My last post lamented our nation’s four year trial with a cognitively diminished Joe Biden in the White House corruption-is-the-problem. Why did America tolerate someone in Biden’s state leading the country? Why did so many politicians and media brazenly lie to us about his condition–as if we were too stupid to comprehend the truth? Why did the Democratic Party matter more than country and the lives of millions of Americans?
This is corruption on many levels. The country was placed at great risk because no single person was truly in charge. We couldn’t rely on someone to respond to that 3AM phone call (as we were told we could during a Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign ad). Potential Trump 2024 ad: “Who do you want taking that call: Donald Trump or a cabal deciding for Joe Biden?”
Given the significance of my concern, I was surprised to be criticized for simply selecting this topic:
This whole thread seems like a distraction from reality. Biden is gone, the Republicans have majorities in both Senate and House, the Republican President is in the White House, most of the Supremes were nominated by the Republicans. Move on and don’t get hung up on the past or it will be all that is dealt with, unless there aren’t any plans except to complain and be the victim.
Apparently, we shouldn’t care now that Biden has left office, yet we were shouted down while raising the topic while he was in office. For four years, we continually heard nonsense like: “This is the best Biden ever”. So, my friend: when can our complaint be heard? Why not now given that everyone (except those trapped in the Twilight Zone, still defending Biden’s honor) has finally acknowledged the problem?
Should I counter by mentioning the passage of time since January 6, 2021? It occurred just weeks before Trump leaving office. Why bother with an impeachment at that point? Should I have said later in 2021, when Trump was out of power: “move on and don’t get hung on the past”? Yet, three years later, my critic was still asking me to account for January 6. Why disqualify my concern two months after Biden exited?
what-does-an-insurrection-look-like?.
My liberal friend sent me the shocking pictures of that day, ones he says accurately depict what should not have happened. ”For those that haven’t been to DC,” he says, “this [first picture] is what tourists look like visiting the Capitol.”
Indeed, it is a calm and orderly scene. The following pictures are very different. Tourists visiting the Capitol are not anything like these below, he asserts.
I addressed his concerns in a post. I told the story the pictures described for me, excluding none he shared. I shared my own concerns with events (apparently I am not outraged enough for my critics). I will agree it is legitimate to discuss January 6, 2021 three years later. It was even legitimate for a Congressional committee to look into the matter (although, the committee itself was illegitimate what-did-we-learn-from-the-j6-committee. )
I allow that my critics have legitimate concerns regarding January 6. Call it a watershed date in American history if you like, but was not the monumental event it was claimed to be, certainly not an insurrection, and it lasted only three hours. President Biden’s obvious dementia festered in the open for more than four years. We might have suffered Biden’s dementia even longer had he been re-elected.
If they continue to express outrage of January 6 four years later, then my outrage over a dementia patient occupying the White House four entire years is also justified. Outrage isn’t a strong enough word for me. It was also shocking, embarrassing, and demoralizing to watch our nation led by a man in his condition–and without any real scandal until June 2024. It seems a microcosm of the decline of our nation that we would tolerate this and that so many would actively support it.
We should be reminded of this travesty. The affront to logic, sanity, and national security should not be forgotten. It should be noted in the history books, right along with January 6, 2021. Learn from history or be doomed to repeat it. Let’s highlight this travesty before our short national attention span is distracted.
What About Trump?
Following my last post, I was also criticized for not highlighting corruption within the Trump Administration:
Corruption surely is a problem….however you should be talking about the corruption in the current administration.
First things first. No response was given to the original claim of the concealment of Biden’s condition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about …?”) is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.
In addition, Jake Tapper, CNN journalist, not me, suspect blogger, highlighted the concern:
He, his family, and his senior aides were so convinced that only he could beat Trump again, they lied to themselves, allies, and the public about his condition and limitations. At his debate with Trump on June 27, 2024, the consequences of that deception were exposed to the world. It was shocking and upsetting.
Tapper tacitly admits his error. My critics appear to confess as well by not addressing the indefensible. Still, it would be very nice to hear an admission, a mea culpa, from someone.
My critics also remain steadfastly committed to the old “fairness doctrine”; they permit criticism of Biden, but pivot to: I must be fair and also criticize Trump. However, I do not feel compelled to discuss topics that don’t interest me and don’t seem like actual problems.
Why pummel me for not parroting your own views? My gut response is: write your own rebuttal and outline your concerns. I did my research. Do yours. In any case, others’ criticisms still interest me, and I will focus on their concerns (knowing my exposition will never be enough and I will still be criticized for holding the “wrong” point of view or not giving full voice to their concerns. Oh well.).
Specifically, I was provided these topics to consider regarding Trump corruption:
- Trump hawking cars for a billionaire (who as a government employee should not be using his position for self profit)
- the Trump family enriching themselves. Trump is worth more now than in 2016 and his family is for sure; whether he actually donated his salary is questionable – he says he did but tax returns do not substantiate.
- convicted felons seeking pardons.
