๐๐ต๏ธIn a key report conducted by @CREWcrew ๐๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฉ'๐ฌ Middle East Earnings During his Presidency Fetched at Least A Minimum of $9.6 ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ซ๐ฌ.
During his presidency, Donald Trump reportedly earned around $9.6 million from Middle Eastern countries, a calculation based on extensive reporting and analysis of his tax returns by CREW. This amount is over six times his official presidential salary and highlights the intricate financial entanglements he maintained while in office. Trump's decision to retain his business interests post-election blurred the boundary between his government role and his enterprises, leading to a multitude of conflicts of interest.
This strategy proved highly profitable, resulting in tens of millions from international business activities throughout his tenure. Foreign officials, particularly from Middle Eastern nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Turkey, actively leveraged his properties to establish connections with the president, demonstrating the sway of financial interests on diplomatic relationships.
๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ข ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐
Between December 2016 and February 2017, Saudi government lobbyists took steps to secure multiple rooms at Trump's D.C. hotel, resulting in a reported 500 nights booked within three months and a spending of over $270,000 at the luxury property. This trend of Saudi patronage continued during Trump's tenure. In 2018, during the visit of the Saudi Crown Prince to New York, various members of his entourage opted to stay at the Trump International Hotel in Manhattan. These accommodations led to a significant revenue surge of 13%, reversing the hotel's two-year financial decline. Notably, prior to the tragic murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents, Trump's business partner in Indonesia forged an agreement with a Saudi-backed company to collaborate on a project featuring Trump-branded elements. This arrangement hinted at a broader connection between business interests and politics. Following Khashoggi's murder, Trump reciprocated with support for Saudi leaders, even insinuating that Khashoggi had ties to terrorist groups.
๐๐๐ญ๐๐ซ
Amid diplomatic rifts in the Middle East, with several nations severing ties with Qatar over alleged support for terrorism, Qatar undertook extensive lobbying efforts to restore its rapport with the U.S. and the Trump administration. Aiming to mend relations, Qatar invested significant resources, acquiring a $6.5 million condominium in Trump World Tower. Further cementing their intentions, they leased space in a San Francisco building co-owned by Trump himself, contributing a substantial annual rent of $125,000 directly to the president. Curiously, despite finishing renovations by February 2018, the rented office space remained unoccupied. This sequence culminated in April 2018 when Trump warmly welcomed the Emir of Qatar to the Oval Office, commending the nation's counterextremism efforts. This strategic positioning raises questions about the intersection of business interests and political overtures during the Trump presidency.
Amidst growing concerns over corruption and human rights issues, Donald Trump capitalized on financial opportunities from the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), primarily through his Dubai golf course. Before his presidency, Trump reaped substantial royalties, potentially reaching $10 million, from the Dubai golf course and other projects. Adding to these financial interactions, the U.A.E. expended sizable sums, up to $10,000 per night, for accommodations at Trump's Washington D.C. hotel between late 2017 and mid-2018. Coinciding with these transactions, Trump displayed favorable actions toward the U.A.E., aligning his administration with the "maximum pressure" approach against Iran, a U.A.E. adversary, and endorsing a $23 billion arms deal with Abu Dhabi in 2020. These intersections of finance and diplomacy raise questions about the dynamics of Trump's business interests intertwined with his political decisions.
๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐ค๐๐ฒ
In the years 2017 and 2019, entities linked to the Turkish government organized a total of four events at properties owned by Donald Trump. Notably, Turkish officials visited the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., on 15 occasions during this period, each visit incurring costs of up to $10,000 per night for rooms. In the midst of these interactions, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan pressed Trump to halt an investigation related to sanctions breaches by a state-owned Turkish bank. In response to Erdogan's urging, Department of Justice (DOJ) officials reportedly moved to suppress the investigation following directives from Trump, although the investigation ultimately progressed. This sequence of events raises concerns about the potential intertwining of financial interests and political decisions.
๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ข๐ญ
During his presidency, the Embassy of Kuwait organized three independence day events at Trump's D.C. hotel, leading to reciprocal favors as Trump bestowed a "top U.S. honor" on Kuwait's ruling emir. Trump has consistently vocalized his affinity for the substantial financial benefits these relationships bring, openly acknowledging the large sums involved and his positive sentiments toward countries like Saudi Arabia. This sentiment continued post-presidency, exemplified by the Saudi-backed LIV golf league tournament held at Trump's Doral golf club in Miami, where Trump praised the financial success and moved the championship to his property. The reported $9.6 million income from Middle Eastern nations is likely just the beginning, as other unrecorded instances involving Iraq, Oman, and Yemen indicate a deeper level of conflict of interest that isn't fully captured on his tax returns. Despite controversies, Trump's presidency turned out to be a lucrative business move, with his financial records reflecting the considerable advantage the office brought to his financial standing. As the 2024 election approaches, foreign actors, especially those in the Middle East, continue to invest in Trump's enterprises, emphasizing the ongoing financial intertwining of politics and business.
๐ฐ๐ Trump's Middle East Money Trail ๐๐ฐ During his presidency, Trump earned at least $9.6 million from Middle Eastern countries through various business deals.
From Saudi lobbyists booking rooms to Kuwait's embassy hosting events, financial favors yielded reciprocal gestures, including a 'top U.S. honor.' The lucrative ties continued post-presidency, with Trump openly praising the money-making potential of Gulf countries.
This financial web is likely more extensive than known, underscoring the intersection of politics and profit. As 2024 looms, foreign interests, including those from the Middle East, keep investing, raising questions about the influence of money on politics. #TrumpMiddleEastDeals #ConflictOfInterest
๐ฐ๐ผ Trumpโs Middle East Business Deals: Money Talks ๐ผ๐ฐ Lobbyists, embassies, and golfโTrumpโs presidency saw him rake in at least $9.6 million from Middle Eastern connections. From Saudi stays to Kuwaiti parties, financial favors flowed both ways.
๐จ๐Tragic BREAKING news: Yevgeny Prigozhin, reportedly aboard a crashed plane from Moscow to St Petersburg, has lost his life along with all passengers and crew.
A private jet traveling from Moscow to St. Petersburg has crashed, claiming the lives of all ten individuals on board. Among those listed was Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner private military company. The circumstances surrounding the crash are still emerging, leaving uncertainty about Prigozhin's presence on the flight. A somber reminder of life's unpredictability. ๐๏ธ๐ท๐บ #Tragedy #RIP
Some Wagner-linked channels suggest Russian air defense could be involved. A somber reminder of the uncertainties of life.
Heartbreaking: Private jet crash kills all 10 on board, including Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of Wagner private military company. Questions linger about his presence. ๐
Tragedy unfolds as ten lose lives in private jet crash. TASS, referencing Russia's Ministry of Emergency Situations, reports the Embraer ERJ-135 jet was en route from Moscow to St. Petersburg. RA-02795, linked to Wagner PMC's head Yevgeny Prigozhin, was allegedly the aircraft's registration number. #AirDisaster #Prigozhin
๐จ๐In a new Legal development: Attorney John Eastman surrenders to authorities over charges in Georgia's 2020 election subversion case.
Summary of John Eastman's Surrender:
Conservative attorney John Eastman surrendered to authorities in Georgia, facing charges linked to an illegal scheme to overturn the 2020 election outcome. Eastman, who advised Donald Trump and played a role in the run-up to the January 6th Capitol attack, was indicted alongside Trump and others. He's accused of pushing for alternate electors and pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to disrupt the electoral vote count, falsely certifying Trump's win.
Legal Analysis of Charges and Penalties:
John Eastman's surrender and indictment in the Georgia case signal a complex legal situation. The charges, including conspiracy and attempts to subvert election results, highlight the orchestration of an unlawful effort to challenge the legitimate electoral outcome. The penalties for such crimes can vary depending on the severity and specifics of the charges. If convicted, Eastman could potentially face fines, probation, or imprisonment.
The case also brings into focus the role of legal advisors and the line between zealous advocacy and criminal behavior. Eastman's argument that he was targeted for his legal advocacy raises questions about the boundaries of legal representation when it comes to challenging election results. The indictment's contention that attorneys were part of a broader scheme to undermine the election outcome underscores the nuanced legal considerations at play.
Given the significance of the charges and the potential implications for the rule of law, the legal proceedings surrounding Eastman's case will likely garner substantial attention. As the legal process unfolds, it will provide insights into the extent to which legal arguments can be used to justify alleged attempts to subvert democratic processes.
