Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
There's no sum of money that will keep you safe from Trump (Lisa Needham and Stephen Robinson in Public Notice)
https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-shakedownsABC News gave Donald Trump millions in the hopes he’d leave them alone. Needless to say, it didn’t work. But hey — at least it paved the way for others to try to soothe Trump with cash.
It’s not clear if this is pay-to-play, a protection racket, or some combination of both. In any case, it’s not exactly the hallmark of a functional democracy, and Trump’s first presidency, with its self-dealing and Emoluments Clause violations, is now positively quaint by comparison.
-snip-
The millions ABC gave Trump were supposed to insulate it from this sort of attack. But the nature of a protection racket is that it doesn’t actually keep one safe. The cost to comply can always go up. The nature of what constitutes compliance can always be changed. And once you agree to pay, you can’t ever really stop, or the nominal protection entirely disappears, and you become an active target.
That’s part of why watching giant law firms give in to Trump is so distressing. It’s not just that it’s morally problematic for them to bend the knee to an aspiring authoritarian, though it is. It’s that doing so both emboldens Trump to go after more firms and because there’s no reason to believe Trump will hold to any deals.
-snip-
It’s not clear if this is pay-to-play, a protection racket, or some combination of both. In any case, it’s not exactly the hallmark of a functional democracy, and Trump’s first presidency, with its self-dealing and Emoluments Clause violations, is now positively quaint by comparison.
-snip-
The millions ABC gave Trump were supposed to insulate it from this sort of attack. But the nature of a protection racket is that it doesn’t actually keep one safe. The cost to comply can always go up. The nature of what constitutes compliance can always be changed. And once you agree to pay, you can’t ever really stop, or the nominal protection entirely disappears, and you become an active target.
That’s part of why watching giant law firms give in to Trump is so distressing. It’s not just that it’s morally problematic for them to bend the knee to an aspiring authoritarian, though it is. It’s that doing so both emboldens Trump to go after more firms and because there’s no reason to believe Trump will hold to any deals.
-snip-
The new threat against ABC is explained here: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5224716-fcc-chair-abc-broadcast-license-disney-dei/
And another top law firm, Doug Emhoff's, just capitulated and offered Trump $100 million in pro bono work he approves.
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
