Latest news with #AllthePresident'sMen
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Follow the money: Trump's corruption hits shocking heights
'Follow the money.' That was FBI agent 'Deep Throat,' played by Hal Holbrook, advising a young Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, played by Robert Redford, in the movie 'All the President's Men.' It premiered in theaters 49 years ago. The advice proved to be golden. And it is golden advice now — for anyone watching the corruption taking place in President Trump's second term. Right now, it is hard to miss what looks like a deluge of pocket-lining as private money swirls around this president. And let's not mention the free airplane he is ready to accept from a foreign power. The money grab is so breathtaking that it has left Trump's critics muttering expletives while the normally reliably loud critics of government corruption, especially congressional Republicans, appear in stunned silence. Even as Trump's administration seeks to regulate crypto more loosely, his jaunt into crypto — his $TRUMP and $MELANIA meme coins, plus his stake in World Liberty Financial — has reportedly increased his family's wealth by billions in the last six months and now accounts for almost 40 percent of his net worth. New York Times reporter Peter Baker posted on X last week, 'Trump and his family have monetized the White House more than any other occupant, normalizing activities that once would have provoked heavy blowback and official investigations.' Presidential scandals of the past seem quaint by comparison — Hillary Clinton's cattle futures, Eisenhower's chief of staff resigning over a coat, Nixon stepping down over a 'third-rate burglary.' The magnitude of Trump's self-serving actions to enrich himself exceeds anything in our history. Nixon sought distance from wrongdoing, telling Americans that he was 'not a crook.' He wanted to be clear that he did not personally gain money from any abuse of power that took place in his administration. Trump makes no effort to proclaim his innocence as he pursues wealth while in public office. And while Nixon held power during a time of relative economic calm for the middle class, Trump is acting against a backdrop of economic anxiety for most Americans. Mortgage rates have soared past 7 percent. Last month, Moody's downgraded our federal government's credit rating, signaling to global investors that America is now a risky bet on the basis of its mounting debt and political instability. Uncertainty over Trump's push for tariffs has the stock market on a roller-coaster ride and the bond market — the basis of retirement planning for many Americans — is trembling due to record-setting federal debt. And Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (yes, that's what it's actually called), now going through the Senate, is set to push the nation much deeper into debt. That's not all. Trump is demanding that Walmart 'eat' the tariff-fueled added cost of products it sells, rather than passing them along to customers, even as analysts point out that retailers operate on slim margins. Last week, the U.S. Court of International Trade deemed Trump's tariffs to be illegal, further adding to the yo-yo of uncertainty and confusion that is spooking the markets, especially the bond markets. It wasn't long ago that conservative Republicans would recoil at the idea of the federal government dictating what profits businesses are allowed to earn. It was heresy. It was an affront to Milton Friedman and Frederick Hayek, conservative patron saints of economics. For decades, corporations used 'fiduciary duty' as an argument against government regulation and calls to increase employee pay and benefits. Now, they're so fearful of Trump's social media attacks that they are biting their tongues as they are being rolled by his bullying. In his first term, Trump promised that his tax cut plans would 'pay for themselves.' But the national debt increased by $1.9 trillion. And that tax cut windfall for corporations was not used to create more jobs or raise pay for workers. In most cases, the money went to buy back corporate stocks and make executives and investors richer. Now the question is whether voters will care. There are gubernatorial elections later this year in Virginia and New Jersey, and congressional midterms next year. Do voters care that Trump, his family and business partners are cashing in on Bitcoin schemes and lavish quid-pro-quo dinners with wealthy patrons? Do voters care that Trump's largest campaign donor, Elon Musk, the world's richest man, now leaving the administration, had access to personal financial information on millions of Americans, which journalists and senators have warned could be useful to his business ventures and harmful to national security? Do voters care that the outcome of Musk's attempt to cut government spending has had little impact, beyond fear, confusion and reduction of services? Do they care that Trump appointed the wealthiest Cabinet in U.S. history? Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick alone is worth over $3 billion — and entered government heavily invested in crypto, which he now helps oversee. It's time for the American people to follow the money — and connect the dots. While they grow poorer, Trump and his inner circle are growing ever richer. Juan Williams is senior political analyst for Fox News Channel and a prize-winning civil rights historian. He is the author of the new book 'New Prize for These Eyes: The Rise of America's Second Civil Rights Movement.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
