COTW: Don Veto's Trail of Red Ink

You, dear reader, are no doubt aware of the truth behind Don Veto's braggadocio about being the best businessman of his generation. The NY Times destroyed that claim with its lengthy financial exposé showing a ten year trail of red ink and no taxes paid. [chart below] The investigative journalists got their hands on ten year's worth of federal income tax transcripts (1985-95) from third parties in legal possession of the information.  These transcripts are considered to be accurate by tax experts.

Here is what inquiring minds want to know now: In 1989 Don Veto reported $52.9 million in interest income.  This large amount is an outlyer compared to other years in which he also reported interest income. In '86 he only reported $460,566; in '87 he reported $5,500,000 and in the next $11,800,000. Interest from investments such as bonds, mortgages and bank accounts usually show a steady stream of income absent large portfolio changes. For his interest income to jump to $52.9 million, he would have had to own roughly $378 million in bonds at 14%, for example.  Yet Don Veto suffered $181.7 million in business  losses that same year.  The same year he sold the Manhattan St. Moritz Hotel for $180 million.

Even in the junk bond era of the 1980's that is a large position which would show up in other financial reports.  Don Veto owns casinos, so he is subject to additional financial reporting to state agencies governing casino operations. New Jersey casino regulators have no indication of assets owned by Don Veto capable of generating that much interest income in one year; neither do 1990 reports prepared by an independent accounting firm hired by him at his banker's request show such assets. His interest income fell in 1990 to $18.7 million, and fell again the next year. Where did all this "manna" come from? This pregnant question, among many others, should be answered by the investigating House committees. Impeachment is the best way Mr. Nadler, and perhaps the only way given the Executive's unconstitutional defiance*, to do this; turning a blind eye to Don Veto's obvious criminality is betraying democracy. 

credit: New York Times

*Admittedly Individual I is accustomed to conflict, as one commentator said, it is his modus operandi: he has been involved in 4,095 lawsuits as a party during his business career. He may thrive on litigation, but that does not excuse Congress from carrying out its constitutional duties.  Democratic leaders are worried that Don Veto is goading them into impeachment proceedings for political gain.  Any possibility that the public could view impeachment as an exercise in partisan divisiveness could be expelled by carefully written impeachment articles.  Robert Mueller has demonstrated there are already non-partisan grounds on which to begin the process.  More evidence will come to light as the proceedings continue because Congress would then have unquestionable power to investigate substantial allegations of other wrong doing by this rogue President.  Now, the Trump gang has the legal argument that the investigations are not related to a legislative purpose.  Of course that argument does not stand up, but it takes time and effort to dispute it court, diverting resources from investigation of his finances, taxes, emoluments, obstruction, and connection to the Kremlin.  His stonewalling of current cautious efforts by the House to uncover additional information is already costing him public support.  And his son's refusal to obey a lawful Senate subpoena is also sending clear signals to his political supporters that it will be costly for them in the end.   If any president in the nation's history needs congressional oversight, it is Donald Trump. 

Yes, the entire Mueller report should be released at least to Congress, just as the full Cox report was demanded during Watergate.  But in that laborious process the House should not loose sight of why it should read it.  As Rep. Jack Brooks said in 1974, “The theme of this [impeachment] article is we’re gonna get that son of a bitch out of there!”  When the Texas Representative was chosen to serve on Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas impeachment committee, Brooks wrote of the then little understood impeachment process:  "Impeachment resembles a regular criminal indictment and trial but it is not the same thing. It relates solely to the accused’s right to hold civil office … the framers of the Constitution clearly established that impeachment is a unique political device; designed explicitly to dislodge from public office those who are patently unfit for it, but cannot otherwise be promptly removed … About the only thing authorities can agree upon … is that an offense need not be indictable to be impeachable. In other words, something less than a criminal act or criminal dereliction of duty may nevertheless be sufficient grounds for impeachment and removal from public office." Thus, even though Mueller could not find evidence of a criminal conspiracy to illegally influence the 2016 election, The Trump campaign organization's willingness to cooperate with Russian espionage operations could be considered an impeachable offense because it demonstrates his disloyalty to the United States' Constitution. Thus, he is unfit to hold public office.  It is worthwhile to note that of the three impeachment articles passed out of the House Judiciary Committee against Richard Nixon was, "Article III—Disobeying Subpoenas from Congress"