Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

It does, good point. If you represent yourself as the plaintiff, well, as they said, even Clarence Darrow had an attorney.

The Constitution says you're entitled to a defense, not an offense.

Also...if Trump really is representing himself, which I doubt, but if he is, he's going to miss every single filing and fill out every form wrong. Not because he's an idiot who can't read or pay attention, even though he is, but because those forms are walking time bombs of clerical errors and paper cuts.

- - - Underappreciated - - -

As predicted by everyone except me, Trump did indeed sue to block the investigation into his crimes, asking for a "special master" to determine if the things he stole are the things he stole.

Again, anything that wasn't in the list of classified intel will be returned, whether it's lawyer-client or not. This is just desperation with a badly fitting Chinese suit.

However, the lawsuit was filed by Trump's attorneys. So, I did get that one right.

[postman1782]

So, new word out is that he had over 300 classified documents between all of the boxes that the Archives and FBI have seized from Trump.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/over-3...es-2022-08-23/

Documents include stuff from the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA. 300 different sets of classified materials, I don't think I have EVER heard of another president, or even a fucking COFFEE BOY for a politician having so much fucking classified material in their possession, without getting decades in prison.

[RampageBW1]

The Constitution says you're entitled to a defense, not an offense.

Also...if Trump really is representing himself, which I doubt, but if he is, he's going to miss every single filing and fill out every form wrong. Not because he's an idiot who can't read or pay attention, even though he is, but because those forms are walking time bombs of clerical errors and paper cuts.

"These forms were designed by the Biden administration to embarrass me specifically, I am sure they weren't as hard to fill out accurately before he took office. I should know, I am the best form filler."

you read that in his voice, you're welcome.

[Breccia]

I'm not a...hold on.

you read that in his voice, you're welcome.

No, I didn't, you can't prove anything.

I'm not an expert, but this guy is.

National security lawyer Bradley P. Moss railed against the motion that former President Donald Trump filed in his civil lawsuit against the United States government over the Federal Bureau of Investigation's August 8th search warrant execution at Trump's Mar-a-Lago retreat in Palm Beach, Florida in a scathing Twitter thread late Monday afternoon.

Moss's analysis came hours after he opined in a Monday morning Fox News editorial that the FBI was "justified" in its judicially sanctioned actions.

"The more I read Trump’s motion, the more I am completely confused and shocked he got three lawyers to risk their law licenses by filing this thing. 1) what kind of motion is this? What authority is he invoking to provide the court with jurisdiction? Is this a preliminary Injunction? Is it seeking an emergency 'Franks' hearing? What is this motion exactly? 2) how are they establishing venue? They filed in the wrong district court as best I can tell (h/t Steve Vladeck)," wrote Moss.

I mean...at this point, does it matter if Trump has a lawyer or not? This sounds garbage. But at least it doesn't get any w--

"3) why are there no exhibits or sworn affidavits attesting to any of the facts listed in the motion? Are they deliberately asking for the government to just unleash on them in the response pleading? 4) what is the standard of review? I have no idea what standard they’re saying the judge should even be using in evaluating any of these issues in the motion. 5) what case law is there to suggest these issues can be dealt with now, as opposed to only once an indictment has been issued?" Moss continued.

Hoo boy. That sounds really bad. But at least it wasn't called garb--

"Seriously," Moss added, "this motion is just garbage."

Ah. Well, at least Trump has not just the support of his rabid fanbase, but also the classic Republicans, who Trump treats with the resp--

Why do Republican Senators allow a broken down hack politician, Mitch McConnell, to openly disparage hard-working Republican candidates for the United States Senate? This is such an affront to honor and to leadership. He should spend more time (and money!) helping them get elected, and less time helping his crazy wife and family get rich on China!

I mean, I don't even call Graham's wife crazy, and you should see this one thing she *cough* so yeah, attacking Mitch McConnell's wife doesn't sound partiularly friendly. Well, this sounds incompetent, pathetic, and even more pathetic even by Trump standards. But at least he's not vio--

Trump described boxes of classified documents as 'mine' and swatted away White House officials who tried to return documents from Kim Jong-un and Barack Obama

Whatever.

Also worth noting from Trump's filing:

President Donald J. Trump is the clear frontrunner in the 2024 Republican Presidential primary and in the 2024 General Election should he decide to run. Beyond that his endorsement in the 2022 mid-term primary elections has been decisive for Republican candidates.

Trump has effectively said, under oath, he shouldn't be prosecuted because he's popular.

