Trump isn't perfect, no one is. But to complain about Trump not being transparent about his finances while not applying the same standards to the Clintons, Obamas (who parlayed their presidencies into hundreds of millions of dollars), and Bidens (who seems to have been selling access to both Biden, as well as pardons), seems a bot hypocritical. Let alone the legions of those in congress who are making huge money insider trading. Pelosi is kind of the poster child for this, but there are so many across both parties that naming all of them would be futile.
“Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.”
Harry Truman
I think that the problem lies in the fact that Trump was a successful businessman long before he ran for president and that his businesses continue to operate and make money while he's in office. While it's easier to connect the riches of the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens to their time in the White House, it's not quite so obvious for Trump. It seems unreasonable to expect the Trump organization to provide confidential financial information that would potentially help his competitors just because he's president. Are there instances where the Trump organization has benefited from Trumps presidency, probably. Is their even a hint of a quid pro quo in terms of paying Trump for particular official action? Is the Trump organization getting a "better" deal to build a multi million dollar hotel in another country really significantly worse than using insider knowledge gained as a congressperson to buy and sell stocks for massive profit?
19 comments:
Good points. Of course to the haters, we're not supposed to look at their actions, but only Trump's and then try to create a connection between them and some fictional corruption. Hypocrisy among the progressives is a requirement for inclusion in that club.
Look, I am all for as much transparency as possible. I am also all for going after the GOP congress critters who make millions insider trading just as zealously as after the DFL ones.
However, that doesn't mean that the Trump organization ( a business that Trump is not currently actively running) is somehow required to open every book, and divulge every bit of confidential information just because Dan whines about it.
The reason why this scrutiny doesn't apply to DFL elected or appointed officials is because so few of them have actually had any private sector employment or run successful companies.
D
onald Trump just had the most lucrative year of his life. The president is now worth a record $7.3 billion, up from $4.3 billion in 2024, when he was still running for office. The $3 billion gain vaulted him 118 spots on The Forbes 400, where he lands at No. 201 this year.
No president in U.S. history has used his position of power to profit as immensely as Trump. His primary vehicle for enrichment: cryptocurrency, an asset class full of hype and vulnerable to regulators. Teaming up with his three sons, Trump announced a crypto venture in September 2024 named World Liberty Financial, which initially struggled to gain traction. Then he won the White House. ...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2025/09/09/presidency-boosts-trumps-net-worth-by-3-billion-in-a-year/
But yeah, sure. Complain that Obama made, whatever, $10 million from selling books that he wrote on his own that may have been, in part, from his presidency. IF you want to say that people who write books shouldn't profit off them. Because $10 million is much worse than the billions that this pervert felon is making.
NOT to mention how he's abused his power and wealth to stay out of jail while he molests women and children, refuses to pay his bills, cheats at charities, cheats at a scam school, etc, etc.
If you want to take the Bible seriously, then take it seriously:
Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?
Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?...
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.
Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.
Your gold and silver are corroded.
Their corrosion will testify against you and
eat your flesh like fire.
You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers
who mowed your fields are crying out against you.
The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.
You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.
You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
You have condemned and murdered the innocent one,
who was not opposing you.
Obama has made his wealth primarily through book sales and public speaking. Are you suggesting that it is morally wrong for ex-presidents to receive money when books that they wrote sell in huge numbers??
Now, if you want to make the case that ex-presidents - regardless of party - should have some limit on how much income they can make from speeches and book sales, let's talk. I could probably get behind that kind of thing. BUT ONLY if you also say there should be some limit on how much billionaire businessmen can profiteer off their presidency by their selling high-cost rental units at their hotels and properties and luxury estates and off of get-rich scams like bitcoin and other shady and un-transparent business dealings.
Be rational.
Here are some key takeaways from what has built Obama’s wealth:
As of 2025, former President Barack Obama has an estimated net worth of $70 million.
He released the first volume of his memoir, “A Promised Land,” in November 2020; by December 2020, it had sold 7.6 million copies worldwide to date, becoming one of the top-selling political memoirs in history, reportedly worth at least $60 million. Former First Lady Michelle Obama’s memoir, “Becoming,” along with his memoir, were both major bestsellers
Barack and Michelle Obama have also signed several book and podcast deals, as well as a lucrative deal with Netflix, which is estimated to be worth about $50 million.
As a former president and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama can earn as much as $400,000 for a single public speaking event.
