Diagnosing Trump, Inc.
There are many looking into Trump’s complicated financial history and the activities of his advisors and surrogates during the campaign. The symptoms include, but are not limited to, misleading the public about contacts with Russian officials. Extensive ties to oligarchs and other potential kleptocrats. And, rumors or leaks of back-door deals to further Russian interests. In medicine, there is a risk that the pursuit of a “unifying diagnosis[i]” can miss other health problems, or interpret run-of-the-mill discomforts as symptoms of a more worrisome ailment. So, what are the symptoms of this administration and what should be our current diagnosis? How bad does it look?
The answer is: pretty bad. And the documentation of these symptoms grows increasingly more thorough each day. What we have seen throughout this network is a pattern of financial conduct that would at the very least be politically damaging if fully disclosed. There are repeated ties to unscrupulous actors, some that appear to be small-scale swindlers and others that may be much more than that. There is also a widespread hint of incompetence. At an extreme, there is the potential that agents of Russia (and perhaps other countries as well) have been able to coopt advisors or even the main actors in the administration.
Symptom: All the President’s Lying Advisors
We now have a long list of Trump campaign surrogates and advisors who have denied speaking with Russian officials only to have admitted later that they had. Michael Flynn and Jeff Sessions are the most significant examples. But, Carter Page and J.D. Gordon have also reversed earlier claims of no contact (Washington Post). Gordon has contradicted a previous statement from Paul Manafort regarding the source of the change to the GOP’s platform on Ukraine’s fight against Russian-backed separatists. These inaccurate statements were apparently intended to direct the public’s attention away from ties with Russia. That may have been political expediency, at least for some of these advisors. But, given Manafort’s v. Gordon’s statements of the alterations to the GOP platform and the frequency of these shifts in recollection, there may also be something more sinister here.
Diagnosis: Politically expedient lying, or worse…
We know that the dossier compiled by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele paints a very negative picture about Trump and Russia. There have been many leaks and reports that raise the potential a Trump advisor or several advisors are not acting in the best interests of the United States. The apparently ongoing investigations will have access to much more information than what we know today. One report from January from the BBC stated that these investigations included Russian funding of the Trump campaign. So, contacts between current and former Russian-linked operatives are of particular interest. It is likely that money, if it was given, would have moved through intermediaries.
Carter Page’s conduct has attracted attention for some time. Late last year, Politico spoke with several Russia-watchers who had not heard of him. This week’s Politico story about Page’s trip to Moscow includes the new detail that Lewandowski approved the trip and that the trip was discussed internally, with some voicing misgivings about appearances. After the trip, according to this report, members of Trump’s campaign studiously avoided learning what Page discussed and who he met with while in Moscow. What motivated this trip, which Lewandowski insisted remain officially removed from the campaign? Page, a relative unknown, claims to have a role in Russia’s oil and finance industries, which would bring along strong possibilities for links to Russian officials.
Symptom: Manafort’s finances and his connections in Ukraine.
Much suspicion has swirled around Paul Manafort, which I reviewed last week. There is also the question of whether Manafort has complied with regulations requiring lobbyists for foreign governments to register in the United States. Michael Flynn, in fact, just came forward with a very lucrative contract tied to a Turkish company. Registering would involve disclosure of earnings (New York Times, Associated Press) and provide additional details about Manafort’s ties.
Manafort’s son-in-law has also recently filed for bankruptcies, including for one property that has Manafort listed as a creditor. At times, Manafort and his son-in-law also have acted as partners. The son-in-law is accused of undertaking a Ponzi scheme in a New York real estate deal as well. Manafort has repeatedly engaged in home refinancing on several properties with increasingly less favorable borrowing terms (see more at the blog 377union). The loans Manafort has been accessing have been decidedly of the high-yield, i.e., high-risk, variety of late. And he has climbed down the ladder of creditors in the process. As I reviewed last week, Manafort attempted two high-stake ventures with oligarchs linked to Putin. On the surface, the more recent financial dealings for Manafort appear to be indicative of fiscal concerns. Whether he has sufficient resources to counter this trend is unclear — a nearly 10% loan would strongly indicate that is not the case.
