A Trump corruption roundup

It's time for another update on how Trump’s crime business operations are doing. Enquiring minds want to know. Bottom line, they’re doing extremely well.

That ain’t gonna happen under Trump

He is America’s Swamp Filler-in-Chief

Pilfering from Venezuela

One article, Trump Hit With Demand for Answers Over $13B Secret (and this), reports that about $13 billion collected by the US government from Venezuelan oil sales has "disappeared" somehow. Who controls that money and where it went has not been made public. Given Trump’s rock solid track record of shameless corruption, it is reasonable to believe that Trump or his family or allies have siphoned off a at least few billions of that, with most of it secretly falling under Trump’s control. Trump claims the money is controlled by Venezuela, but we all know he is a chronic liar in addition to being a thief.

That speculation could be mostly or completely wrong. However, in view of his track record of corruption the burden of proof is in Trump himself to prove he hasn’t stolen some or all of that loot. That’s the rational thing to believe in view of all available evidence. 

One can also wonder why the US government, or MAGA thieves, collect money from Venezuelan oil sales. That’s another MAGA corruption mystery.

Corporate pardons for sale

In an unusually creepy and corrupt move, Trump has started issuing pardons for crimes by sleazy corporations. The “reasoning” is that since corporations are people, they can be pardoned too! Makes perfect sense.  /s

 An article, Trump Invents the Corporate Pardon, points out that corporate personhood dates back to a USSC headnote in an 1886 lawsuit. There, the high court, in its infallible wisdom, hinted in Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad that corporations were covered by the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. That was in a headnote, not the holding of the case. But because kleptocrats, oligarchs, oligarchy, wealth and power all love the idea of civil liberties applying to corporations, the concept has somehow morphed into a legal precedent.  

Remember Mitt Romney’s famous 2011 battle cry, “Corporations are people, my friend”. So there you have it, my friends. Reporting such as, The Most Corrupt Presidency in American History, by the Numbers, reminds us that Trump's pardons of human criminals as of last March included forgiveness of over $2 billion in fines and crime victim restitutions.

Anyway, the reporting notes that Trump has turned the presidential pardon into a tool for corporate clemency, including pardoning a corporation itself. He has granted nine corporate pardons, wiping out about $200 million in fines, with roughly half of that tied to BitMEX, arguably a corrupt bitcoin corporation. Secrecy and opacity are standard operating procedures for Trump and MAGA elites. The crypto industry staunchly supports Trump, and he staunchly supports crypto. This reeks of large-scale grifting and corruption.

Note that as has been the case for Trump’s pardons of criminals, his pardons of corporations wipe out culpability not only for crimes, but also for fines and restitution to victims the courts impose. Trump let BitMEX off the hook for $200 million. One has to wonder how much of that flows directly or indirectly, secretly back to Trump.  

More crypto and crime shenanigans

In other reporting, US to Drop Charges for Alleged $722 Million Crypto Fraudster, Trump shows his support for crypto criminals. DOJ leaders are going to drop charges against Matthew Goettsche, the alleged mastermind of a $722 million crypto Ponzi scheme. That comes in 2026 after a 2019 indictment that had been slowly headed toward trial at the usual leisurely federal court pace. The DOJ dropping the case comes after Trump’s stopping enforcement of crypto crime laws. Not surprisingly, Goettsche’s lawyers had connections to the Trump administration while lobbying Trump’s DOJ for relief from prosecution.

As this reporting indicates, Trump Justifies Money Made as President With Inaccurate Claims. Trump falsely says the $2 billion he grifted during his second term was due to a hot stock market. He also lied when he said that he is the only president to donate his salary -- two others have done so before him. As usual for a shameless liar and crook, he rejects any notion of impropriety. He says he is just an honest guy doing honest work protecting us from criminals, thieves and all sorts of miscreants. 