[Corvus]

Clear frontrunner should he decide to run? Just run then.

Oh wait, can't graft if you do that.

[postman1782]

Clear frontrunner should he decide to run? Just run then.

Oh wait, can't graft if you do that.

Also the RNC said they stop paying his legal fees if he does declare.

[Poopymonster]

Also the RNC said they stop paying his legal fees if he does declare.

Dildon will ride the RNC until his Trumpasaurus Debt is low/gone, then declare he's not running.
Assuming the RNC has any money.

[Gorsameth]

Dildon will ride the RNC until his Trumpasaurus Debt is low/gone, then declare he's not running.
Assuming the RNC has any money.

Trump has to many lawsuits he needs to get immunity from to not run for President.

Having someone else pays your legal fees doesn't help much when your faced with stuff like a slam dunk case of breaking the Espionage act.

[Dead Moose Fandango]

Well Trump is winning, only it's a race between him and Benedict Arnold for biggest traitor in US history.

Except Benedict Arnold going traitor was understandable.

[Breccia]

Trump has to many lawsuits he needs to get immunity from to not run for President.

Actually...I don't think that's true anymore. With the FBI kicking down his door and the Jan 6th panel, his problem is criminal trials. NYState is a state affair currently against his business, and as Weaselberg proved, have possible criminal riders. And Georgia would also be criminal.

Imagine being Trump and having a lawsuit being the second worst thing that could happen to you.

- - - Hard Boiled - - -

Except Benedict Arnold going traitor was understandable.

And he made some great eggs.

- - - Wheeeeeeeeeeee- - -

So while this is an opinion piece, as many do, it cites actual facts -- legal ones, this time.

1) Trump filed this motion to have a "special master" go over what the FBI took. Okay, but the warrant was executed two weeks ago. The DOJ has already read literally everything by now.

2) This quote:

This Mar-a-Lago Break-In, Search, and Seizure was illegal and unconstitutional, and we are taking all actions necessary to get the documents back, which we would have given to them without the necessity of the despicable raid of my home, so that I can give them to the National Archives until they are required for the future Donald J. Trump Presidential Library and Museum.

He wants the National Archives to give them back...so he can give them...to the National Archives.

Yeah, nobody believes that. Even Trump supporters don't believe that.

3) Trump calls the search “shockingly aggressive” when it was done by plainclothes agents a few days after the warrant, because they waited until Trump wasn't home.

4) Trump said some of the documents he stole were covered by Executive Privilege. That's admission they were official WH documents. That was fucking stupid.

Trump is used to drowning weaker opponents in lawsuits until they go away. That won't work here. Filing baseless, useless motions will not work in general, and because the FBI already took the evidence against Trump, stalling doesn't seem very helpful here, either.

- - - Alt-F11'd- - -

I can't read the article, but I can read the headline: The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis on WSJ.

Just kidding. I've been doing this for a while now.

Was the Federal Bureau of Investigation justified in searching Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago? The judge who issued the warrant for Mar-a-Lago has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting it. But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no—the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.

The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519”. These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.

The materials to be seized included “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021”—i.e., during Mr. Trump’s term of office. Virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category. Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them. His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant.

Those statutes are general in their text and application. But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.

The PRA lays out detailed requirements for how the archivist is to administer the records, handle privilege claims, make the records public, and impose restrictions on access. Notably, it doesn’t address the process by which a former president’s records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.

The PRA explicitly guarantees a former president continuing access to his papers. Those papers must ultimately be made public, but in the meantime—unlike with all other government documents, which are available 24/7 to currently serving executive-branch officials—the PRA establishes restrictions on access to a former president’s records, including a five-year restriction on access applicable to everyone (including the sitting president, absent a showing of need), which can be extended until the records have been properly reviewed and processed. Before leaving office, a president can restrict access to certain materials for up to 12 years.

It goes on from there, but I'm seeing the key issue. I continue to admit I am no lawyer, but I believe I see some flaws here.

1) First of all, if this was true, he should have challenged the subpoena itself months ago. He didn't. He waited until the warrant was served and...still hasn't brought up the PRA in anything I've seen, including his latest challenge.

2) We already know some of the stuff that was taken were not presidential records. The warrant even spells that out.

3) I'm just going to guess that the claim that there's no deadline stated is false. The deadline is "you can't take them with you" and therefore Jan 20th.

