Trump Is A National Security Threat

On September 14th, when Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek reported on the Trump Organization's extensive business interests in regions around the world, and the potential conflicts of interests between the Trump Organization and the United States, few other news outlets seemed to care. There was little beyond some thin coverage on MSNBC, mainly in the form of a pre-publication "scoop" of the article's contents. Major papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post did not carry the story. This should have been major news: the Trump Organization's business interests extend well beyond its problematic ties with Russia (itself disturbing in light of Trump's statements and proposed policies; more below) into zones that are political hotbeds and, as a result, Trump and his family would have a personal, financial stake in the outcome of virtually every foreign policy decision that he would make as president, including decisions affecting our national security.
Trump's conflicts of interest are an unprecedented and extraordinary issue, and raise fundamental questions about whether he would, or even could, make decisions that are in the best interests of the United States, rather than in the best interests of himself. These conflicts also raise questions about whether he is even capable of recognizing that his own personal business interests are not necessarily aligned with the broader interests of the United States. That these questions need to be raised at all would (like so many other issues involving Trump) either sink a regular candidate, or, at a minimum, result in wall-to-wall press coverage, increased scrutiny, and overwhelming pressure on the candidate for explanations and transparency, including the release of his tax returns.

Yet this has not happened.

I've previously suggested that the Trump birther press conference held two days after the Newsweek article came out was a tactic to shift the narrative from the question of his conflicts of interest (i.e., where his loyalties lie) to the familiar territory of racism and dominance politics (classic Trump). But since few pundits even carried the Newsweek story, maybe I was wrong. What the networks and newspapers were focused on just before the birther nonsense was the increasing revelations about Trump's abuse of the Trump Foundation for personal gain. This is a genuine, bona fide scandal that merits the substantial news coverage it is finally receiving and further inquiry. But while the misconduct in which the Trump Foundation is mired stands on its own, the deeper significance of Trump's abuse of the Trump Foundation is what that misconduct says about his likely approach to governance.
It's therefore critical to consider the Trump Foundation abuses together with the Trump Organization's conflicts of interest, as well as the campaign's responses to the reporting on these issues, and the GOP's response as well. The reason I say this is that, taken together, they reveal more about what we can likely expect from Donald Trump's approach to potential governance than any statements he has actually made about a specific goal or "policy" -- and they further reveal how the party he now heads would respond to the near-certain abuses and ethical if not legal breaches that a Trump presidency would bring. And what looking at all of these together reveals is -- this will shock you --that Trump is even more unfit for the presidency than his temperament, ignorance, cruelty, bigotry, and narcissism already indicate. Trump appears to be constitutionally incapable or willing to either to recognize, or act within, ethical boundaries, just as he seems also to be constitutionally incapable of or willing to tell the truth.

A lifetime of apparent lying, self-dealing, cheating, and fraud is more than force of habit; it's just that, a way of life, and there is no evidence from which one can conclude that he has the capacity or the desire to make a change at the age of 70 years. To the contrary, the serial lies, denials, non-disclosures, and deflections that the campaign deploys in the face of scrutiny tell you that the lying, cheating, defrauding, and self-dealing that have defined his life will continue if he is elected.

These traits make Trump not merely morally repugnant and unfit for office; they make him a profoundly disturbing and dangerous threat to our national security. And the fact that most of the Republican leadership, from Mitch McConnell to Reince Priebus to Paul Ryan to John McCain to Ted Cruz to Marco Rubio, does not discuss or acknowledge this threat tells you all you need to know about the likelihood that the GOP will be willing or able to hold Trump to account if he is elected. Do not expect a Republican-controlled Congress to rein in this man's conflicts and abuses, when they will not even acknowledge that those conflicts and abuses exist.