A legal storm brews as conservative attorney John Eastman surrenders on charges tied to 2020 election subversion. apnews.com/article/trump-โฆ
I make threads like these daily, follow me today and stay updated with topics that affect your daily lives, with some occasional art and historical facts. Be sure to turn on tweet Notifications๐ next to the follow button.
๐จ๐In a new Legal development: Attorney John Eastman surrenders to authorities over charges in Georgia's 2020 election subversion case.
Summary of John Eastman's Surrender:
Conservative attorney John Eastman surrendered to authorities in Georgia, facing charges linked to an illegal scheme to overturn the 2020 election outcome. Eastman, who advised Donald Trump and played a role in the run-up to the January 6th Capitol attack, was indicted alongside Trump and others. He's accused of pushing for alternate electors and pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to disrupt the electoral vote count, falsely certifying Trump's win.
Legal Analysis of Charges and Penalties:
John Eastman's surrender and indictment in the Georgia case signal a complex legal situation. The charges, including conspiracy and attempts to subvert election results, highlight the orchestration of an unlawful effort to challenge the legitimate electoral outcome. The penalties for such crimes can vary depending on the severity and specifics of the charges. If convicted, Eastman could potentially face fines, probation, or imprisonment.
The case also brings into focus the role of legal advisors and the line between zealous advocacy and criminal behavior. Eastman's argument that he was targeted for his legal advocacy raises questions about the boundaries of legal representation when it comes to challenging election results. The indictment's contention that attorneys were part of a broader scheme to undermine the election outcome underscores the nuanced legal considerations at play.
Given the significance of the charges and the potential implications for the rule of law, the legal proceedings surrounding Eastman's case will likely garner substantial attention. As the legal process unfolds, it will provide insights into the extent to which legal arguments can be used to justify alleged attempts to subvert democratic processes.
A legal storm brews as conservative attorney John Eastman surrenders on charges tied to 2020 election subversion. apnews.com/article/trump-โฆ
I make threads like these daily, follow me today and stay updated with topics that affect your daily lives, with some occasional art and historical facts. Be sure to turn on tweet Notifications๐ next to the follow button.
๐๐จ breaking,Trump's lawyers accept a $200,000 bond following a discussion with Fulton County DA's office.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY**
Former President Donald Trump and his legal team have agreed to a $200,000 bond and other conditions, following discussions with the Fulton County District Attorneyโs office. They are part of a group of co-defendants involved in a wide-ranging Georgia racketeering case. The negotiation of bond terms is taking place with the district attorneyโs office, involving Trump's lawyers Todd Blanche, Jennifer Little, and Drew Findling, who are playing key roles.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has also reached a bond agreement with co-defendant John Eastman, a conservative attorney, for a $100,000 bond. Additionally, Scott Hall, a bail bondsman facing seven charges including racketeering, has agreed to a $10,000 bond with conditions including regular pre-trial supervision. The defendants, having already been indicted, are expected to finalize release and bond terms before surrendering at the jail, potentially avoiding an initial court appearance. Law enforcement presence remains heightened around the Fulton County court complex, as negotiations with the district attorneyโs office continue, with multiple agencies involved in security.
Former President Trump agrees to $200,000 bond & terms after discussions with Fulton County DAโs office.
๐๐จIn a recently new development, Former chief of staff Mark Meadows' conflicting statements on declassified documents create legal ripples in Trump's classified documents case. A tangled web of contradictions adds complexity to the legal narrative, as Trump faces charges linked to Mar-a-Lago documents. ๐โ๏ธ
**Background Summary:**
Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows appears to have contradicted Donald Trump's claims regarding the declassification of classified documents. Meadows told investigators from special counsel Jack Smith's team that he couldn't remember any discussions or orders from Trump about declassifying materials before leaving the White House. This contradiction arises as Trump faces numerous criminal charges linked to classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago, challenging his defense strategy.
**Legal Analysis:**
If Mark Meadows withholds pertinent information from the special counsel's investigation, he could potentially face legal consequences. By providing inconsistent information to investigators, Meadows might open himself up to charges of obstruction of justice or making false statements to federal officials. If found guilty, Meadows could face fines, imprisonment, or both. Moreover, his credibility as a witness could be compromised, impacting not only his own legal situation but also the broader legal proceedings. Courts take obstruction and false statements seriously, as they hinder the pursuit of justice and undermine the integrity of the investigative process. The legal repercussions for Meadows would depend on various factors, including the nature of the information withheld and the intent behind his actions.