4) The PRA is cited on this dot-gov site and, well, curbstomps a lot of what is said here. One of the lines is "Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office." Oh look, I called it correctly, go me. Trump, instead, just took the items to his personal residence, handwaving any documentation with his "standing order" bullshit. But my favorite is "Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records." which, based on what we know about where the files were stored, is flat-out false. Three words: passports. So no, he wasn't following the PRA.

5) Even the OP ED author says the records he's talking about are ultimately to be made public, most of which within five years. Top secret and SCI information does not fit that.

6) The author says "it appears that the FBI was initially satisfied with the installation of an additional lock on the relevant Mar-a-Lago storage room" which is a stupid thing to say after the FBI came back and raided the place. Also, do we have anyone's word except Trump's on that? I don't think we do.

Possibly anticipating that, the author immediately follows with "If that was insufficient, and Mr. Trump refused to cooperate, the bureau could and should have sought a less intrusive judicial remedy than a search warrant—a restraining order allowing the materials to be moved to a location with the proper storage facilities, but also ensuring Mr. Trump continuing access." Notice the author skipped over "Trump told the FBI he'd turned over everything". You don't get to complain about the cops treating you like a criminal when you lie to them on police reports.

7) And finally, the author suggests that Congress is the one that's supposed to decide if Trump broke the law. This is also a dumb thing to say when the Jan 6th committee wants his blood.

I posted this article because, to date, it's the only one I've seen that suggests Trump has any legal wiggle room. For all I know, one or two facets of the PRA might actually see some play here. But even my untrained eye can see that this as-yet unattempted, as-yet untested, seemingly loophole of a partial defense has more holes than a Trump weekend "working in the White House".

Look, we've all seen the reports that Trump can't find decent help, and I get his legal team (with and without black fluid leaking into a garden center) might not be 100% the bigliest or the yugest. But if this 1978 law was as good as this WSJ OP ED claims, surely one of them would have brought it up by now? There can't possibly be that many laws regarding what a former WH resident takes with him when he walks out the front door Jan 20th.

EDIT: Oh, and one more thing: the feds are scouring every second of that video footage they took. First of all, that feeds directly into what I just posted. Second of all, we know Trump is worried about this.

A source close to Trump's lawyers said they are aware of such video but cautioned against reading into it.

That's damn near admission that it's a problem for Trump.

[Gorsameth]

a restraining order allowing the materials to be moved to a location with the proper storage facilities, but also ensuring Mr. Trump continuing access

Why exactly should Trump have access to classified, secret and top secret documents now that he is no longer President?

[Edge-]

So, new word out is that he had over 300 classified documents between all of the boxes that the Archives and FBI have seized from Trump.

Last I heard Archives had identified 800 documents.

And the FBI is requesting additional security footage from Maralago because they apparently think there may still be more.

Worth noting: Hundreds of these documents were still there after Trump sent 15 boxes back to the Archives in January. Despite sending back hundreds, and despite a second visit from the FBI to return more documents in June, he still had hundreds of documents when he was "raided" in August. And may still have more.

This may be the single largest security breach in US government history, and the only saving grace is Trump may have been too stupid to know what he had or what to do with it. Not sure how this stacks up to CIA dumps from the likes of Snowden which got a lot of attention for their very public nature, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was on part or potentially worse. Especially considering we haven't the foggiest clue what documents were taken, but we do know that a lot were the most classified documents the US government had.

No wonder Republicans don't trust the US government, just look at the people they send to run it.

[Breccia]

Worth noting: Hundreds of these documents were still there after Trump sent 15 boxes back to the Archives in January. Despite sending back hundreds, and despite a second visit from the FBI to return more documents in June, he still had hundreds of documents when he was "raided" in August. And may still have more.

All of this...after claiming he'd returned everything. Which he hadn't.

[Poopymonster]

Last I heard Archives had identified 800 documents.

And the FBI is requesting additional security footage from Maralago because they apparently think there may still be more.

Someone dumped bleach on the camera footage. Must have been HITLERY, sounds like her style. Sad. LOCK HER UP!

[cubby]

I can't read the article, but I can read the headline: The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis on WSJ.

Just kidding. I've been doing this for a while now.

Was the Federal Bureau of Investigation justified in searching Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago? The judge who issued the warrant for Mar-a-Lago has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting it. But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no—the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.

The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519”. These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.

The materials to be seized included “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021”—i.e., during Mr. Trump’s term of office. Virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category. Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them. His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant.

Those statutes are general in their text and application. But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.