02-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Follow the money: Trump's corruption hits shocking heights
'Follow the money.' That was FBI agent 'Deep Throat,' played by Hal Holbrook, advising a young Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, played by Robert Redford, in the movie 'All the President's Men.' It premiered in theaters 49 years ago. The advice proved to be golden. And it is golden advice now — for anyone watching the corruption taking place in President Trump's second term. Right now, it is hard to miss what looks like a deluge of pocket-lining as private money swirls around this president. And let's not mention the free airplane he is ready to accept from a foreign power. The money grab is so breathtaking that it has left Trump's critics muttering expletives while the normally reliably loud critics of government corruption, especially congressional Republicans, appear in stunned silence. Even as Trump's administration seeks to regulate crypto more loosely, his jaunt into crypto — his $TRUMP and $MELANIA meme coins, plus his stake in World Liberty Financial — has reportedly increased his family's wealth by billions in the last six months and now accounts for almost 40 percent of his net worth. New York Times reporter Peter Baker posted on X last week, 'Trump and his family have monetized the White House more than any other occupant, normalizing activities that once would have provoked heavy blowback and official investigations.' Presidential scandals of the past seem quaint by comparison — Hillary Clinton's cattle futures, Eisenhower's chief of staff resigning over a coat, Nixon stepping down over a 'third-rate burglary.' The magnitude of Trump's self-serving actions to enrich himself exceeds anything in our history. Nixon sought distance from wrongdoing, telling Americans that he was 'not a crook.' He wanted to be clear that he did not personally gain money from any abuse of power that took place in his administration. Trump makes no effort to proclaim his innocence as he pursues wealth while in public office. And while Nixon held power during a time of relative economic calm for the middle class, Trump is acting against a backdrop of economic anxiety for most Americans. Mortgage rates have soared past 7 percent. Last month, Moody's downgraded our federal government's credit rating, signaling to global investors that America is now a risky bet on the basis of its mounting debt and political instability. Uncertainty over Trump's push for tariffs has the stock market on a roller-coaster ride and the bond market — the basis of retirement planning for many Americans — is trembling due to record-setting federal debt. And Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (yes, that's what it's actually called), now going through the Senate, is set to push the nation much deeper into debt. That's not all. Trump is demanding that Walmart 'eat' the tariff-fueled added cost of products it sells, rather than passing them along to customers, even as analysts point out that retailers operate on slim margins. Last week, the U.S. Court of International Trade deemed Trump's tariffs to be illegal, further adding to the yo-yo of uncertainty and confusion that is spooking the markets, especially the bond markets. It wasn't long ago that conservative Republicans would recoil at the idea of the federal government dictating what profits businesses are allowed to earn. It was heresy. It was an affront to Milton Friedman and Frederick Hayek, conservative patron saints of economics. For decades, corporations used 'fiduciary duty' as an argument against government regulation and calls to increase employee pay and benefits. Now, they're so fearful of Trump's social media attacks that they are biting their tongues as they are being rolled by his bullying. In his first term, Trump promised that his tax cut plans would 'pay for themselves.' But the national debt increased by $1.9 trillion. And that tax cut windfall for corporations was not used to create more jobs or raise pay for workers. In most cases, the money went to buy back corporate stocks and make executives and investors richer. Now the question is whether voters will care. There are gubernatorial elections later this year in Virginia and New Jersey, and congressional midterms next year. Do voters care that Trump, his family and business partners are cashing in on Bitcoin schemes and lavish quid-pro-quo dinners with wealthy patrons? Do voters care that Trump's largest campaign donor, Elon Musk, the world's richest man, now leaving the administration, had access to personal financial information on millions of Americans, which journalists and senators have warned could be useful to his business ventures and harmful to national security? Do voters care that the outcome of Musk's attempt to cut government spending has had little impact, beyond fear, confusion and reduction of services? Do they care that Trump appointed the wealthiest Cabinet in U.S. history? Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick alone is worth over $3 billion — and entered government heavily invested in crypto, which he now helps oversee. It's time for the American people to follow the money — and connect the dots. While they grow poorer, Trump and his inner circle are growing ever richer. Juan Williams is senior political analyst for Fox News Channel and a prize-winning civil rights historian. He is the author of the new book 'New Prize for These Eyes: The Rise of America's Second Civil Rights Movement.'