The Trump Foundation Looks Like a Scam

So let's take a look at the Trump Foundation, and what it reveals about Trump. The Washington Post has reported that Trump hasn't personally contributed to the Trump Foundation (which is public charity, not "foundation" per se), since 2009, but instead has repackaged donations from others to make himself look like a philanthropist without actually contributing his own money. We also know that Trump used the Trump Foundation to make a political donation to Florida attorney general Pam Bondi while she was considering whether to open an investigation into Florida residents' allegations of fraud against Trump University, and that she declined to investigate Trump after receiving the $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation. We know this because the Washington Post broke the story that the Trump Foundation had paid the IRS a penalty for using Trump Foundation funds to make that political contribution. We know that Bondi and Trump have given conflicting public statements about the issue. We know that NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has opened an investigation into the Trump Foundation and that the issue of whether Trump bribed Bondi is a real question that is also being investigated. And last week it was revealed, again by the Washington Post, that Trump used over $250,000 of Trump Foundation funds to settle Trump's personal legal disputes and engaged in other acts of self-dealing.

These all seem like pretty clear-cut cases of self-dealing/tax fraud. Other than the possible Bondi bribe, I'm not sure that this conduct is criminal, though it is certainly not lawful -- after all, all that happened after the Trump Foundation used charitable funds to make a contribution to Bondi was that it paid a fine, and everything I've read about the potential consequences of self-dealing and misuse of charitable funds for personal benefit points to the payment of penalties and (maybe) the shut-down of the foundation, but not criminal charges.
What matters here is not so much whether the conduct carries criminal versus civil penalties, but the fact that Trump has engaged in illegal conduct through his foundation and doesn't even seem to get or care that he did. Indeed, the Trump foundation adviser Lynne Patton's purported defense of Trump's naked self-dealing is shocking: she said that the money is "his" and therefore whatever he does with it is okay. This is both untrue and most certainly not okay: first, the money is not "his" (he's donated nothing since 2009, so the funds used come from others); second, the funds, once donated for charitable purposes, are not taxed; third, even if he had donated funds in the last six years, once donated, the funds belong to the foundation; fourth, foundation funds cannot be used for campaign contributions; fifth, foundation funds cannot be used for the personal benefit of those who run it. So this is just an absurd response, which reveals either flagrant ignorance of or disregard for legal constraints. Neither is okay and either is shocking coming from a presidential candidate. When you accompany this conduct with the use of Trump Foundation funds to disguise a political contribution to a sitting AG who has a Trump-related investigation in front of her her desk, it looks very bad indeed. And when you further combine this with the fact that Trump's claims of having given millions to charity were outright lies -- WaPo found evidence of only $10,000 in giving over seven years -- and that he will not even make good on public promises to give until he is publicly exposed as a liar or sued, then it starts to look more and more like the Trump Foundation is not a vehicle for charitable contribution by Trump but instead a tax-avoidance, Trump-branding, self-dealing scam.
And to the extent Trump himself engages in charity at all, as he claims, the reporting on the Trump Foundation indicates not only that that charity is done with other people's money, but that (i) Trump has grossly exaggerated the amounts; (ii) Trump makes these claims for his own personal benefit; and (iii) Trump's supposed gift-giving both starts and finishes with whether or not the spotlight/publicity is trained on Trump. Meanwhile, when reporters uncover the gap between his bragging and his deeds, Trump repeats the exaggerated claims and attacks Clinton. In other words, investigative reporting yields neither explanation nor apology from Trump, but instead, denial and deflection.

The broader questions raised by Trump's illegal and duplicitous conduct, as well as by his and advisers' apparent indifference to the misconduct, seem to be lost on his supporters. Maybe it's not surprising that they don't understand, or don't care, that it is not okay for Trump to use Trump Foundation money for these purposes -- kind of in the same way Trump himself does not seem to understand or care. But if Trump does not see or care that he engaged in illegal conduct concerning the Trump Foundation, what possible basis do we have for concluding that Trump will see or care about other potentially self-dealing situations when he is in the White House?

The Trump Organization's Business Interests Raise Major Conflicts of Interest With the U.S.

