Friday, December 14, 2018

Innocent Explanations

"Trump Inaugural Fund and Super PAC Said to Be Scrutinized for Illegal Foreign Donations" reads the NYTimes headline. The second paragraph raises alarm bells for anyone who has paid attention to the Trump team ties to the various factions on the Saudi peninsula:

"The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations — including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds."

Makes you think about the secret meeting during the interregnum when Erik Prince just "happened" to be in the Seychelles along with Saudi and Russian operatives. And Jared Kushner's close ties to bin Salman. And the shifting sands of U.S. policy toward the Saudis and Emirates vis-a-vis Qatar. Have those two sides been in a bidding war fostered by the family Trump to obtain favorable U.S. policies? And who really bailed out the Kushner family investment in 666 Fifth Avenue?

Now we heard about the excess Trump inauguration funds a long time ago, and we know that Trump lies all the time, which we normally associate with wrongdoing and attempts to cover up, and we know about actual hush money and have for a long time. But let's tread lightly here if we are the New York Times...

As the story builds and brings in Trump's billionaire friend Tom Barrack,  we are told:

'“Tom has never talked with any foreign individual or entity for the purposes of raising money for or obtaining donations related to either the campaign, the inauguration or any such political activity,” said Owen Blicksilver, a spokesman for Mr. Barrack.'

Wait. Tom has never "talked"? Why "talked"? "Talked" refers to the spoken word. Did he text or write a foreign individual, or work through an intermediary who happens to be an American - maybe his own Michael Cohen if he has one? Sort of reminiscent of "I have no business in Russia" which avoids the answer to the question, "But does Russia have business in you?"

They sort of go there, as shown below. But there's so much more:

"Prosecutors from New York and from Mr. Mueller’s team have asked witnesses whether anyone from Qatar or other Middle Eastern countries also contributed money, perhaps using American intermediaries. Among other issues, they asked about a Mediterranean cruise that Mr. Barrack and Mr. Manafort took after Mr. Manafort was fired in August 2016 from the Trump campaign because of a scandal over his previous work for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. Mr. Manafort was in serious financial trouble at the time, and Mr. Barrack, who has an extensive business network in the Persian Gulf, may have been attempting to help him find clients."

See what the NYT reporters did there in the last sentence {bold added]? They might as well write "There may be an innocent explanation to all of this. Maybe Mr. Barrack felt sorry for poor Mr. Manafort and was only trying to find him work after he got fired from the campaign."

Note how the reporters feel free to come up with their own innocent explanations for the behavior -- going beyond claims these individuals even make on their own behalf. This is related to the NYT policy that requires extreme caution when reviewing facts, lest speculation lead to unfounded conspiracy theories. But the result is unfounded non-conspiracy theories. Despite mounds of evidence that suggests otherwise, NYT reporters are required to tack toward the innocent explanation. The big problem with that is that these reporters create doubt about guilt that does not seem justified under any interpretation of the facts. A more reasonable conclusion would be that large amounts of money has flowed to team Trump through a variety of means that includes the inauguration fund and the super PAC Rebuilding America Now  (both mentioned in the NYT article), purchased of condos by Russians, and other possible money laundering. If the NYT is reluctant to document the preponderance of the evidence that suggests massive money laundering, they would do well to avoid speculation altogether.

No comments:

Post a Comment