Note that he is a proven chronic liar, so that can be taken with a block of salt. One report summarizes the situation like this: “here we are in Trump's second term, so overwhelmed by dodgy-sounding deals that any attempt to measure or characterize the scope of corruption can seem preemptively futile. The numbers are too big, the conflicts too brazen, the examples too numerous”.

That sounds about right.

Q1: Does the public record contain enough evidence of corruption, concealment, and incentive structures, e.g., a corrupted rule of law and a corrupted USSC, to justify a presumption of bad faith and corruption by Trump and MAGA elites? 

Q2: Is demanding disclosure, tracing money flows, and assuming that the absence of transparency is the primary means that Trump uses to get his bribes and payoffs, legal or not?**

** Lest we forget, in practice it isn’t illegal for Trump to take bribes and payoffs. The USSC has made damned sure that Trump is protected from liability for his crimes in office. In theory maybe some of it is illegal. But in practice under MAGA’s pro-corruption laws and MAGA’s corrupted DOJ and FBI, the reality is that Trump is not going to be prosecuted for any federal crimes he is involved in. That’s probably the sad case for as long as he lives.

The Symposium of Silicon (Satire)

 

The Symposium of Silicon

A dialogue in the manner of Plato, wherein SOCRATES finds himself, inexplicably, at a dinner party of tech oligarchs

---

PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE: Socrates, Musk, Thiel, Karp, Altman, Huang

The scene: a rooftop in Palo Alto. Wine is served in glasses shaped like rocket boosters. SOCRATES has arrived believing he was invited to discuss the nature of justice.

---

SOCRATES: Friends, I confess confusion. I came expecting a discussion of the just city, and instead I find you speaking of robots, gods, and something called "abundance." Perhaps we might begin simply — Musk, you spoke first. What is this AGI of which you speak?

MUSK: Socrates, imagine — no, you cannot imagine, that's the point — imagine a civilization where the difference between man and machine is as the difference between a chimpanzee and a man. We will be the chimpanzees, Socrates. Contentedly swinging in our trees. Eating our bananas. It will be wonderful.

SOCRATES: I see. And in this arrangement, who governs the chimpanzee?

MUSK: No one need govern anyone! Money will not exist. You simply have anything you think of.

SOCRATES: Anything?

MUSK: Anything.

SOCRATES: Suppose I think of your rocket company.

MUSK: (pause) Well, obviously there are edge cases.

THIEL: (interrupting, softly, as though revealing a secret) Socrates, may I speak plainly? What Elon describes as utopia I recognize as something far graver. When men promise universal comfort, universal safety, one world without want — this is not the coming of God, Socrates. This is the coming of the Antichrist.

SOCRATES: The Antichrist... offers abundance?

THIEL: Precisely his disguise! Peace and safety, Socrates — that is his slogan. Beware any man who promises you will never want again.

SOCRATES: Then you disagree with Musk.

THIEL: Entirely. Although I find his company's valuation quite sound.

MUSK: Peter, you invested in Palantir. You cannot possibly believe civilization needs saving while also insisting on backyard tomatoes for all.

THIEL: I contain multitudes, Elon.

KARP: (standing abruptly, wine sloshing) Gentlemen, GENTLEMEN. While you debate gardens of paradise, the actual battlefield awaits. Socrates — you ask what governs the chimpanzee. I will tell you: whoever controls the targeting software.

SOCRATES: You speak of war, then, not abundance.

KARP: I speak of avoiding war, Socrates, by developing weapons so terrifying that our adversaries dare not test us. This is peace through unspeakable technological menace. It is, in its way, quite beautiful.

SOCRATES: Menace... as peace.

KARP: You would understand if you had read more Heidegger.

SOCRATES: I confess I have read some Heidegger, and I do not recall him claiming technology as a means to "peace" but rather violence. 

