Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

Corruption is like structural rot: Hard to prevent, but 10 times harder to get rid of
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/05/11/corruption-is-like-structural-rot-hard-to-prevent-but-10-times-harder-to-get-rid-of/?utm_term=.5bc4021c0aef (Opinion | Corruption is like structural rot: Hard to prevent, but 10 times harder to get rid of)

The only thing worse than having to keep your roof in good repair is not keeping it in good repair.

If you’ve ever seen a derelict building, sagging in the process of a slow-motion collapse, you were probably looking at the evidence of a roof breach. Once water gets into a structure, the deterioration is swift and can become irreversible. Infiltrating water is subtle but relentless. If you want a good metaphor for corruption, think water damage.

Any reader of news or student of history has also noticed that every country everywhere has had to battle corruption. It is evidently an intrinsic weakness of human nature, and of every government system ever invented. But three things we know.

We know that some systems are more vulnerable to it than others. In an open, healthy, egalitarian society, there is generally less danger of corruption because all citizens feel engaged and empowered and invested in a lawful, clean government.

We know how corruption, like water damage, will eventually eat away and collapse the structural supports of a functioning government.

We know that once the safeguards are breached and the damage gets started, it is vastly harder to deal with. The phase “everybody does it” is the sign that the rot is taking hold.

And here we are. That drip, drip, drip you hear is the precursor of rot begun and rot to come. You may not be able to see exactly where the corruption is in this administration, and that is, in fact, part of the problem. So much is deliberately hidden from your view. But you don’t have to know exactly where the water is running inside your walls to know it’s doing damage — and that the damage will become entrenched, and eventually permanent.

No, you don’t want to think about it, because it’s depressing. But there are two types of people and societies. The kind that put their heads under the pillow and try to not listen, and the kind that get up and call a reputable roofer.
 


After meeting with President Trump last week, French President Emmanuel Macron made two predictions: The United States would pull out of the Iran nuclear deal — and that decision would lead to war.

He could soon be proved right on both counts.

Just hours after President Trump reimposed sanctions on Iran on Tuesday, dealing a body blow to the nuclear agreement, tensions escalated between Iran and Israel. On the night of Trump’s announcement, Israel put its troops on "high alert," perhaps anticipating a strike on Israeli targets in Syria. Officials called up reservists and warned the residents of the Golan Heights, which borders Syria, to prepare public bomb shelters.

...

Tension between Israel and Iran is nothing new, of course. But the speedy acceleration of violence between the two countries is cause for concern. And it’s almost certainly a result of Trump's decision. “While Israel and Iran have been conducting a shadow war in Syria for months under the cover of the civil war there,” the New York Times wrote, “the conflict has now burst into the open.” It’s anyone's guess how far things may now go.

...

So the worst-case scenario may not be a brutal regional war with thousands of lives on the line. It could be an American intervention with tremendous global consequences. As https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trumps-iran-decision-just-brought-us-closer-to-war/2018/05/08/fdee4fde-52d5-11e8-9c91-7dab596e8252_story.html?utm_term=.7f26183da7e6 (The Post’s editorial board put it) earlier this week: “The Saudis and Israelis may hope that Mr. Trump’s decision will draw the United States back into the Middle East through a confrontation with their enemy. The president has frequently said that he has no wish for further Mideast wars; his decision has made one more likely.”
 


The subtext of many of the recent tales—from Donald Trump’s https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-the-king-of-debt-trump-borrowed-to-build-his-empire-then-he-began-spending-hundreds-of-millions-in-cash/2018/05/05/28fe54b4-44c4-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.f2c4329ff292 (massive cash-spending spree) to Cohen’s $32 million flip of New York real estate—is that the atypical transactions are worthy of greater scrutiny. After all, why was the self-proclaimed “King of Debt” suddenly waist-deep in cash and on a spending spree in the midst of the global real estate crash? Where was Cohen’s money coming from—and where was it going?

It’s the old adage from the Watergate investigation: “http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/298571/All-The-President-s-Men-Movie-Clip-Follow-The-Money.html (Follow the money).”

The implication, particularly in the more fever-swampy portions of Twitter, is that there was money laundering afoot—probably Russian in origin. The “quid” perhaps, before the election and the “pro quo” afterward. But is that a real possibility—and if it was money laundering, by whom and how?

[T]o Treasury officials and law enforcement who have long pursued money laundering and terrorist financing probes, it’s not what Donald Trump or Michael Cohen did in any single transaction that raises red flags—it’s how they conducted business day in and day out. The layers of shell companies, the https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/07/the-7-most-interesting-parts-of-stormy-danielss-lawsuit-against-trump/?utm_term=.0c335f57c2b3 (contracts involving pseudonyms), the law firm cut-outs to make deals.

"Many of the activities, when viewed in aggregate, point to a deliberate attempt to create opacity,” says Amit Sharma, who used to work on countering terrorist financing after 9/11 at the Treasury Department. “When you take two steps back, you see a murkiness and level of complexity with which the Cohen and Trump companies have operated—what are they hiding? Why are secondary and tertiary entities signing under pseudonyms and ‘cover' names? Truly legitimate, transparent companies don’t need to do that. Does this point to corruption and/or conspiracy? It certainly looks that way!
 
Top