2020 [5 favorites]
This isn't true, or at least is nowhere near the complete truth, but I don't want to hijack the thread. Suffice to say that if it was common knowledge on the level of Hillary's emails that Trump had spent decades laundering money for the Russian mob after they bailed him out of his business failures in Atlantic City, the 2016 election would have had a different result. I am absolutely positive of that.
The idea of a 2 percent wealth tax has majority support among Republicans. People don't like cheaters. They don't like rich people getting away with crime because they're rich, or otherwise not paying their fair share. Many Trump voters would still have voted Trump, but some would not, and I promise you that voter turnout overall would have been higher so that the guy who was demonstrably in the pocket of the Russian mob couldn't get anywhere near the Oval Office. If it had been common knowledge at the time the way those fucking emails were.
posted by Gadarene at 10:37 AM on October 12, 2020 [5 favorites]
it's not enough to say something once and hope people start caring about it; you need to repeat it again and again and again, you need to make the case about why to care repeatedly using clear words
The British Labour Party strategist Peter Mandelson had a nice phrase for this constant-but-necessary repetition. He called it "Punching the bruise".
posted by Paul Slade at 10:58 AM on October 12, 2020 [11 favorites]
The British Labour Party strategist Peter Mandelson had a nice phrase for this constant-but-necessary repetition. He called it "Punching the bruise".
posted by Paul Slade at 10:58 AM on October 12, 2020 [11 favorites]
What will change the minds of some, not all, Trump voters is if Trump and his gang are prosecuted and sent to jail, preferably by conservative judges.
Sadly, no. The conservative judges will be denounced as RINOs, and the prosecution as an obvious political stunt to persecute a real american. His voters are in for life, I'm afraid. At least until someone worst than Trump comes along and catches their eye, or Trump himself hands the keys of the empire over to his daughter or son-in-law.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:03 AM on October 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
Sadly, no. The conservative judges will be denounced as RINOs, and the prosecution as an obvious political stunt to persecute a real american. His voters are in for life, I'm afraid. At least until someone worst than Trump comes along and catches their eye, or Trump himself hands the keys of the empire over to his daughter or son-in-law.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:03 AM on October 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
It's like Too Big To Fail a dozen years ago, only now it's more like Too Respectable To Fail. Or, honestly, Too White & Rich To Fail.
Yes. And we see this in journalism, too. Last week I saw some journo-pundit complain about how we "literally don't have the words" to describe what's happening in this country, and like... we do. We absolutely have those words (which also makes his "literally" an additional crime). We use those words to describe events in other countries all the time.
Too many journalists are too attached to whiteness and American exceptionalism to use those words to describe America. Their paralysis is embarrassing and dangerous.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:35 AM on October 12, 2020 [28 favorites]
Yes. And we see this in journalism, too. Last week I saw some journo-pundit complain about how we "literally don't have the words" to describe what's happening in this country, and like... we do. We absolutely have those words (which also makes his "literally" an additional crime). We use those words to describe events in other countries all the time.
Too many journalists are too attached to whiteness and American exceptionalism to use those words to describe America. Their paralysis is embarrassing and dangerous.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:35 AM on October 12, 2020 [28 favorites]
Suffice to say that if it was common knowledge on the level of Hillary's emails that Trump had spent decades laundering money for the Russian mob after they bailed him out of his business failures in Atlantic City, the 2016 election would have had a different result. I am absolutely positive of that.
I'm so old that I remember that it was common knowledge. Or at least as much common knowledge as the emails "scandal". Americans were looking at two candidates that in their view were flawed, and most of them chose Hillary Clinton because she is competent, and one of the most honest politicians ever. But a very small group of voters in a few swing states chose differently because they were angry and hoped disruption would mean real change, after seeing how the Obama administration didn't change their circumstances much. If you were on Medicare or Medicaid, Obamacare didn't make much of a difference for you personally. If you were in a dying industry, like mining, the Obama administration didn't do enough.
A lot of the people I talked with back in 2016 simultaneously thought that Trump would disrupt politics positively and that the establishment would control his worst impulses and corruption. I know this was and is stupid and irrational, but that was what I heard again and again. To be fair, I think there was a closed mindset in politics which I call McKinseyism, where many politicians seemed to think there was a limit to politics, and that neoliberal economics were a natural law, like gravity. Trump has changed that, for the worse. But his regime of corruption and greed has made it clear that change can happen, thus paving the way for the 2018 election.
posted by mumimor at 12:04 PM on October 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm so old that I remember that it was common knowledge. Or at least as much common knowledge as the emails "scandal". Americans were looking at two candidates that in their view were flawed, and most of them chose Hillary Clinton because she is competent, and one of the most honest politicians ever. But a very small group of voters in a few swing states chose differently because they were angry and hoped disruption would mean real change, after seeing how the Obama administration didn't change their circumstances much. If you were on Medicare or Medicaid, Obamacare didn't make much of a difference for you personally. If you were in a dying industry, like mining, the Obama administration didn't do enough.