KARP: He was speaking allegorically, he meant both. Menace as peace. (Socrates  begins to interject but Altman rises, and signals everyone, in a drab , understated mon otone voice:

ALTMAN: (gently but gesturing as a teacher might to a pack of arguing children) Hey, simmer down with all the dramatics and high fellutin name checking..We at OpenAI foresee a more prosaic and  gentle singularity. A soft landing. Prosperity, broadly distributed —

SOCRATES: Distributed how?

ALTMAN: Through mechanisms we're still finalizing.

SOCRATES: I see. And did you not once say this same technology carried grave risk of extinguishing mankind entirely?

ALTMAN: I did say that, yes.

SOCRATES: And now?

ALTMAN: Now I say prosperity. The facts remain identical; only my emphasis has evolved.

SOCRATES: Remarkable. In Athens we call a man who reverses his position without new evidence inconsistent. What do you call it here?

ALTMAN: Iteration.

MUSK: Speaking of extinction — I should mention, there remains perhaps a ten to twenty percent chance the robots simply kill everyone.

SOCRATES: Wait — this abundance you promised, it coexists with a one-in-five chance of annihilation?

MUSK: Of course. But consider the alternative — the heat death of the universe! Everything ends eventually, Socrates. So really it's about enjoying the ride.

SOCRATES: You would board a rocket with a twenty percent chance of exploding?

MUSK: Yes, obviously.

SOCRATES: Would you board it twice?

MUSK: (long pause) ...I have people for that.

HUANG: (raising a glass shaped like a graphics card) If I may lighten the mood — the important thing, Socrates, is simply that everyone buy more chips. Whether the future holds utopia or terminators, both futures require enormous quantities of chips. In this sense I am agnostic, and also extremely well-positioned.

SOCRATES: You have no view on which future arrives?

HUANG: I have a view on quarterly guidance.

SOCRATES: (to the group) Friends, let me attempt to summarize, that I might understand you rightly. Musk foresees a garden of infinite plenty, shadowed by a one-in-five chance of robotic apocalypse, which does not trouble him because the universe ends anyway. Thiel foresees the same plenty as the mask of a cosmic evil, unrelated to his own considerable stake in weapons software. Karp foresees permanent war-readiness as a form of peace. Altman foresees prosperity whose mechanism he cannot yet specify, having previously foreseen doom whose mechanism he also could not specify. And Huang foresees whichever future requires him to sell the most chips, which is to say, both.

ALL: Yes, essentially.

SOCRATES: Then it seems to me none of you are describing the future at all.

THIEL: What do you mean?

SOCRATES: I mean you are describing yourselves. Karp sells deterrence, and so he sees a world requiring deterrence. Musk sells rockets and now robots, and so he sees a world made safe by both, and enjoyable regardless. Altman sells a company whose worth depends on prosperity being imaginable, and so it is imaginable, until it is not, and then it is again. You have each mistaken your ledger for a prophecy.

KARP: That is a very reductive reading of extremely sophisticated geopolitical analysis.

SOCRATES: Perhaps. Tell me this, then, since you are all so certain: has any one among you changed your forecast because of new evidence, or only when your company changed its needs?

(A long silence. Someone's phone buzzes with a stock alert. No one answers.)

MUSK: Socrates, I don't think you understand exponential curves.

SOCRATES: I do not, friend. But I understand a merchant praising his own wares as the will of the gods, and I have understood it since long before your grandfather's grandfather learned to write. The costume changes. The performance does not.

(He rises to leave. Thiel begins quoting Girard to no one in particular. Karp is already on his phone with a general. Altman is drafting a blog post titled "Reflections." Musk has started talking about Mars again, then stops, remembering it is currently unfashionable, and pivots smoothly back to abundance. Huang refills everyone's glass.)

SOCRATES: (to himself, departing) And they say philosophy died with hemlock. It seems it merely changed its business model.