The PRA lays out detailed requirements for how the archivist is to administer the records, handle privilege claims, make the records public, and impose restrictions on access. Notably, it doesn’t address the process by which a former president’s records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.

The PRA explicitly guarantees a former president continuing access to his papers. Those papers must ultimately be made public, but in the meantime—unlike with all other government documents, which are available 24/7 to currently serving executive-branch officials—the PRA establishes restrictions on access to a former president’s records, including a five-year restriction on access applicable to everyone (including the sitting president, absent a showing of need), which can be extended until the records have been properly reviewed and processed. Before leaving office, a president can restrict access to certain materials for up to 12 years.

It goes on from there, but I'm seeing the key issue. I continue to admit I am no lawyer, but I believe I see some flaws here.

1) First of all, if this was true, he should have challenged the subpoena itself months ago. He didn't. He waited until the warrant was served and...still hasn't brought up the PRA in anything I've seen, including his latest challenge.

2) We already know some of the stuff that was taken were not presidential records. The warrant even spells that out.

3) I'm just going to guess that the claim that there's no deadline stated is false. The deadline is "you can't take them with you" and therefore Jan 20th.

4) The PRA is cited on this dot-gov site and, well, curbstomps a lot of what is said here. One of the lines is "Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office." Oh look, I called it correctly, go me. Trump, instead, just took the items to his personal residence, handwaving any documentation with his "standing order" bullshit. But my favorite is "Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records." which, based on what we know about where the files were stored, is flat-out false. Three words: passports. So no, he wasn't following the PRA.

5) Even the OP ED author says the records he's talking about are ultimately to be made public, most of which within five years. Top secret and SCI information does not fit that.

6) The author says "it appears that the FBI was initially satisfied with the installation of an additional lock on the relevant Mar-a-Lago storage room" which is a stupid thing to say after the FBI came back and raided the place. Also, do we have anyone's word except Trump's on that? I don't think we do.

Possibly anticipating that, the author immediately follows with "If that was insufficient, and Mr. Trump refused to cooperate, the bureau could and should have sought a less intrusive judicial remedy than a search warrant—a restraining order allowing the materials to be moved to a location with the proper storage facilities, but also ensuring Mr. Trump continuing access." Notice the author skipped over "Trump told the FBI he'd turned over everything". You don't get to complain about the cops treating you like a criminal when you lie to them on police reports.

7) And finally, the author suggests that Congress is the one that's supposed to decide if Trump broke the law. This is also a dumb thing to say when the Jan 6th committee wants his blood.

I posted this article because, to date, it's the only one I've seen that suggests Trump has any legal wiggle room. For all I know, one or two facets of the PRA might actually see some play here. But even my untrained eye can see that this as-yet unattempted, as-yet untested, seemingly loophole of a partial defense has more holes than a Trump weekend "working in the White House".

Look, we've all seen the reports that Trump can't find decent help, and I get his legal team (with and without black fluid leaking into a garden center) might not be 100% the bigliest or the yugest. But if this 1978 law was as good as this WSJ OP ED claims, surely one of them would have brought it up by now? There can't possibly be that many laws regarding what a former WH resident takes with him when he walks out the front door Jan 20th.

EDIT: Oh, and one more thing: the feds are scouring every second of that video footage they took. First of all, that feeds directly into what I just posted. Second of all, we know Trump is worried about this.

A source close to Trump's lawyers said they are aware of such video but cautioned against reading into it.

That's damn near admission that it's a problem for Trump.

Breccia was kind enough to send me the full WSJ article, and since I nerd out at the legal stuff, I decided to dig into the opinion piece above.

TL;DR - the authors are stretching the ruling in Morton v. Mancari. By a fair amount. In regular speak: "I call bullshit".

The authors in the WSJ article argue that the documents Trump had in possession fall under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and are therefore his to have, by law. Normally this would be the case, as Presidents can retain documents for their library and other uses by following certain rules and restrictions. Those aren't important here.

The FBI raided Margo because they believed there was a violation of three separate statutes. The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519”. These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.

The WSJ opinion piece argues that one statute does not allow another to be invalided, citing Morton v. Mancari (1974). The WSJ authors claim the Morton ruling means the FBI/DOJ cannot seize those documents because "[i]t has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites."(WSJ Article)

Morton was a case involving hiring practices by the U.S. government, with appellees bringing this class action claiming that the employment preference for qualified Indians in the BIA provided by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 contravened the anti-discrimination provisions of the Equal Employment Opportunities Act of 1972, and deprived them of property rights without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. A three-judge District Court held that the Indian preference was implicitly repealed by § 11 of the 1972 Act proscribing racial discrimination in most federal employment, and enjoined appellant federal officials from implementing any Indian employment preference policy in the BIA.