A lot of the people I talked with back in 2016 simultaneously thought that Trump would disrupt politics positively and that the establishment would control his worst impulses and corruption. I know this was and is stupid and irrational, but that was what I heard again and again. To be fair, I think there was a closed mindset in politics which I call McKinseyism, where many politicians seemed to think there was a limit to politics, and that neoliberal economics were a natural law, like gravity. Trump has changed that, for the worse. But his regime of corruption and greed has made it clear that change can happen, thus paving the way for the 2018 election.
posted by mumimor at 12:04 PM on October 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm so old that I remember that it was common knowledge. Or at least as much common knowledge as the emails "scandal".
This is, empirically, wildly untrue.
I can go find those word clouds if needed, where "EMAILS" dominates every single other word associated with either candidate by a large factor, and where corruption barely makes anyone's radar for Trump, let alone money laundering.
Here you go.
posted by Gadarene at 12:12 PM on October 12, 2020 [6 favorites]
This is, empirically, wildly untrue.
I can go find those word clouds if needed, where "EMAILS" dominates every single other word associated with either candidate by a large factor, and where corruption barely makes anyone's radar for Trump, let alone money laundering.
Here you go.
posted by Gadarene at 12:12 PM on October 12, 2020 [6 favorites]
Is Vegas giving odds that Trump will ever face any meaningful prosecution?
posted by gottabefunky at 12:17 PM on October 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 12:17 PM on October 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
National leaders are more often banished to places like an island off the coast of Italy, Switzerland or a golf course in Florida.
posted by sammyo at 12:39 PM on October 12, 2020
posted by sammyo at 12:39 PM on October 12, 2020
...er island off the coast of California.
posted by sammyo at 12:40 PM on October 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 12:40 PM on October 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'm so old that I remember that it was common knowledge. Or at least as much common knowledge as the emails "scandal". Americans were looking at two candidates that in their view were flawed, and most of them chose Hillary Clinton because she is competent, and one of the most honest politicians ever. But a very small group of voters in a few swing states chose differently because they were angry and hoped disruption would mean real change, after seeing how the Obama administration didn't change their circumstances much.This is very different from what I saw at the time: if you followed politics closely — and not on the Fox-or-worse side — you probably heard about it but it was a couple of articles over a year or two, with plenty of “we don't have anything definitive” hedges because it was never investigated and most of the details were private. In contrast, you couldn't leave the house without hearing about Hillary's emails, Benghazi, or whatever the “Clinton Cash” guys were yammering about since even non-partisan media outlets like CNN felt the need to cover each round of Republican allegations as if they were made in good faith and required extensive public airing to be fair. That was what was on the front page of newspapers, playing on the chyron of TVs in waiting rooms, restaurants, and bars around the country, etc. week after week despite a lack of any significant new developments.
This plays into the other detail I'd question: Trump definitely attracted some “burn it all down” voters but he also had a lot of voters who really liked the racism but wouldn't directly say that in public. Talking about the economy is a time-honored alternative explanation and in this case it was reinforced by a long period of news coverage ranging from skewed to completely fake which was designed to make people assume the economy was worse than the numbers showed or that the cause was Democratic policies.
posted by adamsc at 12:51 PM on October 12, 2020 [2 favorites]
What I recall from mid- to late-2016 was lots about the Access Hollywood tape and the candidate's sleazy approaches to women, but the Russian connections and bad business-deal details didn't really surface until after the election.
posted by Rash at 1:14 PM on October 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Rash at 1:14 PM on October 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
The Republicans have a major national media wing, encompassing Fox News -- whose management literally distributes memos of what information must be reinforced or minimized each day -- as well as many smaller (but still significantly well-funded) venues. There are large swathes of the US where the only print or broadcast news is explicitly partisan-Republican and owned by entities that are overtly partisan-Republican.
The Democrats have fuckall. There are no major national media that provide them similar unconditional support.
If the broader US populace had never heard of Trump's collusion with Russia before the 2016 election, it is the result of collusion between a few media owners and the Republican party that has been ongoing since the Reagan administration.
posted by at by at 1:29 PM on October 12, 2020 [11 favorites]
The Democrats have fuckall. There are no major national media that provide them similar unconditional support.
If the broader US populace had never heard of Trump's collusion with Russia before the 2016 election, it is the result of collusion between a few media owners and the Republican party that has been ongoing since the Reagan administration.
posted by at by at 1:29 PM on October 12, 2020 [11 favorites]
Obviously if one only watched Fox channels, one would get a skewed impression, but that was the same during the Obama administration. And I agree that the mainstream media did far too much both-siding. The emails were not equivalent to the Russian intervention, at all, but it was to some extent presented that way. To some extent. Because most Americans could easily see the difference and voted accordingly. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
The Steele Dossier on Trump's collusion with Russia was originally Republican opposition research, though the most serious allegations weren't made until after Trump had won the Republican nomination. It's true that the media didn't report fully on the dossier until after Trump was elected, but 200 American media outlets endorsed Clinton, an unprecedented unity of opinion. My interpretation is that they didn't find it necessary to expose Trump because he was such an idiotic candidate. Trump's impression was that the media was on Clinton's side. But the media simply couldn't handle the challenge of Trumpism. (And yes, part of that was that they were greedy, but another part was that they couldn't imagine something that stupid could happen).