Joining with fighters defending democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties

The Trump/MAGA imbalance: not much good, overwhelming bad

Nowadays, it is very important to pay specific attention to the intentional damage to America’s D-RL-CL (democracy, rule of law, civil liberties) that Trump, MAGA elites, and their politics and policy have caused. So far, the breadth and depth of accumulated damage is enormous. The damage is truly heart-breaking. We have lost so much that was good since Trump came on the scene in 2016, when he energized the forces of aggressive authoritarianism and corruption. Although a precise number is impossible to assign to the analysis, the effects of Trump/MAGA elites on American D-RL-CL have been maybe ~90% bad and ~10% good since 2016 when Trump came on the scene. The ~10% good is almost completely in the form of indirect reactions that Trump and MAGA elites have triggered in people alarmed by MAGA’s toxic, aggressive politics and policy. That good amounts to resistance to MAGA authoritarianism and kleptocracy, after Trump and MAGA exposed ghastly weaknesses in our D-RL-CL. That created fear that convinced a lot of people and institutions to organize seriously in defense of our beleaguered D-RL-CL. Multiple indicators show a decline in the health of America’s democracy in 2025 — The assessments come as most Americans say democracy in the United States used to be a good example for other countries to follow but has not been in recent years; Understanding democratic decline in the United States — The United States is experiencing two major forms of democratic erosion in its governing institutions: election manipulation and executive overreach; Legal experts say rule of law has hit its lowest point in a decade; ACLU 2025 Annual Report — In 2025, the Trump administration has shown extraordinary hostility toward our First Amendment freedoms. Attacks on free speech are a hallmark of authoritarianism; Civicus Monitor Watchlist —  In the first six months of President Donald Trump’s second term, authorities have escalated suppression of protesters through military deployments, targeted journalists, criminalised dissent, and undermined civil society through legislative and financial restrictions. The USA, once a global champion of democracy and civic freedoms, joins the latest Watchlist along with Kenya, El Salvador, Indonesia, Serbia, and Turkey.

Yes, looking for and understanding MAGA’s damage is a scary, sad activity. Doing that requires a person to put some effort into understanding what is actually going on. The MSM does a piss-poor job of connecting MAGA’s authoritarianism and corruption dots for us, grade of F. The MSM’s shockingly bad job arguably amounts to complicity with Trump and MAGA. It’s been that way since 2016. The MSM never had a handle on Trump or America’s radical right authoritarianism. The MSM still underestimates the depth, power, and aggressiveness of radical right American authoritarianism and corruption. How The Media Failed In Covering Donald Trump; Media “Failings” In Covering Trump; In Trump 2.0, MAGA-aligned influencers and media emerge as the new mainstream — There’s an argument to be made that they’re not influencers, they’re propagandists; Why is Trump coverage so feeble? — You simply cannot cover Trump’s second term accurately and responsibly if you are not willing to situate his acts as part of a terrifying descent into authoritarianism, racism, and cruelty. And the mainstream political media – for a variety of reasons — is not willing to do anything of the kind. Rather than speaking truth to power, they have become stenographers with amnesia, hiding the truth through the use of anodyne adjectives, convoluted phrasing and buried leads

That’s all water under the bridge. Our sordid past can’t be undone.

Joining with patriots and freedom fighters

There are pockets of resistance to MAGA tyranny and corruption. Their successes tend to be small and mostly invisible due to lack of MSM and MAGA media coverage. Little things usually don’t make for profitable news reporting, and for MAGA media, inconvenient things usually aren’t reported at all.

Here are some groups that worried D-RL-CL defenders can contact and offer support in money or time.

Democracy Forward: Uses litigation and policy work to challenge illegal executive actions and defend what is left of our collective power.

Democracy 2025: A coalition hub connecting 700+ pro-democracy organizations. It invites people to sign up, donate, or partner with the coalition.

Protect Democracy: Focuses on free and fair elections, stopping consolidation of authoritarian power, and collective action. It offers action steps like poll-working and election-related engagement.

ACLU: A major civil-liberties organization that engages in election safeguarding, volunteer training, and litigation programs.

Human Rights First / Democracy Watch: Tracks rights-crushing legislation and organizes response and opposition efforts.