New York Post
01-06-2025
- Entertainment
- New York Post
Leon Rose has earned trust to get Knicks over the hump — here's how he can do it
Toward the end of 'All the President's Men,' Jason Robards as Ben Bradlee is pondering whether or not to run a story, and he stands opposite Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman's Woodward and Bernstein as he expresses his biggest concern. 'I can't do the reporting for my reporters, which means I have to trust them,' Robards/Bradlee says. 'And I hate trusting anybody.' Sports fans forever face the same conundrum. So many bosses hop in and out of those jobs that they can become a blur of big promises and limited returns. You put too much trust in a general manager, you wind up watching Pete Crow-Armstrong in Chicago. Or, worse, you watch Eddy Curry in New York. But when a GM proves trustworthy …
Indian Express
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
The best books on Donald Trump
From rebuking national leaders for not wearing suits to receiving letters that made him fall in love with one of the world's most autocratic leaders to claiming to have negotiated a ceasefire between India and Pakistan over the 'centuries old' dispute over Kashmir, Donald Trump has done it all in a short span of time into his second term. The 45th and 47th (and he insists he was the 46th one as well) President of the United States of America is seldom far from the spotlight. Here are some books that offer a glimpse into the most powerful man in the world: Those who want to know how Donald Trump works in the White House will be caught between two trilogies — the highly controversial Fire and Fury (which Trump tried to stop from being published), Siege and Landslide, by Michael Wolff; and Fear, Rage and Peril by the legendary Bob Woodward, who was part of the Woodward-Bernstein team whose All the President's Men brought down the Nixon administration. We will keep it simple: while Wolff's work covers a lot of Trump's personal life and is likely to shock you more deeply, Woodward's work is more organised and objective, although it too does not portray Trump in a flattering light (if that were indeed possible). What's more, Woodward's style of writing revolves around conversations which he writes in direct speech, which makes his books much easier to read. The books actually read like a blend between a Tom Clancy thriller and Ripley's Believe It or Not – Fear actually begins with Trump's associates actually hiding a document from the US President to ensure that he does not sign it (it would have ended the special treaty between US and its ally South Korea if he had!), Rage revolves around Trump's (mis)handling of the COVID situation, his impending impeachment and yes, you get references to the letters sent by North Korea's Kim Jong Un. 'I got a very beautiful letter from Kim Jong Un yesterday,' Trump tells reporters, adding 'I would love to give it to you. I really would. Maybe – maybe sometime I will.' Peril, the final instalment of the trilogy (co authored by Robert Costa), covers the final days of Trump's first administration, including his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, and also covers Joe Biden's campaign. These are all big books, spanning well over 400 pages each, but you will race through them, with a sense of shock and awe! Unlike Wolff, Woodward does not look too closely at Trump's domestic life, but his style of narration leaves us with a very carefully etched image of the President, often in his own words. One can even read the interviews with Trump on which Woodward based his book in The Trump Tapes. Knowing Woodward, we are reasonably sure that he will be writing more books on Trump, but at this time, if you want to read a book on Trump's surprising re-election, Michael Wolff's All or Nothing is easily the best option. Its revelations about Trump's strained relationship with Melania Trump have already stirred controversy and White House Communications Director Michael Cheung has denounced Wolff as a 'lying bag of s**'. We are not surprised. A honorable mention also needs to be made of The Divider by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, which covers Trump's first term in office in almost alarming detail, even narrating how his hair is arranged (a 'three-step process') and cemented with TRESemme' TRES TWO hair spray (extra hold), a can of which is carried by an aide everywhere the President goes. One also gets to know his obsession with getting photographed at eye-level and why he loves holding conferences outdoors! If you want to know the complete Donald Trump story from the very beginning, then you will have to choose between two meticulously researched books: Lucky Loser by Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig, and Confidence Man by Maggie Haberman. If we had to pick one, we would go with Confidence Man, in which Haberman dismantles the Trump myth, beginning from his claim of how he realised 'I don't want to be made anybody's sucker' when he saw an engineer not being given credit for building a bridge during its