The WSJ authors argument is, in essence, that the PRA supersedes national security. Taken a step further, the "constitutional scholars" argue that Trump could have kept the nuclear launch code card all presidents carry, because his right to retain records supersedes the litany of statutes and legislation that protect the United States' most important secrets, including the nuclear ones (which, incidentally, cannot be declassified, even by a sitting President, by law).

Their argument would die in summary judgment.

What's interesting is that this desperate hail marry attempt to justify what is essentially treason, comes from a Rupert Murdock controlled medial outlet. Shocking absolutely no one. I would not be surprised if the editorial staff reached out to "constitutional scholars" begging for anything to help Trump.

[Breccia]

The WSJ authors argument is, in essence, that the PRA supersedes national security.

So...I'm just going to say, if this somehow holds up, it's an excuse for Biden to take a copy of literally everything.

[cubby]

So...I'm just going to say, if this somehow holds up, it's an excuse for Biden to take a copy of literally everything.

Lol, exactly. Copy it all, put it up on the walls at his home.

The Morton ruling basically said that one statute cannot be implicitly repealed by the creation of another. The WSJ "scholars" misinterpret that law in this case. Because the FBI Warrant didn't repeal the PRA, it simply said that other statutes and rules supersede it in this situation. Which is 100% correct.

Garland had to have Red Team'd this before he set it in motion. I'm not sure his Red Team would be stupid enough to bring the Morton argument up, I sure wouldn't have.

[Breccia]

And so, it has come to this.

"You can say that about anyth--"

Shh. In an overdue filing, DWAC says under oath in public that the investigations causing Trump's popularity to go down would negatively impact the deal, suggesting they could file the legal form equivalent to "OH SHIT IT'S THE COPS, CHEEZ IT".

*ahem*

CyberTrump 2077 has actually gotten more busy, not less. So DWAC is lying -- they just don't want to deal with Trump. "We have enough investigations and subpoena's here already, thanks."

To be fair, DWAC's stock price is down from this time a month ago, but, it is up from the time of the raid. Both changes are minor, one-point-something percent. The platform is basically bottomed out until Trump is arrested or announces he's running. (Also, the rabid fanbase have forgotten Trump was basically forced to admit under oath he's not running it)

So, unlike Musk with Twitter, I don't think DWAC announced a firm buy offer amount? If I'm reading this correctly, and I doubt it, but if I am, there are 30 million shares making DWAC's current value about $900M. That is less than Trump claimed his platform was worth, but of course, very likely more than it's actually worth (Forbes said it was worth half that) hence the reluctance. They were backing away even before the FBI came for the stuff Trump stole.

DWAC is likely neither the first nor the largest company that is now refusing to do business with Trump, because of the investigations into Trump. They're the largest and first to announce it so publicly and so under oathingly. We've discussed this before, but I am under the impression that "our contract is null and void because you're a felon now" is probably in the standard clauses for most mergers and related issues. DWAC has to refund the money if they cancel the sale, but that's better than intentionally spending money you know you're going to lose.

There is a current Sept 8 deadline. If DWAC doesn't buy by then, it dissolves, as it's a SPAC and by law they have to do that. They filed an extension, but (a) they might not get it and (b) right now they probably don't want it anymore. And just so everyone knows, DWAC is under investigation for talking to Trump while setting up the deal, by law, you can't do that either. Which is yet another investigation Trump is facing.

[Edge-]

Mitch McConnel, asked if he has any comment regarding Trump's latest criticisms of himself and his wife, Trump's former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, had this to say.

No

Continuing the long line of Republicans who have happily allowed their family and spouses to be publicly attacked/criticized by Trump without a response. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were into the public humiliation. Sexually.

[cubby]

Mitch McConnel, asked if he has any comment regarding Trump's latest criticisms of himself and his wife, Trump's former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, had this to say.



Continuing the long line of Republicans who have happily allowed their family and spouses to be publicly attacked/criticized by Trump without a response. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were into the public humiliation. Sexually.

It's a small price to pay for having your wife's business make literally billions because Trump made her the Transportation Secretary.

During her tenure as Transportation Secretary in the Trump administration, the Transportation Department's inspector general found numerous instances where Chao used her office to promote her family's shipping business.