November 11, 2019--John Bolting

Many following the impeachment inquiry have advised, "Follow the money and it will lead you to the truth about what happened."

Trump may be the best example. It could turn out that the bottom bottom line for him has been the pursuit of Russian money that he needed to bail out some of his failed real estate deals. Like his bankrupt gambling casinos in Atlantic City. 

No legitimate bank or investor would want to get involved in lending hundreds of millions to someone whose portfolio was so undercapitalized. So Trump, even before he announced his candidacy, assuming he wouldn't be elected, likely turned to Vladimir Putin, who routinely skimmed off a goodly percentage of any proposed deal with Russia. Like a humongous Trump Tower in Moscow.

Putin got his slice and Trump go his Russian money laundered through the likes of Deutsche Bank. And the rest is history. We as a result have a president bought and paid for by our Russian adversaries.

It may be, though, that the admonition to follow the money doesn't pertain to everyone.

John Bolton, for example.

Yes, he just signed a book deal with Simon & Schuster and will purportedly receive a $2.0 million advance which would make one think that this would mean he is contractually forbidden, until the book is published, to talk about his days in the White House where he served as Trump's national security advisor--save the juicy- gossipy stuff for the book; don't give it away for free when, for example, testifying before Congress.

What then to make of the very curious letter his lawyer on Friday sent to the House committee leading the impeachment inquiry. Seemingly out of the blue it ended with this tease--

His lawyer wrote, "Mr. Bolton was personally involved in many of the events, meetings, and conversations about which you have already received testimony, as well as many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far.” [My italics]

This could be an example of one set of Bolton lawyers failing to keep other attorneys in the loop, or something much more interesting.

Until proven otherwise, I'm going with the more interesting scenario.

Yes, Bolton too may be all about the money but as a nuanced operative it is possible he is negotiating with the House investigators for at least one of three reasons--

First, as a genuine, pre-Trump conservative he may want to initiate a constitutional discussion in the federal courts about the extent of presidential power when it comes to invoking executive privilege. This has never been fully vetted and ruled upon by the Supreme Court.

Then, Bolton the political animal may want to appear to be "ordered" to testify by the courts so as not to seem too eager to cooperate with the Democrats who are making haste to vote on impeachment. 

Also, and this is my favorite, Bolton, who we know must despise Trump for numerous obvious reasons, may want to see Trump twist slowly in the wind. We can imagine Trump sleeplessly tossing and turning as he tries to come up with what "meetings and conversations" Bolton is wanting to share with Congress and the American people.

I know, with that hanging over me, I wouldn't be sleeping.

This conundrum could be an example of all of the above. But then it may simply be about selling books. Perhaps Bolton wants to testify on TV as a preview of coming attractions.

August 11, 2017--The Art of Trump's Deals

An experienced and successful CEO type might very well have the potential to be an effective president of the United States. Not that we have ever elected that type of business leader. But if an actor (Ronald Reagan) can be a successful president isn't it likely that a Fortune 500 CEO could be even more so?

To many, this was the promise Donald Trump represented--to them he was a big-time businessman whose CEO skills could be effectively transferred to what is required of our best chief executives.

During the campaign Trump boasted that he was a "huge" success and that he wrote the book, literally, on the art of deal making. And as such, he claimed, he would be able to make the same kind of deals for the benefit of the American people.

Here's the problem--

First, Trump was the opposite of a Fortune 500 CEO. His business, which to give him credit in bottom line terms is big, was more a mom-and-pop-and-children operation than anything like Amazon, GM, or General Electric. And we can see how he transferred that small-time way of doing business to the White House when he brought along with him his daughter and son-in-law to serve among his very few trusted advisors.

Then, the kind of deals Trump made were relatively simple transactions. Thus, they did not yield the experience needed to be even a decent president.

Trump, Inc's deals, writ large, are more like those with which we are all familiar--buying a house or apartment. Real estate deals. They did not require any profound negotiation skills and, especially, were not multidimensional nor in any way nuanced or diplomatic.

How does buying, renovating, and operating the (now bankrupt) Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City compare with getting Congress to pass healthcare legislation, building an alliance among allies, vying with China about trade, dealing with Russia about what to do in Syria, or confronting North Korea?

With Trump there are no transferable correlates.

The Art of the Deal is largely about the atmospherics and psychology of deal making. How posturing and blustering, bluffing and strategic, even arbitrary walking-out exerts leverage on the other side. There is nothing creative or entrepreneurial about that, nor does it demonstrate or require leadership or complex organizational skills

So the original owner of the Taj Mahal, Resorts International, asks $800 million and Trump counters with a $500 million offer. The Taj people moan at the lowball number but reduce their asking price to, say, $750 million. And so it goes until they mutually reach something like $700 million. Then it's up to the lawyers to draft the contract and for Trump to run around town in search of a money laundering bank to come up with the financing.

Does this in any way sound like what is needed in a president?

Thus, like so much else about Trump, his CEO credentials are inflated and largely fake. And thus we are living with a dangerous mess.