ACLU’s election safeguarding initiative: A particularly good fit for people who want a direct volunteer pathway tied to the 2026 midterms.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State: A well-known pro-democracy, church-state separation group.

Interfaith Alliance: A faith-based democracy and pluralism organization.

One approach is to split support for one litigation group (the 1st three listed), a voting-rights group (2nd three), and a coalition or local civic group (last three). That gives support for defenses against immediate authoritarian and kleptocrat abuses and a support for longer-term democratic infrastructure defense.

Democratic Party: Despite being generally clueless, flawed, cautious, and compromised, it still is one of the few large-scale organizations still organizing mostly in defense of democracy, elections, voting rights, checks and balances, anti-corruption law, and defense of civil liberties. Like it or not, the Dems are the biggest, most powerful thing we have left defending D-RL-CL. Bad as Dem elites are, they’re far better than the corrupted, authoritarian elite Repubs.

Q: If Trump and MAGA elites, with their policies, politics and tactics have been more good than bad for D-RL-CL, exactly what are the good things that rationally flip the Trump/MAGA assessment from almost all bad to mostly good?

USSC attacks congressional power and the public interest

Most headlines about Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety say the Supreme Court denied a Rastafarian prisoner damages after guards forcibly shaved his dreadlocks in violation of his faith. That’s the facts, but it’s only the surface story that most of the MSM is reporting. Most of the MSM is ignoring the far more important flow of power context. This June 23, 2026 decision is far more important than those facts alone. This decision in Landor is really about (1) gutting Congress’s ability to enforce federal conditions on spending federal money, and (2) gutting civil rights for people affected by federal spending conditions that require respect for people's civil liberties. US Supreme Court won't let Rastafarian man shaved bald in prison sue guards; The Supreme Court Deals Major Blow to Congressional Authority -- In one devastating ruling, the Republican justices disempower ordinary citizens and their elected representatives. ..... with time, the ruling may prove far more disastrous and far-reaching, unleashing illegal behavior that both Congress and the victims are powerless to prevent; Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety (2026) -- Although the federal government had the right to attach strings to aid that it provided, any conditions had to be clearly established and agreed to as they would be in most contracts. Although the prisons that had accepted aid had agreed to the conditions Congress had imposed under RLUIPA, their employees had not and were hence not liable. 

Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Congress promised “appropriate relief” when prisons violate religious rights. For decades, courts treated that kind of statutory language as enforceable creating rights, including enforcement of spending‑clause programs like Medicaid, nursing‑home protections and prisons. In Landor, the 6–3 MAGA majority written by the authoritarian kleptocrat Gorsuch changed that. Now, federal spending‑clause statutes are just contracts with states, not “laws” that individuals can enforce against state officials. This lands a massive blow to Congressional power because it severs civil rights from remedies to enforce those rights. The MAGA judges have been planning this kind of authoritarian attack for some time now. LANDOR v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND PUBLIC SAFETY ET AL. -- Held: Individuals may not be held liable in their personal capacities under a Spending Clause statute unless those individuals have voluntarily and knowingly consented to answer lawsuits under the statute; because the individual defendants in this case did not voluntarily and knowingly consent to face RLUIPA liability in an agreement with the federal government, Mr. Landor’s case cannot proceed against them; Spending Programs and the New Roberts Court -- The Supreme Court is poised to place new limits on Congress’s spending power at the urging of states vying for regulatory dominance, particularly in health care and public health. .....  Congress may not choose to work more with states if the spending power becomes harder to exercise; and, states depend on federal funding for the safety net’s fiscal stability. Also, federal spending has often protected civil rights, so limits on spending programs may contribute to retrenchment.; New Rule: Spending Clause Statutes Cannot Impose Personal-Capacity Damages Liability on Nonconsenting State Employees

