One of the problems in confronting Trump's corruption is that we've been trained to use the wrong language to describe it. "Conflict of interest," "ethical concerns" etc. is made for small technical violations, not shameless cash-grabs, shakedowns, and payoffs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/13/trump-mideast-business-conflicts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/13/trump-mideast-business-conflicts
Comments
Hence, it’s all the sterile, speculative, esoteric province of discrete bodies of “experts”:
… \1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/13/trump-mideast-business-conflicts/
Note that it’s never the public saying it. Meanwhile, the estimable experts they do trot out… \2
or simply learned dunces. Here’s Douglas Brinkley applying a maddeningly impossible and inappropriate standard:
“There’s yet to be proven illegality. But it’s taking a wrecking ball to convention and norms….”, blah blah.
What about the emoluments clause?… \3
https://bsky.app/profile/brendanamartin.bsky.social/post/3ljj3akl5ds2n
What about the more pressing concern: "This openly criminal transaction poses an active threat to national security and the country's future."