- quid pro quo as an example Eric Adams.
- Their goal seems more intent on owning the Libs than governing. Tearing down everything the Libs thought was good. Not replacing, or putting something better in its place, just destroying.
- .the list goes on and on.
I am willing to consider corruption still exists post-Biden. I have even articulated numerous prior criticisms of Trump. We hold our side accountable, unlike the bulk of Democrats who claimed Joe Biden functioned well as president, Democrats who ignored complications arising from his obvious condition (until they became indefensible).
Corruption, though, is a serious charge. Does the Trump administration deserve the corruption label? Let’s see.
Hawking Teslas
Yes, President Trump conducted a photo op with a recently purchased Tesla on the White House lawn. He also encouraged Americans to buy Tesla stock. Some claim this violates the Hatch Act which prohibits government officials from promoting private businesses for political reasons.
A lawyer can argue the technical case for corruption, but from a layman’s standpoint the case for corruption seems highly suspect. Promoting American businesses is a thing president’s often do. President Obama highlighted green energy, supporting companies like solar panel producer Solyndra (which was given large government loans just before going bankrupt). Was Obama motivated by national interests or his own political interests? Perhaps, both. His judgment was later questioned, but still it was never portrayed as a corruption scandal.
All American presidents, in fact, promote American products and companies. It is something we expect presidents to do. It makes us proud. They become the nation’s most prominent cheerleader.
What’s the criticism of President Trump and Tesla? He is not profiting directly from promoting Tesla. My critics appear to be grasping for anything to pin against Trump in these early days. Corruption is always a good play, but it doesn’t fit well.
Becoming a government contractor has not been good for Musk’s business either. His foray into politics and government contracting has earned him numerous enemies in the last year, enemies now resorting to violence as an outlet for their frustration. His company’s stock is falling because of an organized effort to target his signature company.
Who knows why Musk involved himself with DOGE or campaigned for President Trump? His claim he wants to fix problems within our government seems plausible, certainly more plausible than doing this for pecuniary gain. How exactly do his actions thus far parlay into a get-rich scheme at the expense of the taxpayers? What exactly is the grift here? Please point to the ill-gotten profits.
So, Musk’s nefarious scheme to enrich himself came to fruition when Trump bought a Tesla or two for himself and family members? He has endured a lot of trouble for such a minimal gain. That argument does stand up.
This corruption charge seems a tempest in a teapot.
Trump is Enriching Himself
My critics say President Trump enriched himself since entering politics. The bottom line, per the interesting chart to the left (https://www.voronoiapp.com/wealth/Trumps-Net-Worth-Jumps-After-Nasdaq-Listing-950), is that his personal wealth declined by $2 billion from 2016 when he was first elected until less than a year ago. That’s a starkly different trajectory than I was lead to expect.
The one caveat is that while out-of-office, Trump launched “Truth Social” . The social media company went public last March, and Trump has made a very significant profit as majority owner. Technically, this makes my critics’ charge correct, but is starting a new private business truly a suspect way for Trump to earn money? Are my critics again groping for a narrative that will stick the next four years?
Trump’s trajectory is dramatically different than Clinton’s and Obama’s; both entered the presidency with relatively little wealth:
net-worth-us-presidents-before-after-office
Clinton, the Democratic president who was in office for two terms between 1993 and 2001, started his presidency with a net worth of $1.3 million, and after leaving office, had accumulated a wealth of $120 million, according to celebritynetworth.com.
Barack Obama was the president who saw the second highest increase to his wealth coming out of office, at around 5,300 percent.
After the Democrat was in office for two terms between 2009 to 2017, he accumulated a net worth of $70 million, up from $1.3 million.
If enriching yourself after the presidency were a crime, we should examine these two presidents first. The crime (if there is one), however, is not the creation of wealth itself, but the manner it is created. There is no fruitful discussion in this line of attack against President Trump. Losing $2 billion over a period of eight years doesn’t even fit the mold. Why do my critics lead us down this path?
Convicted Felons Seeking Pardons
President Trump in the first days of his second term indeed issued pardons to 1,600 convicted for actions during January 6, 2021, including a few for felons serving extensive sentences. I previously questioned these as too broad; he could have excluded the worst offenders a-tale-of-two-pardons.
Still, the vast majority of sentences were not commensurate with their actions, like one individual prosecuted for eighteen seconds in the Capitol. President Trump also justified his actions, saying: “a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years”. In 1973, President Ford said similar words when pardoning former President Nixon. He wanted the nation move on after several years of the Watergate scandal.
Again, my critics are attempting to make a legitimate action suspect. Presidential pardons are a clearly defined power every president utilizes.
President Biden recently issued pardons for convicted felons such as Leonard Peltier who was sentenced to life in prison for killing two FBI agents and Adrian Peeler, a Connecticut drug dealer convicted of murdering a mother and her eight-year-old son.