The Obamas currently own a $1.6 million house in Chicago, worth upwards of $3 million on the current housing market, as well as an $11.7 million estate in Martha’s Vineyard.
https://www.aol.com/barack-obama-net-worth-2023-190152420.html
Craig defended the rich oppressors, perverts, rapists, conmen and abusers of the gullible, useful idiots, saying:
that doesn't mean that the Trump organization ( a business that Trump is not currently actively running) is somehow required to open every book, and divulge every bit of confidential information just because Dan whines about it.
I repeat:
you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?
Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?...
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail
because of the misery that is coming on you.
Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.
Your gold and silver are corroded.
Their corrosion will testify against you and
eat your flesh like fire.
You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields
are crying out against you.
The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.
You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.
You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
You have condemned and murdered the innocent one,
who was not opposing you.
Can you not see that this is a perfect description of your deviant, hedonistic, fat-cat conman felon president you keep voting for?
Speaking of... IF your Lord Felon tells you to vote for him for a third term, will you do so?
How far up the bottomside of the rich oppressors ARE you?
Indeed. It doesn't matter who is doing wrong, but that all who do wrong are held accountable.
But what's different with Trump is that those who accuse him aren't concerned with what he's done or what the impact of what he's done might be or has been. The point is always to paint him as having nothing but self-serving, nefarious intent, because at this point, they've spent ten years demonizing him as evil incarnate and from the beginning they've been unwilling to admit they were wrong about that. So, with every move he makes, they need for everyone else to believe he's acting badly in order for their own sorry selves to be validated in their irrational hatred. Dan's latest blog post is yet another example of this psychosis.
P-BO is worth 70 million virtually every cent of which is directly related to his being president.
What specifically did Trump's net worth increase come from? Was it his personally, or was it the Trump organization?
I'm not wasting time with your unproven claims and proof texts.
It's strange, that you go into full vitriol and self righteous mode when I essentially agreed with you, and (so far) have nothing negative to say about the Pelosis and their ilk.
No, I'm not suggesting that anything could possibly be wrong with P-BO amassing a $70,000,000 fortune on 7.6 million sales of his book.
If you can provide proof that Trump is "profiteering" off of the presidency, bring it. If your "proof" is that the Trump organization has continued to do business and make money while Trump is president, that's not "proof".
The fact that none of your liberal icons have actually run/built a business and have traded on their office/celebrity to cash is, isn't the own you think it is.
Are you suggesting that Trump should have liquidated his multi billion dollar business when he became president?
My pointing out the reality that some level of "transparency" on the part of Trump's business might have limits is hardly "defending" anything. But the hand wringing and panty wadding are not a surprise at all.
No.
As I've never voted because someone "told me to", I'm unlikely to start now. I've been clear for several years that I believe that the presidency and congress should have an upper age/cognitive function limit. I'd oppose a third term for no other reason but that.
I bet you'd support expanding/packing SCOTUS, eliminating the filibuster, and the electoral college though.
It's strange that Dan chooses to ignore the fact that, in the last election, more "rich oppressors" were supporting and donating to Biden/Harris than to Trump. George Soros is buying DA's left and right, but Dan won't criticize him either.
This one sided, partisan, ad hom attacking is hypocritical, yet amusing.
That is exactly the point I am making, which Dan doesn't seem willing to agree with. Prosecute those who appear to commit crimes, regardless of their party. It's not that hard, which is why the notion eludes Dan.
If there was evidence of Trump actually committing these heinous crimes Dan whines about, we would have known about it years ago. Dan can make shit up and flail about hysterically, but without proof, it's nothing. That he's so blatantly one sided and partisan about it is even worse.
Dan continues to slander and libel his president, because Dan has to do all he can to persuade others to hate him as much as he does without legitimate basis. Dan's a liar, far worse a liar than Trump can ever be accused of being. Lies are essential to the progressive way of life.
Everything Obama has now is the result of his being president...and not at all a good one. It's unlikely he actually "wrote" any of the books with his name as author, and he'd never command big bucks for speeches if he wasn't president. To say he hasn't profited off of his presidency is an incredible absurdity. He has no real skills by which he can generate wealth without having been president first.
Dan's double standard about slander/libel/defamation is one of his strange character quirks that simply make no sense. Along with his demonization of the "conservative" rich and his silence on the liberal rich.