#MeadowsTestimony #LegalTwists
Meadows' contradicting statements echo through Trump's legal saga. With potential consequences for obstruction and credibility, his role as a witness takes center stage. Legal intricacies deepen as the investigation delves into the classified documents case. ๐ต๏ธโโ๏ธโ๏ธ #MeadowsInvestigation #LegalComplexities
Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadowsโ conflicting statements regarding the declassification of classified documents add a layer of complexity to Donald Trumpโs legal situation. wsj.com/articles/trumpโฆ
๐จ๐๐ต๏ธโโ๏ธ๐๏ธIn a key study conducted by @tribelaw The Constitution prevents Trump from ever becoming President again; the concern is whether current citizens will honor this commitment.
Background information **
The thesis of the study posits that the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its Section 3, serves as a safeguard against the potential threat posed by a treasonous president to the integrity of the republic. The authors assert that this provision, often overlooked, automatically disqualifies individuals who have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution but subsequently engage in actions of insurrection or rebellion against it.
The authors contend that this disqualification operates independently of criminal convictions, impeachment proceedings, or legislative actions. They argue that former President Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and the subsequent attack on the U.S. Capitol place him squarely within the ambit of this disqualification clause, rendering him ineligible to serve as president again. The authors emphasize the importance of adhering to this aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment's disqualification clause.
WHAT SECTION III OF THE FOURTEEN AMENDMENT IS**
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is commonly referred to as the "disqualification clause." It outlines the consequences for individuals who have previously taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution but later engage in acts of insurrection or rebellion against it, or provide aid or comfort to its enemies. Here is the text of Section 3:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Legal Implications**
From a legal perspective, the authors assert that the evidence laid out by legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen supports the conclusion that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment remains relevant and effective today. They emphasize that the provision does not require additional legislation, criminal conviction, or judicial action to be enforceable, as it is considered "self-executing." The authors address concerns that disqualification based on Section 3 could be seen as anti-democratic or overly broad, noting that judicial decisions would play a crucial role in defining terms like "insurrection" and "rebellion."
In conclusion, the authors suggest that the application of Section 3's disqualification clause does not hinge on specific historical context and is not limited to the post-Civil War era. They contend that the provision remains relevant in safeguarding the republic from those who would betray their oath to uphold the Constitution. The authors acknowledge the potential for legal challenges and debates surrounding the interpretation of terms like "insurrection" and "rebellion." Nevertheless, they emphasize the importance of upholding the Constitution and the rule of law, stating that the provision offers a mechanism to protect the nation from those who seek to undermine it.
In summary, Section 3 establishes that individuals who have taken an oath to support the Constitution and subsequently engage in acts of insurrection, rebellion, or provide aid to its enemies are automatically disqualified from holding various public offices. This disqualification can be removed by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
In a historic development, an Atlanta-based grand jury has indicted former President Donald Trump with state charges linked to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. This marks Trump's fourth ongoing criminal case, as he continues his 2024 White House campaign. The charges stem from an exhaustive investigation led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, targeting significant actions taken by Trump and his supporters to undermine the election's credibility.
The charges were the outcome of around 10 hours of jury deliberations. Notably, these state charges, unlike the federal charges from Justice Department's special counsel Jack Smith, fall under state jurisdiction, which might shield them from potential interference by Trump, including self-pardons or dismissal via executive orders.
Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statute holds considerable power due to its broad coverage, including acts like forgery and false statements as predicate offenses. Unlike its federal counterpart, the state's RICO statute encompasses a wider range of crimes that could be part of a criminal enterprise. This makes it a potent tool for prosecuting complex schemes or organized efforts to break the law. The inclusion of forgery and false statements as predicates makes it effective in cases where false documents are used in a broader criminal context.
In the scenario of the Trump campaign using fake electors, the Georgia RICO statute might apply if its elements are met. If campaign members engaged in actions involving forgery or false statements, these could be seen as part of a larger criminal enterprise under the statute. This framework helps prosecutors connect seemingly unrelated actions into a coherent narrative of organized wrongdoing.
As Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis pursues the case against Trump, the Georgia RICO statute gives her a unique tool. Its use offers an advantage, enabling her to address coordinated efforts to undermine the 2020 election comprehensively. Utilizing RICO charges could strategically benefit Willis, allowing her to navigate complex legal terrain and present a more impactful case compared to prosecutors without this tool.