Mainstream coverage mostly misses this. Most MSM reporting frame Landor as a narrow question about whether a mistreated prisoner can sue his guards for money, emphasizing the egregious facts and the culture‑war angle around religious liberty. Some highlights the contradiction with the Court’s broader campaign to expand religious‑liberty claims, but still treats the case largely as a doctrinal oddity in that field. The result is fact‑accurate but context‑empty reporting that leaves readers thinking Landor is a one‑off injustice instead of a major shift in federalism and civil‑rights enforcement. The Supreme Court’s campaign to expand religious liberty now has a glaring exception; Supreme Court Bars Lawsuit After Prison Guards Shaved Inmate’s Dreadlocks -- Damon Landor, a Rastafarian, tried to sue Louisiana prison officials for violating his religious rights

The main, under-reported impact is on power. Congress uses conditional spending to enforce civil‑rights and social‑welfare protections in the public interest. That includes Medicaid patient rights, nursing‑home standards, nondiscrimination rules in education and health care, and protections baked into environmental cooperative‑federalism regimes like the Clean Air Act. When private enforcement is taken away from injured people, their “remedy” becomes federal agencies cutting off or threatening funds. That is no remedy at all. The HHS itself has said cutting funding is politically implausible, usually harmful to the people Congress meant to protect. Landor shifts serious power from Congress and individual beneficiaries to state governments and the organized interests that dominate state policy, e.g., hospital chains, insurers, fossil‑fuel businesses, charter‑school advocates, and utility giants. The Spending Power and Environmental Law after Sebelius -- The review sheds light not only on environmental law after Sebelius, but also the many other realms of American governance that engage spending power bargaining, such as public education, civil rights law, social service programs, and civic infrastructure. The Article concludes that the impacts of the doctrine will be most palpable not in litigation but in the dynamics of intergovernmental bargaining. States will have more leverage when negotiating design and enforcement terms within spending-power partnerships; Federalism by Waiver after the Health Care Case -- But the Court’s Spending Clause ruling will have potentially an even more far-reaching effect on the constitutionality of other federal statutes enacted pursuant to Congress’s spending power, as states will be prompted to challenge other conditional-spending laws in the education, social welfare, environmental, and civil rights areas as unconstitutionally coercive 

In a normal constitutional order, that would be bad enough. In a political environment where the MAGA movement and its allies are openly hostile to voting rights, equal protection, and independent law enforcement, disabling Congress’s main enforcement tool for civil rights, health care, and environmental protections takes on a different character. It gives state‑level actors aligned with authoritarianism and special interest demands much more room to violate federal spending conditions with impunity. Violators of the law can be confident that neither Washington nor individual plaintiffs can predictably hold them to account. 

Fundamentally, Landor is authoritarian and kleptocratic even though it’s dressed up in contract‑law jargon. Authoritarian, because it concentrates power in less accountable state institutions and a Supreme Court majority that is systematically obliterating space for democratic lawmaking and rights enforcement. Kleptocratic, because the beneficiaries of weakened enforcement are not “the people” but entrenched economic interests that profit when civil‑rights, health‑care, and environmental conditions are treated as optional rather than obligatory. The MSM sells the Landor decision to the public as a tragic but technical dispute about a prisoner’s dreadlocks. In reality, the decision is a major step in dismantling Congress’s capacity to protect the public interest. Special interests[1] win, we lose.

Footnote:

1. Special interests include state governments. By contrast with the federal government, it is usually easier for special interests to capture and corrupt state governments. About 85% of public‑corruption convictions in the US are the result of federal prosecutions, not state or local cases. That suggests states do little to prosecute corruption by their own state and local officials. In effect states acquiesce to federal dominance in corruption enforcement. State governments are, on average, easier targets for corrupt networks than the federal government because federal prosecutors and national media often uncover and punish state‑level corruption. Now the government is neutered by MAGA anti-government and anti-rule of law politics and policy. 

Which States Have the Highest Public Corruption Convictions?

Corruption in America

Public Corruption and Federalism