For example. There is no possible explanation for Nancy Pelosi's 600% growth of her stock portfolio or her husbands acquisitions other than insider trading. Yet Dan can't bring himself to mention her, yet he assumes that Trump is automatically engaged in nefarious behavior.
Clinton, Biden, P-BO, and Harris have amassed their fortunes almost entirely as a result of their political careers and positions. None of them have has significant financial success in the private sector, or produced anything of value to society. As you note P-BO likely had a ghost writer, and it's also likely that a significant chuck of his book sales were from people or groups sympathetic to him buying the books to warehouse or give away.
Maybe that lack of real world experience explains how poorly they did in elective office.
Of course, I am always against any wrong-doing and any profiteering, as almost all progressives are. We have, for years, tried to get big money out of elections and out of politics. I would fully support rules (if not laws) that...
1. Outright forbade politicians from making money in investments while in office AND for, let's say, ten years post-office.
2. I don't think we can decree that politicians can't write and sell books, but if we could create laws/rules that said that while you're in office and, say, for ten years after leaving office, any sales from books would go to charities or some such arrangement.
3. To the degree that it's legally possible, I'd love to see rules in place that prevented family members from enriching themselves off of their politician's name and/or policies.
4. Stopped ALL large donations from single sources (humans or businesses, etc) and ended PACs or reformed them, at least.
5. Required public funding for elections vs anonymous sources.
6. Required complete transparency regarding tax records and business dealings for politicians.
7. Really required business owners to actually divest from their businesses AND in a way where their family just gets rich off of their name.
8. Eliminated any large gifts from foreign businesses and states that go to an individual politician.
etc.
Part of the problem is that freedom (and that's a good problem, to be sure) would make it difficult to legislate things like an end to profiteering or the appearance of profiteering by a person's family (Billy Beer, Trump family, etc), making it a criminal action. I just don't think we can legally say, "Mr President's Son (uncle, aunt, grandmother...), you can't accept a job with Business X if it makes more than $50,000/year..." BUT to the degree that we can make it extremely transparent and where we, for instance, have it as a Congressional, Presidential, Court, etc Best Practice that is enforced somehow, I'm certain the majority of US citizens would support that.
This is obvious and you can tell by the way Democrats largely are the ones who have tried to push an end to such things. Ending Citizens United is a Democrat thing, by and large. Ending big money PACs and giving has generally been supported by Democrats, at least as long as it's true for all (that is, some Democrats are willing to end/limit those big donations, but they aren't willing to unilaterally do it while the GOP takes advantage of it.) Progressives/Democrats support ending so-called Dark Money. Both parties have large support (in office and in the public at large) for ending profiting from investments. Etc.
At any rate, it is a given that I am opposed to public profiteering off an office and fully support rules to make it more difficult and more transparent.
I invite you to join us on all these points to create policies that limit it.
You say this, yet only bitch about Trump. Never about any of those on the left. So while your words say one thing, your actions say another. You'll note that the default position Art and I take is that anyone of either party should be punished if they engage in wrongdoing. Your default position is "But Trump bad..." (paraphrased) and silence on anyone else. Perhaps less of you assuming that we will assume things about your silence would be helpful.
I'll say this. Your rules/laws are incredibly draconian.
1. All investments owned prior to election must be placed in a blind trust and managed independently of the elected/appointed official. It seems extreme to punish people who run for office. Forbidden from acquiring any single stock in any company which came before the official while in office.
2. Why? As long as the books don't violate any laws and aren't entirely ghostwritten, who cares. I would (in so far as possible) track/prevent the bulk purchase of books by anyone affiliated with the person. We've seen this with Hillary (and Mark Driscoll, although not a politician) as a way to backdoor money and artificially push the book up sales lists. Maybe limit advances, and focus more an royalties from sales. These people get huge advances, then the book doesn't sell enough to cover the advance.
3. I'd agree. Hunter Biden was an excellent example of this. For someone with no discernible skill or value beyond his relationship with Joe, he managed to make bank. We saw this in the People's Republic where an official's spouse concocted an ONG and the official directed big money to the ONG. I've seen this done quite often.
4. Unfortunately this is probably not going to happen, SCOTUS seems to have put the matter to bed for the short term. Strangely enough, the DFL was really good at dark money and PAC money last election.
5. Again, per SCOTUS, this seems problematic. In theory, I have little problem with this as long as it is part of a comprehensive elections reform and security initiative.