inauguration on a day when 'the rain was coming down for hours'. Haberman points out that not only did the engineer get a round of applause from the crowd, but that it was also a sunny day. As the book traces Trump's rise, Haberman literally unravels the mythos Trump has built around himself, revealing a person who is prone to act at the spur of the moment, frequently (sometimes fortunately) forgets things and is utterly obsessed with himself and the spotlight, generally both together. He even wanted to be a Hollywood star. Whereas Wolff and Woodward's work show Trump in an often-brutal, narcissistic light, Haberman reveals that Trump was capable of being utterly charming, and often surprised first time visitors to the White House with his humour and concern. 'The all-capitalized tweets that projected anger were sometimes sent while he was laughing about the same topic,' she writes. Confidence Man's detailed and objective narration makes it the perfect book to read about Trump, although you do not get the intensity of Trump in the White House that Woodward's trilogy delivers. Lucky Loser is a good read too, but we think Haberman tells the better story. Has any world leader used Twitter as effectively as Donald Trump? The US President has used the social network to announce major decisions (including the recent ceasefire between India and Pakistan) and to rain invective on his enemies and rivals. And yet he was not always like this. Peter Oborne traces Trump's Twitter journey in How Trump Thinks: His Tweets and the Birth of a New Political Language, starting with his first tweet on 4 May, 2009, announcing that he would be appearing on the David Letterman show to his bombastic use of the medium to get this message through as he raced to the White House, analysing key tweets in detail. Unfortunately, the book ends in 2017, well before Musk took over Twitter and also emerged as Trump's biggest ally. We would all love an update of this one, but in the meantime, this is still a must-read for all those interested in communication strategy and of course, in Donald Trump.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘60 Minutes' vs. a Corporate Merger? You've Seen This Movie Before – in ‘The Insider'
Stop me if you've heard this one: '60 Minutes' faces pressure from its corporate bosses in order to grease the wheels on a proposed merger, leading to accusations that journalistic integrity has been sacrificed on the altar of profit. While that applies to Paramount Global's current jockeying with the Trump administration as the company seeks approval for its $8 billion Skydance Media merger, it also describes what happened 30 years ago, when '60 Minutes' caved to CBS' lawyers to avoid putting a roadblock in the way of its planned acquisition by Westinghouse. At the time, it was a Mike Wallace segment on '60 Minutes,' interviewing tobacco industry whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand, who at great personal risk exposed how his former employer, Brown & Williamson, and others in the tobacco industry had consciously sought to mislead the public about the addictive effects of nicotine and dangers of their cancer-causing products. The events of that period were dramatic enough to inspire the 1999 Michael Mann-directed film 'The Insider,' starring Al Pacino as CBS producer Lowell Bergman and Russell Crowe as whistleblower Wigand. For those who see CBS' possible capitulation to Trump as a major setback for the venerable newsmagazine, it's a reminder that tension between corporate ownership and journalism has reared its ugly head before, and not always with a heroic 'All the President's Men'-style ending. Indeed, in 2016, 20 years after the Wigand piece finally aired, then-'60 Minutes' executive producer Jeff Fager called it 'probably the most important story that was ever reported by '60 Minutes,'' and the decision to yank the segment 'a low point in our history.' If that was a low point, it could soon have company, as Paramount mulls a settlement with Trump in his lawsuit over what the president has maintained was misleading editing of a '60 Minutes' profile of Kamala Harris broadcast before the election, litigation that journalists and legal scholars both inside and outside of CBS News widely see as frivolous. During a press conference Monday, FCC chairman Brendan Carr said that the Trump lawsuit had 'nothing to do with the work that we're doing at the FCC,' but those who have watched the commission under his stewardship could be forgiven for viewing those remarks with skepticism. Last week, the longtime executive producer of '60 Minutes,' Bill Owens, took a principled stand in the face of corporate cowardice, leaving the program while referring to his 'diminished independence' in overseeing the show. The news sent shock waves through the news division and beyond, given the prestige that the venerable newsmagazine still commands even in a hollowed-out linear-TV environment. Like their predecessors, the current corporate brass under Paramount Global Chairwoman Shari Redstone also have bigger fish to fry — in