Let’s allow there have been objections to every president’s questionable use of the pardon power. All have used it and all have been criticized for particular pardons. Why single out Trump? His actions were legal and not egregious when compared to other presidents. At least, he did not pardon any murderers.
Quid Pro Quo for Adams
NYC Mayor Eric Adams was accused of taking a quid pro quo from the Trump Administration to have bribery and fraud charges against him dropped. Adams denied such a deal existed:
“I want to be crystal clear with New Yorkers: I never offered — nor did anyone offer on my behalf — any trade of my authority as your mayor for an end to my case. Never.”
Adams also claimed the original charges were brought against him by the Biden Administration (September 2024) in retaliation for his criticism of the president’s handling of immigration policy.
white-house-eric-adams-migrant-crisis
“There’s no leadership here,” Adams told a group of Biden aides last October in the chief of staff’s office, demanding the president do more to help his city handle a massive influx of migrants.
“The White House has made the conscious decision that it’s better politics to let New York suffer than to actually try to fix the problem,” said one person close to Adams. “The city is being left to deal with this colossal problem itself.”
The Trump Administration did indeed intervene, and dismissed charges (February 2025). Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove justified the dismissal as follows:
“The pending prosecution has unduly restricted Mayor Adams’ ability to devote full attention and resources to… illegal immigration and violent crime.”
Bove also questioned the motivation for the charges to begin with: “It cannot be ignored that Mayor Adams criticized the prior Administration’s immigration policies before the charges were filed.”
This is quite a soap opera.
Where the original charges against Mayor Adams legitimate? Possibly. Several prosecutors objected to the dropping of the case and resigned because of it.
At the same time, were the charges last September politically motivated? Possibly. Adams was charged with accepting flight upgrades and airline tickets in excess of $100,000 from the Turkish government over an eight year period, yet this sort of corruption of government officials is commonplace and often overlooked. Adams was a political liability for the Biden Administration, so perhaps this all-too-frequent peccadillo was not overlooked in this instance? I truly don’t know the answer to that question, but there are multiple sides to this issue and blaming the Trump Administration alone seems like wish-casting.
Can my critics instead say Trump is rewarding a long time buddy? Probably not. Adams and Trump come from different political parties. They also do not have a chummy public relationship as this comment from last year clearly indicates:
eric-adams-donald-trump-relationship
In May, the Mayor said Rikers Island “will be ready” for Trump in the unlikely event that the former president is sent to the infamous prison for his falsifying business records conviction.
Adams also had harsh words for the president publicly during the COVID pandemic:
In May 2020, Adams slammed Trump on social media after the former Apprentice star told the New York Post he didn’t think his home state and hometown needed bailouts.
It is hard to discern the truth: who did something wrong here and who did not? Trump’s DOJ representative says this is a practical arrangement to further immigration enforcement. That’s plausible. He also references political motivations for bringing the charges in the first place. Trump also does not appear to be repaying a debt to Adams or helping his long-time buddy. I am not exonerating Trump (we don’t yet know enough of this real life soap opera); however, it seems my critics are jumping to conclusions; it seems they desperately want Trump to be the only one at fault.
Owning the Libs, not Governing
I am also told Republicans are not intent on governing, yet, at the same time, we continually hear complaints regarding Trump’s dangerous flurry of actions: an aggressive deportation policy, government re-structuring, shutting down DEI and transgender promoting policies, issuing hundreds of executive orders, targeting the Department of Education, conducting foreign policy in the Ukraine/Russia war, etc. Which is it: he is doing too much or nothing substantive? They do not approve of his actions, but Trump is clearly governing–either badly or well depending on your perspective.
Besides, “owning” your opponent is a political tactic. The most direct and common way to promote your own political interests is to disparage your opponent. Why complain when a political party engages in politics? We have witnessed this game in countless instances. I say Democrats are “owning” themselves because voters have finally grown tired of extreme policies:
democrats-record-low-favoribility
An NBC News poll found 27% of registered voters say they view the party favorably − the lowest favorability rating for Democrats in NBC polls going back to 1990.
Another poll released by CNN similarly found 29% of voters view Democrats in a positive light, a low in CNN’s polling since 1992.
The List Goes On
I am sure the complaints are endless. I am sure Trump’s critics will persist, but I didn’t see much substance in their complaints thus far. They don’t agree with his policies, so he must be attempting to destroy democracy forever. It fits nicely in their minds. I see gaps in the logic.
They seem too eager to find fault. Democrats haven’t quite settled on the narrative which defines the new Trump Administration. They latch onto pithy headlines, but won’t dig into the substance. They want to re-define him with some new label or bad intent. Perhaps they will find their new narrative soon. Perhaps they should listen to Democrat strategist James Carville who advised:
“He’s just gonna keep plowing through, but we have to learn to let him punch himself out. Then, after a while, we can come in and launch our own moves.”
Until then, I wish them luck. Keep trying, fellows. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Dave https://seek-the-truth.com/about/
https://seek-the-truth.com/category/elections/
https://seek-the-truth.com
Seek the Truth 