This brings me to the Trump Organization. The reporting to date indicates that potentially self-dealing situations will abound in a Trump White House based on his extensive business interests -- or desire to expand his business interests. Some of that reporting involves some speculation, because Trump has refused to disclose either his and the Trump Organization's tax returns, or any other information indicating the nature and scope of his business interests. The fact that Trump has raised a litany of false and ever-shifting rationales for his lack of transparency is a red flag of duplicity in and of itself, but here's what we do know: After Trump's pro-Russia policy preferences, encouragement of Russian hacking of Clinton's emails, lavish praise for Putin, and employment of multiple advisers with financial interests with Russians raised eyebrows and gave rise to widespread concern as to whether he is a Manchurian candidate or an unwitting agent of Putin or his stooge, the Trump campaign claimed that Trump does not have business interests in or ties to Russia. Investigative reporting by Kurt Eichenwald, ABC News, the Washington Post and others reveals that Trump's claims that he does not have business interests in Russia is a lie. We knew this anyway given that Trump's son Donald Jr. gave an interview in 2008 discussing the family's extensive business ties to Russia ("we see a lot of money pouring in from the Russians").

Trump's lie about his lack of Russian business interests should be a "danger Will Robinson" moment for the country, including for the entire GOP. This is lying on steroids, a lie that could endanger the country. It is a lie that displays Trump's potential for a treasonous willingness to pretend no conflicts of interests exist when they do, thereby precluding the American public, Congress, and career foreign policymakers and advisers from learning about, assessing, and dealing with those conflicts of interest for the good of the United States. Embedded in that lie, moreover, is the potential for Trump to appease Russia's interests or worse, all for the benefit of Trump's financial interests, at the potential expense of our country's.

Now, it could be that Trump believes that we need better relations with Russia, including the easing of sanctions; indeed, I know several Russian-language experts with business ties to Russia who feel the same way. And that is a perfectly legitimate view to hold. But what is not legitimate is for a presidential candidate to lie to the American public about whether he stands to gain millions of dollars from improved relations with Russia, and to refuse to provide the public, national security experts, and our allies with the information necessary to enable us all to consider whether and the extent to which Trump's foreign "policy" will be shaped by his own financial interests.

When you look at Trump's advisers -- the now-gone Paul Manafort, with his shady ties to pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians, and the mysterious Carter Page, who may or may not have actual ties to Russia and with whom, the campaign said today, it has cut ties --as well as the change to the GOP platform on the Ukraine, his oft-repeated, vocal hero-worship of Putin, his suggestion that as president he might not adhere to U.S. obligations under NATO to provide support in the face of Russian aggression, his apparent support for Russia's annexation of Crimea, and his invitation to Russian hackers to interfere in the election by hacking and publishing Clinton's emails), a deeply, deeply, deeply disturbing picture emerges of a man who does not seem to put the interests of the United States first.

And when you combine that picture with the reporting that confirms Trump Jr.s prior statements about the Trump Organization's business interests in Russia, the fact that Trump lied that he has no business interests in Russia is shocking and must be spotlighted and put under a microscope -- because, frankly, this is nuts. Why is Trump lying that he has no business ties to Russia when he does? Is it because he wants to preserve and enhance those interests while president, without disclosing them? Every single thing we know about the man suggests he will use the White House for personal gain first, and only secondarily, if at all, for good of the country. He has made money on his campaign, including off the U.S. taxpayer through the Secret Service's reimbursements to his campaign; he used his disgraceful birther press conference as an ad for his hotel in D.C; his campaign has paid to use his hotels and more, which means the contributions of his supporters are lining his pockets.

But that's child's play compared to the ways in which he and his family stand to gain and enrich themselves if he is elected -- not just through business ties to Russia, but in countries throughout the world, because his money is built off of his brand-name, a brand that will be enhanced exponentially if he becomes the president. And that gain will come at the expense of our national security. As Eichenwald elaborated in a follow-up article on September 16, 2014:

"The Trump Organization sells two things: the Trump name and, until he began his national campaign, the reality television show The Apprentice, for which Trump was host and executive producer. The global conflicts that could undermine national security are in Trump's branding business. He has many overseas partners with undisclosed ties to factions within their governments, a troubling number of them are criminals or under indictment. All of them are paying, have paid or are about to start paying millions of dollars to the Trump Organization for the privilege of putting his name on their buildings.

"So, if Trump gets into the White House, the president of the United States will be in a business deal with an Azerbaijani billionaire whose father is a prominent government official identified by American intelligence as a money launderer for the Iranian military. The Trump Organization's partners in India would place America's crucial but shaky alliance with Pakistan at risk. Relations between Trump and Turkey's government are deteriorating in part because of his business connections there, and that country's president has told people close to him that he will not allow a Trump-led America to use a military base that has been a critical staging area for the bombing campaign in Syria against the Islamic State group, known as ISIS. In other words, all these entanglements would imperil the national security of the United States."