this case, seeking to safeguard the merger with Skydance that the Trump administration has made clear will not happen without capitulation in the '60 Minutes' lawsuit. Notably, the current '60 Minutes' team has already publicly pushed back more aggressively than key figures did on the Wigand story, with Scott Pelley delivering a bracing closing note to Sunday's broadcast regarding Owens' departure. Acknowledging the pending merger, Pelley said Paramount 'began to supervise our content in new ways,' adding, 'No one here is happy about it.' There are some obvious distinctions from what transpired three decades ago, beginning with the fact that CBS feared litigation from a private company, not coercion from the federal government. Yet the question of a corporation buckling under pressure — and undermining the standing of '60 Minutes' in the process — is close enough in the broad strokes to feel eerily similar. Conducted by the legendary Mike Wallace, the Wigand interview didn't air as initially planned because the legal department feared a multibillion-dollar lawsuit for interfering with Wigand's confidentiality agreement with tobacco giant Brown & Williamson. The pressure came after ABC — on the verge of its acquisition by the Walt Disney Co. — had faced, and settled, a $10 billion libel lawsuit by another cigarette maker, Philip Morris, against ABC News over a segment on one of its newsmagazines. (That, too, has echoes of Disney's $15 million settlement of a Trump lawsuit against ABC's news division, prompted by George Stephanopoulos' references to Trump having been found liable in the case brought by E. Jean Carroll.) CBS began its negotiations with Westinghouse in September 1995, a month after that settlement was announced, which clearly played on the minds of the network's legal team and executives. Surprisingly, given their reputations, neither Wallace nor the founding executive producer of '60 Minutes,' Don Hewitt, significantly fought back against the legal department, Bergman recalled in a 2012 interview, not long after Wallace's death at the age of 93. 'I couldn't understand why they folded,' Bergman said, citing the clout Wallace possessed within the organization. 'I would say objectively that he didn't agree with what they were doing, but he wasn't willing to say, 'I'm not going to let this stand.'' As PBS' 'Frontline' noted in a documentary about the Wigand episode, CBS actually gave in without facing a formal lawsuit. The larger backdrop, however, was that then-CBS owner Laurence Tisch was seeking to finalize the network's sale to Westinghouse, and the mere threat of a massive lawsuit could have potentially jeopardized the $5.4 billon deal. The question raised by CBS' actions then, as 'Frontline' framed it, has echoed through the intervening years — namely, 'As media companies increasingly come under the control of large corporations, what is the threat posed to news gathering and the public's right to know?' The fact '60 Minutes' has survived another 30 years underscores that the public-relations blow struck by the Wigand story wasn't a fatal one, but the reputational damage — to Wallace and the larger franchise — did linger. It's worth noting, too, that the era in which these cases played out in the mid-1990s marked what in hindsight can be seen as the beginning of the end for the dominance of the broadcast networks, as Fox, the WB and UPN joined the growing influence of cable to gradually chip away at their power. '60 Minutes' has continued to produce laudable journalism, but the program operates today in a much different, more fragmented media environment. While Paramount management is clearly engaged in a calculation about the value of the merger versus whatever harm knuckling under to Trump might inflict on the CBS News brand, history will likely judge the prospect of caving in under these circumstances at least as harshly, and likely more so, than the network's actions in 1995. CBS eventually aired the Wigand interview almost a full year after the piece was originally scheduled and pulled. Ironically, a subsequent Vanity Fair article, titled 'The Man Who Knew Too Much,' would be acquired by the studio that had essentially started it all, Disney, and become the foundation for 'The Insider.' In addition to media industry skittishness, Wigand's story also reflected the enormous power the tobacco companies possessed in the 1990s, and the extent to which they would go to protect their product and profits — including their CEOs lying to Congress about whether nicotine qualified as an addictive substance. In his two-decades-later appraisal, Fager concluded that no one at '60 Minutes' did anything wrong, and the situation was 'just mishandled.' Yet that assessment, understandably, came from his perspective as a newsman. Because based on the priorities of lawyers at CBS corporate, then and likely now, the situation was in fact 'handled' in precisely the cover-your-assets manner they intended. The post '60 Minutes' vs. a Corporate Merger? You've Seen This Movie Before – in 'The Insider' appeared first on TheWrap.
