Skip to main content

Russiagate only gets worse: why the President-elect is a YUGE security risk

Some of this has been a matter of public record all along. Some of it comes from the Dworkin Report, which is currently on President Obama's desk. No doubt Trump supporters will summarily dismiss it because of its origins and obvious agenda. But like things you hear on Fox News, each point needs to be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not summarily dismissed because of its origin- and the report, which can be downloaded from the link in the second sentence of this paragraph, presents plenty of evidence to evaluate.

Scott Dworkin is a very partisan Democrat. That should be made clear. But the report on Donald Trump's investments in geopolitically sensitive and sometimes outright unfriendly countries- and with Russian governmental and business leaders- is chilling.

Take it with as much salt as you wish. But access the report on the basis of its evidence, not of its origins.  Or better still, simply believe Newsweek, which lays the whole problem out on one page in simple language. There's even a video.

The President-elect keeps repeating the lie that he doesn't know Russian President Vladimir Putin.We know for certain that this is a lie because he has previously bragged that he does. Dworkin says that Donald Trump has, in fact, met with Putin at least twice. Trump has also lied egregiously about the extent of business ties in Russia, Iran, Taiwan,  and Saudi Arabia.

Trump, it seems,  has actively been lobbying to expand his business interests into Russia since 1987, has established extensive connections and investments there, has repeatedly visited Moscow to confer with Russian government officials, and maintains an extensive network of Russian associates and friends which he shares with Putin. Donald Trump, Jr. once said that his father's extensive foreign investments were "disproportionately" in the former.

And he's apparently about to appoint the American who is closest to Putin as Secretary of State.

These are serious matters. It may be true, as Trump apologists point out, that Trump's debts to Russian, Chinese, and Iranian companies with close ties to the government- debts that may be in the hundreds of billions of dollars- are business loans from which Trump could escape serious trouble by simply declaring bankruptcy, as he has six times before. But they still raise a serious conflict of interest for an American president. At least 250 Trump companies could easily be used to conceal foreign payments to Trump, who has a track record of diverting funds to his personal use from his campaign, from his tax-free foundation, and- yes- from his companies. Tax records show that Trump understated his salaries from those companies by millions of dollars in his income tax returns in 1995 alone- possibly one reason why he refused to release his returns during the campaign, falsely claiming that it would somehow be improper to do so while he's being audited. This is apparently an ethical rule which Trump has imposed on himself; the practice is common, and Richard Nixon, for one, released his returns while under audit.

Trump's history of fishy finances and blurred lines between his personal income and that of his campaign, his foundation, and his businesses make his huge foreign debt- again, much of which is in Russia, China, and Iran- a serious conflict of interest and simply cannot be seen otherwise than as compromising our national security. The question is not of whether Trump has taken or will take payoffs from the Russian, Chinese, Iranian or other governments, and I don't believe for a moment that he will. The point is that if he did, his finances are arranged in such a way that there would be no way of anybody finding out!

Further, his blatant and repeated lies regarding the extent of his investments in those countries, the degree of his debt, the size of his salaries, and his ties to Putin, together with his refusal to release his income tax returns, not only muddy the waters but increase the already weighty reasons why his inauguration would be the biggest security risk in the history of the United States and possibly of the Western democracies.

We are about to inaugurate a president who would beyond a shadow of a doubt be denied even the lowest-level security clearance the American government issues if he were applying for a job as, say, a guard at a defense plant. Combine that with an ignorance of the Constitution which raises serious questions as to whether Mr. Trump could pass the test to become a U.S. citizen, and we have big trouble, folks.


Popular posts from this blog

McMullin, Kasich, Hickenlooper, Huntsman, or somebody else sane in 2020!

I don't expect to be disenfranchised in 2020. I'm looking forward to Evan McMullin running against President Trump and whatever left-wing extremist the Democrats nominate. McMullin may or may not run for the Senate next year, and he may or may not run for president as an independent again next time around, but the nation can't afford to lose its most eloquent and intelligent critic of the populist takeover of the Republican party and the Executive Branch. We need the man in public life.

But interesting alternatives have developed. Ohio Gov. John Kasich has been mentioned as a potential primary challenger for Mr. Trump. I hope somebody continues the fight for the soul of my former party, even though I believe it to be a lost cause. Entrepreneur Mark Cuban is reportedly also considering a challenge to Mr. Trump. While I tend to see him at this point as somewhere to the left of where a candidate I would feel comfortable supporting might be, I would wish him well. Still, I see…

A modest proposal for a shocking innovation which is completely within the rules but which would, if adopted, revolutionize college football

I call it defense.

The idea- crazy as it may sound- is to supplement the scoring of points by your offense with an attempt to stop the other team from scoring them. Yeah, I know.  Really "out there," isn't it? But it has a history of winning not only games but championships. Modern college teams should try it more.

I'm a bit bummed about the Rose Bowl outcome but amused by the score. It seems that certain conferences aren't sure whether they're playing college football or high school basketball! I've noticed that in the scores of Sooner games. Last season the nation's college teams set a record by scoring an average of slightly more than 30 points each per game. That's a lot. Historically, that's a REAL lot.

The final score of the Rose Bowl was 54-48, though to be fair that was in double overtime. But to get there, the teams had to be tied 45-45 at the end of regulation! Last year was even worse. Southern Cal beat Penn State 52-49- in regulat…

Reflections on the present and future of my Blackhawks

As this season from hell creeps to its close at an excruciating pace and makes all of us devote more of our attention to spring training for the Cubs than we otherwise might, there are calls for the heads of Blackhawks GM Stan Bowman and even the greatest coach in Blackhawks history, Joel Quenneville.

No general manager or coach could have made Marian Hossa and Corey Crawford healthy or prevented Toews and Keith and Saad from having the worst seasons of their careers or foreseen that a series of trades most of which made perfect sense at the time wouldn't pan out. The Hawks are one season removed from the second-best regular season in their history. This will be the first time in a decade that they haven't made the playoffs.

With the exception of the Pens, maybe the Kings and (for different reasons) the Golden Knights, every other team in the NHL would kill to have won three Stanley Cups in the past decade. In fact, only the Hawks, the Pens, the Kings, the Wings, and the Brui…