https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vETxuL7Ij3Q
"Follow the money." -- Hal Holbrook as then-confidential Washington Post source (FBI's Mark Felt) to Robert Redford (as Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Bob Woodward) in the film, "All the President's Men." Fun fact: Bob Woodward spoke at Flagler College here in St. Augustine April 16, 2024.
From The New Republic:
Trump Library Saga Takes Dark Turn: Where Did Millions in Funding Go?
Four huge media conglomerates forked over $63 million in “settlements” earmarked for Trump’s presidential library. Democrats are trying to track that money—and the latest developments don’t inspire confidence.Last year, four huge companies pledged tens of millions of dollars to help fund the creation of Donald Trump’s presidential library, a planned monstrosity in Miami that—in a perfect Trumpian twist—may also double as a hotel. The companies—ABC; Paramount; Meta; and X, formerly Twitter—entered into the agreements with Trump to settle legal cases he’d brought against them which experts had dismissed as dubious.After the companies agreed to these shakedowns—sorry, settlements—the fund created to receive donations was dissolved last September. Since then, Senate Democrats have been asking: What happened to the money?Now there’s been an important new turn in this saga. The four companies have provided fresh information to Senate Democrats in written responses to their questions. For these Democrats, those responses—obtained by The New Republic—raise more questions than they answer. In these formal replies, all four companies confirmed that they did pledge that money to Trump’s library—itself a notable development. More importantly, however, the Democrats say the responses reveal that the money is still largely unaccounted for.“Not one of these companies can say with any clarity where their multi-million-dollar donations to Donald Trump’s library slush fund are, or where they will go,” Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who’s taken the lead in tracking this money, tells me in a statement.In a new letter to Trump, Warren and several other Democrats raise fresh questions about the replies and the money. They label the situation “deeply troubling,” particularly given Trump 2.0’s “vast tide of corruption and self-enrichment.”Indeed, the library saga combines many of the worst elements of Trump’s imperial presidency all in one project: his use of lawsuits to extort private entities for tribute, his garishly awful decorative and architectural taste, and his Nero-scale megalomania.To wit: Trump recently released a video rendering of the library that displayed a soaring skyscraper with the word “TRUMP” at the top in huge letters, massive screens playing his world-historical speeches, and enough Mar-a-Lago chintz to make you go blind. Trump recently declared that his library-and-hotel will outclass Barack Obama’s presidential library, which Trump derided as a “very unattractive building that’s seriously late and seriously over budget.”Clearly, Trump wants the world to know that he can erect a presidential skyscraper that’s bigger and more awesome than any presidential building that Obama erects.
But we digress: Let’s talk about the money! The companies all settled lawsuits with Trump after his 2024 victory: Paramount for $16 millionover a claim of fraudulent editing by CBS; Meta for $25 million and X for around $10 million over supposed censorship of Trump; and ABC for $15 million over alleged defamation. Experts criticized the lawsuits as weak and denounced the settlements as akin to extortion payments.
Under those settlements, the companies donated virtually all that money to the library project, totaling at least $63 million. But then the fund where most of that money appeared to be directed—the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Fund—was dissolved by Florida officials amid the failure to file a required annual report.
At that point, The Washington Post scooped that Democrats sent letters to the companies demanding information on what they knew about the whereabouts of their donations. Trump had established another, separate organization—the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Foundation, Inc.—as a tax-exempt nonprofit also created to raise money for the library. The Democrats also demanded to know if the funds had been redirected to that foundation.
Now those companies have all responded to the Democrats. ABC is the only company that shared any detail: It said it received word that the foundation has been authorized by the IRS as a nonprofit and that ABC expects to direct the money there. Paramount, Meta, and X confirmed their initial payments—but added nothing about the money’s current or intended whereabouts, the latter two citing confidentiality agreements in settlements with Trump.
Warren says this leaves the location of most or all of the $63 million unknown. “Tens of millions of dollars are unaccounted for, and the American people are left completely in the dark,” Warren tells me.
In their new letter to Trump, Warren and the other Democrats point out that at minimum, three of the companies “do not know or are not willing to share” information about the location of the money. They ask: Why was the initial fund dissolved? Did it contain the money when that happened? Why the need for a second organization—the foundation—on top of the fund? How much of the money is now in the foundation? Does Trump control this money?
It is possible, of course, that it all could prove legally aboveboard. If what ABC says is true, then the foundation has received IRS approval, and at least one company (ABC) plans to direct its money there. That could end up happening, and the three other companies could do the same.
But even if one grants those possibilities, the outstanding unknowns are glaring and the situation demands ongoing congressional scrutiny. “There remain a number of serious unanswered questions,” David Leviss, a former veteran House oversight lawyer now in private practice, tells me. “The congressional oversight process is well-suited and historically appropriate to address these types of issues.”
Molly Claflin, a lawyer who represents people targeted in congressional investigations, points out that without more transparency, there’s no way to know whether the transfer to the foundation is even happening. “It should be simple enough for the Trump team to show the legal transfer,” Claflin says.
There are also questions about what will happen even if the cash ends up with the foundation. “Is the money truly going to be used for the library?” Claflin asks. “Does Trump himself control the foundation?”
Recall that when Trump accepted a $400 million luxury plane gift from Qatar, he then promised to donate it to his library, which raised questionsabout whether he’d simply help himself to it once out of office. Warren tells me she’s concerned that the same might happen with the library cash: “Why should Americans trust that this money isn’t going straight into Trump’s pockets?”