This comment by Jack Shafer, from a few days before the 2016 election is surprisingly accurate.
posted by mumimor at 1:42 PM on October 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
The Steele Dossier on Trump's collusion with Russia was originally Republican opposition research, though the most serious allegations weren't made until after Trump had won the Republican nomination. It's true that the media didn't report fully on the dossier until after Trump was elected, but 200 American media outlets endorsed Clinton, an unprecedented unity of opinion. My interpretation is that they didn't find it necessary to expose Trump because he was such an idiotic candidate. Trump's impression was that the media was on Clinton's side. But the media simply couldn't handle the challenge of Trumpism. (And yes, part of that was that they were greedy, but another part was that they couldn't imagine something that stupid could happen).
This comment by Jack Shafer, from a few days before the 2016 election is surprisingly accurate.
posted by mumimor at 1:42 PM on October 12, 2020 [1 favorite]
The Democrats have fuckall. There are no major national media that provide them similar unconditional support.
This is a good thing! The point is not to have a Fox on the left, it's to destroy the Fox News ethos, perhaps including the Fox Broadcasting Company itself.
posted by rhizome at 2:03 PM on October 12, 2020 [6 favorites]
This is a good thing! The point is not to have a Fox on the left, it's to destroy the Fox News ethos, perhaps including the Fox Broadcasting Company itself.
posted by rhizome at 2:03 PM on October 12, 2020 [6 favorites]
Because most Americans could easily see the difference and voted accordingly. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
65 mil to 63 mil, with 100 mil not voting? I mean, maybe most American could see the difference... but the margins were pretty fucking thin.
Democrats have never been as good at making actual dirt stick as the Republicans have with fake dirt like Benghazi or fucking emails.
the thing is that Trump's voters believe that all politicians are corrupt and lie. So they vote for the corrupt and lying guy whose values align with theirs, which are White Men First.
Congrats, you're both right!
posted by Saxon Kane at 2:29 PM on October 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
65 mil to 63 mil, with 100 mil not voting? I mean, maybe most American could see the difference... but the margins were pretty fucking thin.
Democrats have never been as good at making actual dirt stick as the Republicans have with fake dirt like Benghazi or fucking emails.
the thing is that Trump's voters believe that all politicians are corrupt and lie. So they vote for the corrupt and lying guy whose values align with theirs, which are White Men First.
Congrats, you're both right!
posted by Saxon Kane at 2:29 PM on October 12, 2020 [3 favorites]
This comment by Jack Shafer, from a few days before the 2016 election is surprisingly accurate.
@muminor That was good. He even picked out Kanye as a celebrity candidate. I mean I hate it and all, but he was right on the money.
posted by Cris E at 2:29 PM on October 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
@muminor That was good. He even picked out Kanye as a celebrity candidate. I mean I hate it and all, but he was right on the money.
posted by Cris E at 2:29 PM on October 15, 2020 [1 favorite]
« Older I’m obviously not. | Feline Pupils Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Russians buy Trump properties for a greatly reduced price and then sell for over market to legitimize the cash. Trump writes off the loss to save on taxes and gets a cut on the side. Or something like that.
With all the failed projects and bankrupsies there has to be illegal, or should be illegal, activities going on.
I suspect that is true of most if not all of the upper echelon though. People that get away with all sorts of things via bribery, nepotism, payoffs and fixers. People that succeed in capitalism too often because they lack empathy and the conscience that goes with empathy.
After 350 years of capitalism that has to be one of the lessons learned. Those who can most easily capitalize on other people and on resources are those who lack that internal limitation of a conscience. Leadership in capitalism is heavy occupied with sociopaths. Which, in itself, should bring the system into question.
Not saying sociopaths are inherently bad, they are generally very intelligent and often very charming. There are many good roles for them in society. Having said that, just as blind people are prohibited from driving, those weak in empathy should be prohibited from positions of dominion over others.
In the coming times, things like this, that we have learned in the social sciences, should be integrated into our societal structures, into constitutions, into laws. The truth is we are not created the same, and our society should accomidate and reflect that. I know this opens a pandora's box of discrimination. I say judging a person on the content of their character is reasonable. There has to be a natural bar that needs to be pased to enter public service or upper management that filters out those without empathy. Doctors need to go to medical school and pass. Otherwise they can not be a doctor. Same thing with public service.
At the very least we should demand leaders to be held to a higher moral standard. Trump's history of lawsuits, not paying vendors. Escaping creditors by declaring bankruptsy . . . all marks against him and should have disqualified him. If you look at the histories of most people in government you will find many a shady character. Again this, in itself, should indicate a serious flaw in the system.
posted by Airos at 8:46 AM on October 12, 2020 [23 favorites]