While Eichenwald's reporting tells part of the story, no one knows the full extent of Trump's financial interests, and thus his potential conflicts of interest, and the risks they pose to the U.S., because he refuses to release his tax returns or other information. And on top of this nondisclosure, we have the spectacle of the Trump campaign's flat-out denials of any business ties to Russia, and, by extension therefore, of any conflicts of interest arising out of those ties (since the supposedly do not exist). We could not rely on any nominee's mere word about such potential conflicts -- but with Trump in particular, there is no basis for his "word." Politico's most recent review demonstrates that in the last week Trump told a lie once every three minutes and fifteen seconds, and the New York Times found he told 31 major lies over a 6 day period, often repeatedly. There have been multiple other fact-checking organizations demonstrating that Trump lies about 80% of the time. Accordingly, the probability that he is lying in any given statement he makes -- including about the existence and extent of his potential conflicts of interest -- is exceptionally high.

Trump's pathological lying constitutes its own form of national security threat. How can we be secure when Congress, the cabinet, our allies, and we ourselves cannot rely on the word of the President, and indeed, we will need to assume that he is lying whenever he speaks, and fact-check his every word? How will allies and enemies alike respond to a man whom they know they cannot trust to honor our treaties, or even our less formal agreements?

And what's almost impossible to get your head around here is that in addition to actively preventing anyone but the most dogged reporters from even beginning to piece together his conflicts of interests, Trump simultaneously simply blithely says there is no issue because if elected, he will put his business in a "blind trust" run by his kids, -- "trust me," it will be okay. First, a trust administering the business that you and your kids own, by those very kids, is not a blind trust. A blind trust is administered by an independent trustee. So if his kids run it, all the same conflicts will remain. Second, even if such a trust were independently administered, Trump will still know what is in the trust, and, because its beneficiary will be himself and/or his family, the same conflicts of interest will remain. Third, the trust cannot solve the national security conflicts, as Eichenwald demonstrates, because the arise from the nature of the Trump Organization's branding business, and its relationships in foreign countries -- which will not go away merely because that business is administered by a trustee. The national security threats posed by a Trump presidency are therefore profound. When Trump says he wants to ease sanctions on Russia, do you really think there is any basis for that viewpoint other than his own business interests with the country? Even if he is informed of the likely political and international ramifications of easing those sanctions, can we have any confidence that his business interests, in addition to shaping his views, would not take precedence over every other consideration? When Trump is asked to weigh in on policy concerning countries in the Middle East where he does business, what do you think will drive his decision-making? And his and his kids' risible answer to this -- the supposedly "blind trust" run by his business partner children -- demonstrates (i) a lack of understanding of the depth and nature of those conflicts, or (ii) an indifference to adequately addressing those conflicts, or (iii) worst of all, a concerted effort to maintain those conflicts while pretending to address them.
I don't know which of these three options is the basis for Trump's blind trust suggestion, but I do know that his refusal to release his tax returns, his failure to pledge not to be beneficiary of any such trust, and his failure to offer any mechanism for verifying his business holdings and potential conflicts of interests all point toward the third one. Our choices -- that Trump cannot properly address these conflicts of interest because he either does not see them, or does not understand them, or will not disclose them -- are unacceptable. We must not accept them. How can we have a commander in chief who fails to understand a conflict when he sees one, or, when he does, who lies about it to protect his own financial interests? How can we feel any comfort or confidence in the Republican Party, which is willing to look the other way when their nominee's potential conflicts could endanger the country, placing their desire to win the presidency over the security of the United States itself?

If Trump is elected, all available evidence suggests that he will use the office as a method to further line his own pockets without regard to the geopolitical or national security interests of the United States, and that his party will do nothing to try to stop him. Indeed, I haven't been able to find anyone of note in the GOP going on record to acknowledge, much less express a plan for addressing, Trump's conflicts of interest or his pathological lies. And that should both disgust us and make us all very afraid. I can tell you that, like so much else about Trump and the party that serves increasingly as his lapdog, it disgusts and terrifies me.