6. As noted, I have a problem with "complete transparency" for anyone who runs a business. For people like Walz or BIden, who cares. They've only every worked in government and there's no risk. For anyone who owns or operates a business, this is tantamount to making confidential, information that could damage the business available to the competition. But, I do agree that more transparency is needed in this area, but with safeguards. I see this as a potential problem with attorneys as their tax records could contain confidential client information as well.
7. Absurd. Why should someone who spent their life building a successful business be required to sell it for a bargain price if they win an election. But if disincentivizing those who've been successful in business from running is your goal, I see your point. Trump owns hotels, why should the business be prohibited from continuing to rent rooms/apartments to those who want to rent there? As long as market rates are being charged and there are no sweet deals being made, who cares. Just give up direct involvement while in office.
8. Sure, why not.
Well, if you're certain that you can speak for a majority of US citizens then I guess we'll just have to believe that. If you can't see a qualitative and quantitative difference between Carter's redneck brother selling beer for a few years, and Hunter Biden getting millions for board seats and selling daddy's influence, I can't help you. The problem is that you call for transparency, yet defended Hunter BIden for doing what you want to ban or restrict. But, yes, egregious selling of one's connections to elected officials should be controlled.
https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/top-pacs/2024
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dark-money-hit-record-high-19-billion-2024-federal-races
"Both Democrats and Republicans benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money in 2024. More spending backed Democrats, as has been the case since the 2018 midterm elections (before which more dark money typically favored Republicans). The presidential race was the source of much of this disparity in last year’s cycle.
Overall, dark money groups boosting Democrats put up about $1.2 billion to influence 2024 elections, while groups boosting Republicans accounted for about $664 million."
This doesn't count the "free" boost that Meta and (pre Musk) Twitter provided to stories favorable to DFL candidates and policies and the slanted MSM coverage (that the BIden laptop was dismissed and not covered despite being proven to have been True).
More billionaires supported Biden/Harris than Trump in the 2024 cycle, and as noted the DFL has it's hand out for PAC money to a much larger extent than the GOP since 2018. So you go ahead and live in your fantasy world if you like. Actions speak louder than words.
It's interesting that your default position is to demand that I "join" you and agree with your list as opposed to the notion of compromise or negotiation. Not surprising.
Once again you demonstrate your covetous envy of those who do well financially.
There is a Republican authored bill presented by a Congressman from Tennessee which seeks to end or punish insider trading by members of Congress. I haven't seen it, but it sounds like no stock trading of any kind while in office. I have a huge problem with this and without details I withhold my support for most any proposal and this one demands the details.
Even in the private sector, insider trading is an ambiguous thing and difficult to determine with specificity. What it requires first and foremost is that the trader acted on knowledge not available to the public, on the premise that such trading corrupts the market.
But much of it is simply a matter of someone getting knowledge first due to personal involvement or proximity, but the knowledge is not outside the ability of the average person to find...just not the result of some widely broadcast announcement. Part of being successful in stock trading is getting in first, and the line which makes it lega/ethical or not is not always easily determined.
Thus, laws restricting members of Congress demands specificity as to what they can or can't do. The current trend is to deny them the market altogether, as well as to deny any close family and friends.
There's a site which tracks the stock picks of celebrities. One of the most popular tracks Pelosi's. While she might profit by insider knowledge, others can certainly ride her coattails. But wait? What of those who don't know about this service? Should those who do be punished, too?
You want to pretend Dems are the drivers of such attempts to reign in money in politics, but an argument can be made they're the most guilty of abuses. We know they're guilty of a higher tolerance for their own abusers.
As always, the real issue is not corrupt politicians, but the fools who elect them. Your party is rife with them, though the GOP is not totally devoid of them. A more mature electorate will prevent the scum from being in office in the first place. Too many immature voters are supporting the worst of the worst...known as the Democrat Party.
So...if a legislator is working on a bill affecting a certain portion of the private sector, it is legit to expect he will not trade stocks in those companies until the bill is passed or defeated. But if he's buying stocks in companies no legislative proposal is affecting, there's no reason to deny him the ability to add to his personal portfolio of income generating vehicles.
There is nothing of which you are a part that I would join. You're a stupid person.
There is literally an investment tracker that mimics Pelosi's trading and does quite well.
I'd suspect that the common denominator for a lot of this is that it's people who've never made money in the private sector and are looking for the easy score.
I agree that preventing trading entirely is draconian and extreme, although the kind of big government, freedom infringing kind of thing you'd expect from Dan.
Post a Comment