“President-elect Donald J. Trump is keeping secret the names of the donors who are funding his transition effort, a break from tradition that could make it impossible to see what interest groups, businesses or wealthy people are helping launch his second term.”
From the New York Times, Sunday November 24:
“Mr. Trump has so far declined to sign an agreement with the Biden administration that imposes strict limits on that fund-raising in exchange for up to $7.2 million in federal funds earmarked for the transition. By dodging the agreement, Mr. Trump can raise unlimited amounts of money from unknown donors to pay for the staff, travel and office space involved in preparing to take over the government.”
“Mr. Trump is the first president-elect to sidestep the restrictions, provoking alarm among ethics experts.”
“Those seeking to curry favor with the incoming administration now have the opportunity to donate directly to the winning candidate without their names or potential conflicts ever entering the public sphere. And unlike with campaign contributions, foreign nationals are allowed to donate to the transition.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/24/us/politics/donald-trump-2024-campaign-transition.html
The clear implication is that Trump knows he can raise more than $7.2 million in federal funds, so he can “legally” forgo making an agreement with the current Biden Administration. So, what could be wrong with getting more money for the transition (and likely, the Inaugural Balls)?
A “transactional” public official takes money from people s/he knows (but here, only “He Knows”), but the average citizen is completely in the dark about which people and what kind of money. Suppose you donate $5 million to his transition –– it’s not tax deductible, so, what are you getting for your contribution? An honorific sense of public service, personal pride for doing the public good? No, it’s much more likely you are expecting a “return on investment” for your “dark” contribution. But that return is most likely be a special favor, not something that is intended to serve the public good, and the return favor will be “dark,” too –- the public will never know what was given for what.
Even more troubling is this note: “Because the transition has also failed to sign a separate agreement with the Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been unable to conduct background checks needed to grant appointees security clearance. As a result, the transition team is reportedly using private firms to vet candidates, leaving open the possibility that federal law enforcement may never properly review Trump appointees.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/15/politics/security-clearances-fbi-gabbard-gaetz/index.html
That possibility is more like a certainty, given President Trump’s past history, which includes playing fast and loose with highly classified national security information. Keeping classified documents he was not authorized to take from the White House (much less share with unauthorized others), which were haphazardly strewn about Mar A Lago (including one bathroom) was a clear violation of federal law, even though Judge Aileen Cannon slow walked the prosecution’s case into the 2024 election season.
“The indictment charging Donald Trump with hoarding classified documents leveled one jaw-dropping allegation after another, including that he showed off a secret Pentagon attack plan to guests at his golf club and suggested his lawyer mislead the FBI about the presence of the White House records.”
“But those details proved beside the point to the Trump-appointed judge presiding over the prosecution, who dismissed the case on grounds that the special counsel who brought it was unlawfully put in the job.”
Remarkably, it has somehow become acceptable to the American public for the ex-President and incoming President Trump to keep secrets that benefit him but not the public –– who is giving all that “dark money” for the Presidential transition? –– and to be careless with secrets that compromise the national good.
Even worse, it turns out that Trump’s “first buddy,” Elon Musk, had secret conversations with Vladimir Putin.
https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/musk-putin-secret-conversations-37e1c187
WTF?
Since when did diplomacy involve un-elected, narcissistic, misogynist billionaires?
It’s hard to imagine either Trump (or Musk) playing it close to the vest with foreign leaders, especially as foreign nationals, some who seek to curry favor with Trump, are evidently free to contribute to his transition fund.
Finally, Trump’s naming of Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director of National Intelligence is a middle finger to the entire intelligence community, and further evidence that he is more than a little lackadaisical about other authoritarian-led nations knowing U.S. secrets. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created after 9/11 to remedy what American policy makers believed was a lack of coordination among the various national-intelligence agencies, and the DNI sits atop all of America’s intelligence services, including the CIA. Gabbard has her own fairly fringe views on foreign policy, visiting Bassar al-Assad in Syria, blaming ISIS for bombing innocent children from planes (ISIS had no planes, but Russia did) and publicly taking Putin’s side in starting a war of choice with Ukraine.
“In 2017, when she was still a Democratic member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard traveled to Syria and met the country’s authoritarian president, Bashar al-Assad. She also accused the United States of supporting terrorists there. . . . The day after Vladimir V. Putin began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Ms. Gabbard blamed the United States and NATO for provoking the war by ignoring Russia’s security concerns.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/18/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-trump-russia.html
Tom Nichols, writing for The Atlantic, deems her (as do numerous national security experts) as a serious risk.
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2024/11/tulsi-gabbard-nomination-security/680649
Nichols writes, “Last spring, I described how U.S.-government employees with clearances are trained every year to spot “insider threats,” people who might for various reasons compromise classified information. Trump’s open and continuing affection for Putin and other dictators, I said, would be a matter of concern for any security organization. Gabbard’s behavior and her admiration for dictators are no less causes for worry—especially because she would be at the apex of the entire American intelligence community.”
Her affinity for Russia and Putin is especially concerning; for years, both Russia and China have engaged in strategic corruption to create divisions within the U.S.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/rise-strategic-corruption-weaponize-graft
As today’s article in the NY Times notes, “foreign nationals” are free to contribute to the transition Trump’s acceptance of “dark” foreign money, and so his willingness to divulge U.S. secrets, and his careless attitude toward national security should concern all Americans, regardless of political affiliation. His CON-fidence and ego were somehow appealing to 2024 voters, but bear in mind that while he seems to regard money from foreigners as “his own business,” he is again “doing business” for the U.S. as a whole, and the public deserves to know to whom he may owe favors.