Then there is the matter of his right-hand-man in Kiev, Konstantin Kilimnik, again discussed briefly last week. Last night, Politico reported that Kilimnik traveled twice (at least) to the United States to meet with Manafort. As noted last week, the former member of Russia’s military intelligence, Kilimnik, was reportedly working on securing overdue payments from their clients in Ukraine. The most recent account in Politico raises the prospects that Kilimnik was involved in the redrafting of the GOP platform on assistance to Ukraine, which you will recall Manafort denied was done by the campaign … But, Gordon has recently said was an initiative undertaken by Trump’s advisors. And all the while, we now know that Sergey Kislyak was in contact with the campaign, a fact that has been repeatedly denied. We do not know if the investigation into Kilimnik is ongoing. He has been, reportedly, cleared of wrongdoing in Kiev although not without complaint for that process.
Yes, there are plausible and less worrisome explanations for all of this. But, the reality is the Trump campaign, and the president, have been less than forthright with their public statements on these matters.
Diagnosis: The oligarch’s Machiavelli, or worse…
Paul Manafort might have a claim to the title of this generation’s Machiavelli, who also experienced financial issues as his career declined in exile. Manafort has worked in Ukraine for more than a decade, often under the direction of major oligarchs aligned with Russian interests. According to court filings, detailed last week, he structured two complicated financial deals that later unraveled with two oligarchs. It would seem that the financial crisis scuttled his efforts to make large amounts of money. His name has reportedly appeared on a Yanukovych ledger (New York Times) with a sizeable amount owed. His business associates were reportedly under surveillance for ties to the FSB (New York Times). He rehabilitated Yanukovych’s career after the Orange Revolution, and when Yanukovych fled to Russia he worked to rehabilitate the party that Yanukovych fled, and apparently is owed money for that as well. Manafort has denied knowingly working with Russian intelligence, noting that clandestine services do not wear identification badges. Whether he should have been suspicious of his interactions would be another matter. It is imperative to have the above mentioned cast of characters asked under oath about their role in altering the GOP platform regarding assistance to Ukraine.
Symptom: Trump’s deals with the questionably wealthy
The New Yorker has just published another account of Trump’s business links to fantastically rich residents of the Former Soviet Union, this time in Azerbaijan. Last week, I reviewed some of Trump’s ties to other poorly managed property ventures alongside ties to the wealthy and potentially corrupt from the FSU. This deal discussed in the New Yorker, according to Trump’s attorney, was of the licensor & management variety like other Trump real estate deals. The deal involved relatives of Ziya Mammadov, a government official with a reputation for corruption. The Mammadov’s are linked with a construction company run by a member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The New Yorker demonstrates that a simple Google search would have raised suspicions about this partner.
The Trumps seem eager to do deals anywhere and with anyone. One hazard of this sort of business model is the risk that less scrupulous people will find their way into your orbit. This has clearly happened again and again with Trump.
Diagnosis: Amoral, Immoral, Incompetent, and/or Illegal
Trump went from a successful real estate developer to a very unsuccessful casino / airline / football team owner. He remained financially afloat through the value of his brand and was able to use a gift for marketing (maybe his only gift) to transform that brand into media fame and licensing deals. Given his financial situation in the 1990’s and early 2000’s, he seemed a perfect target for the capital unleashed by the fall of the Soviet Union and he has aggressively pursued clients and relationships involving the region ever since. He seems to have no scruples in business, or in other matters. He and his children may also have engaged in some deals that would risk violating US laws concerning due diligence with foreign investments. This diagnosis would explain the reluctance to release tax returns. At the very least, Trump, Inc., is vulnerable to potentially politically damaging revelations about with who and how they have done business.
A lot of people are digging through Trump’s business ties and the conduct of his advisors and surrogates during the campaign. With a large financial footprint, it is not surprising that Trump has dealings with numerous potentially suspect individuals. Given his financial position in the 1990s and 2000s, Trump was desperate for capital and projects and would have been a great conduit for capital flight. There are laws that potentially have been broken with some of these deals. At the very least, the Trumps have shown no concern for the moral standing of their business partners. That in and of itself is disturbing for a president, but especially for a president who has not meaningfully divested from his companies.
As for the advisors, there is enough smoke to investigate further. While some may have been misleading regarding their contacts with Russian officials during the campaign out of political expediency. Some of these ties are worth pursuing with subpoena power in an open and independent manner. We can only hope the Congress allows it. That being said, I am surprised some Attorneys General of US states have not announced investigations at this time.
[i] Herman, Joseph (1994). “The Unifying Diagnosis,” Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 12 (2), p. 68–69