If these payments do end up funding the library, they’re still deeply problematic in another way. Consider that these companies are contributing to a triumphal monument to Trump’s supreme greatness. By bringing frivolous lawsuits as president, Trump is inviting big corporations to choose between reaching “settlements” with him that put them on his good side—or not settling, which does the opposite. This, even as he’s in office and deciding on their business before the government, such as mergers and other matters.
“Even if the money doesn’t go to the president personally, he’s soliciting large amounts for something that’s very important to him—from companies that are enormously affected by his decisions,” government ethics expert Noah Bookbinder told me. “This creates a massive ethical problem.”
In this sense, the whole system of fundraising for presidential library nonprofits—which aren’t required to disclose donors—is ripe for abuse. Bill Clinton faced scrutiny over library donations during his presidency. This shouldn’t be allowed except under very limited circumstances: Warren has introduced legislation barring all presidents from raising money for presidential-library funds while in office, mandating disclosure of big donors, and barring personal use of the money.
Throw in Trump’s intimidation lawsuits and it all gets still worse: This is yet another way he’s turned the presidency into a giant Bribe Delivery System. Trump family members are launching a $500,000-per-member club enabling the ultrawealthy to channel cash their way. Trump’s donor-funded ballroom, and the family’s crypto deals and overseas real estate projects, create still more avenues for buying favoritism from the president. His threats against law firms and universities have incentivized them to fork over enormous sums to Trump’s pet causes.
“He’s constantly coming up with new ways to pay tribute to him,” Bookbinder said.
Whether the loot ends up in Trump’s pocket or goes to causes he pretends to care about, these are functionally extortion payments. They will continue to unfold in plain sight. They are already growing increasingly normalized. As for who can put a stop to this lunacy—well, only we can.
At that point, The Washington Post scooped that Democrats sent letters to the companies demanding information on what they knew about the whereabouts of their donations. Trump had established another, separate organization—the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Foundation, Inc.—as a tax-exempt nonprofit also created to raise money for the library. The Democrats also demanded to know if the funds had been redirected to that foundation.
Now those companies have all responded to the Democrats. ABC is the only company that shared any detail: It said it received word that the foundation has been authorized by the IRS as a nonprofit and that ABC expects to direct the money there. Paramount, Meta, and X confirmed their initial payments—but added nothing about the money’s current or intended whereabouts, the latter two citing confidentiality agreements in settlements with Trump.
Warren says this leaves the location of most or all of the $63 million unknown. “Tens of millions of dollars are unaccounted for, and the American people are left completely in the dark,” Warren tells me.
In their new letter to Trump, Warren and the other Democrats point out that at minimum, three of the companies “do not know or are not willing to share” information about the location of the money. They ask: Why was the initial fund dissolved? Did it contain the money when that happened? Why the need for a second organization—the foundation—on top of the fund? How much of the money is now in the foundation? Does Trump control this money?
It is possible, of course, that it all could prove legally aboveboard. If what ABC says is true, then the foundation has received IRS approval, and at least one company (ABC) plans to direct its money there. That could end up happening, and the three other companies could do the same.
But even if one grants those possibilities, the outstanding unknowns are glaring and the situation demands ongoing congressional scrutiny. “There remain a number of serious unanswered questions,” David Leviss, a former veteran House oversight lawyer now in private practice, tells me. “The congressional oversight process is well-suited and historically appropriate to address these types of issues.”
Molly Claflin, a lawyer who represents people targeted in congressional investigations, points out that without more transparency, there’s no way to know whether the transfer to the foundation is even happening. “It should be simple enough for the Trump team to show the legal transfer,” Claflin says.
There are also questions about what will happen even if the cash ends up with the foundation. “Is the money truly going to be used for the library?” Claflin asks. “Does Trump himself control the foundation?”
Recall that when Trump accepted a $400 million luxury plane gift from Qatar, he then promised to donate it to his library, which raised questionsabout whether he’d simply help himself to it once out of office. Warren tells me she’s concerned that the same might happen with the library cash: “Why should Americans trust that this money isn’t going straight into Trump’s pockets?”
If these payments do end up funding the library, they’re still deeply problematic in another way. Consider that these companies are contributing to a triumphal monument to Trump’s supreme greatness. By bringing frivolous lawsuits as president, Trump is inviting big corporations to choose between reaching “settlements” with him that put them on his good side—or not settling, which does the opposite. This, even as he’s in office and deciding on their business before the government, such as mergers and other matters.
“Even if the money doesn’t go to the president personally, he’s soliciting large amounts for something that’s very important to him—from companies that are enormously affected by his decisions,” government ethics expert Noah Bookbinder told me. “This creates a massive ethical problem.”
In this sense, the whole system of fundraising for presidential library nonprofits—which aren’t required to disclose donors—is ripe for abuse. Bill Clinton faced scrutiny over library donations during his presidency. This shouldn’t be allowed except under very limited circumstances: Warren has introduced legislation barring all presidents from raising money for presidential-library funds while in office, mandating disclosure of big donors, and barring personal use of the money.
Throw in Trump’s intimidation lawsuits and it all gets still worse: This is yet another way he’s turned the presidency into a giant Bribe Delivery System. Trump family members are launching a $500,000-per-member club enabling the ultrawealthy to channel cash their way. Trump’s donor-funded ballroom, and the family’s crypto deals and overseas real estate projects, create still more avenues for buying favoritism from the president. His threats against law firms and universities have incentivized them to fork over enormous sums to Trump’s pet causes.
“He’s constantly coming up with new ways to pay tribute to him,” Bookbinder said.
Whether the loot ends up in Trump’s pocket or goes to causes he pretends to care about, these are functionally extortion payments. They will continue to unfold in plain sight. They are already growing increasingly normalized. As for who can put a stop to this lunacy—well, only we can.
