Andy Kroll and Professor Steve Vladeck regarding Trump's indebtedness and national security risk — Democrats should run with that issue

© 2020 Peter Free

 

28 September 2020

 

 

Hypocrisy depends on who's looking, where and for what reason

 

Some Democrats are highlighting the fact that the New York Times discovered that the President paid only $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017.

 

Yet, I'm fairly sure that none of Trump's allegedly "deplorable" political base cares. Isn't screwing Uncle Sam and the Establishment part of the President's appeal?

 

From that limited perspective, Democrats are doing their usual strategically misguided job of preaching to the wrong choir.

 

In truth, unless they manage to pry off some of Trump's voting support, they will lose 2020's election. Just like 2016's.

 

Isn't there another aspect to Trump's tax situation that might be worth more political emphasis?

 

 

Yes, a potentially silver lining

 

Andy Kroll raised the national security implications of President Trump's debt status:

 

 

The New York Times’ explosive new investigation into Trump’s history of tax avoidance and IRS battles not only reveals that Trump paid a measly $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017.

 

The Times reported that Trump is personally responsible for loans and other debts of $421 million, much of which comes due in the next four years.

 

If Trump wins reelection but cannot make his loan payments, his lenders will have to decide whether they want to mount a legal battle against the sitting president to recoup their funds.

 

[University of Texas . . . Law professor Steve] Vladeck, an expert in national-security law, says[:]

 

 

“More fundamentally, there’s the concern that a president who is personally on the hook for significant loans that come due while he’s the president might take official actions, or appear to take official actions, that are meant to alleviate the personal financial pressure he faces . . . .

 

"Indeed, there’s a reason why the federal government generally won’t give security clearances to those who have significant debt — it’s because they’re too much of a risk. So, too, apparently, is the President of the United States.”

 

© 2020 Andy Kroll, Trump’s Massive Debts Are a National Security Crisis, Rolling Stone (28 September 2020) (reformatted)

 

 

Democrats could have been concentrating on this obviousness for four years . . .

 

. . . rather than their made up Russiagate nonsense.

 

(You have to wonder where Democrats' pusillanimous moron seed comes from.)

 

As I said in early 2017, Trump's main threat to national security lie in his business tentacles. And the history of legal, financial and arguable corruption problems that go with those.

 

Yet then and mostly since, virtually no one has complained. Evidently, being a financial and business ethics disaster is absolutely fine — according to both American political parties — when it comes to being president.

 

 

Is this worse than a real Russiagate would have been?

 

Yes. The American Military Industrial Complex has soundly countered Trump's alleged connection to Russian Federation President Putin.

 

On the other hand, the Deep State will have much more difficulty nullifying whatever Trump's presidential office does to screw with the entities that he owes money to.

 

Those entities do not have American culture's foundation-wide and inseparably engrained Warmongers United to protect their interests.

 

 

The actual danger

 

Thus, the danger is not that some banks and creditors will be short-changed.

 

The real threat lies in the fact that Trump can set a Banana Republic precedent.

 

If Toddling Donny gets away with what Professor Vladeck fears he might, he will have demonstrated that becoming US president is a great way to gain unassailable autocratic power and much more than the business-as-usual Capitalist riches that go with the Office.

 

 

The moral? — If Democrats suddenly became politically intelligent . . .

 

. . . they would vigorously run with Professor Vladeck's insight.

 

The issue, conceivably, could strip a few genuine patriots from Trump's moo-herd.

 

However, do not count on that. Both American political parties see the Presidency as a productive way to gain illicit lucre.

 

Ergo, Democrats' initial and continuing emphasis on faked Russiagate, rather than on Trump's easily arguable predatory corruptions.