18 April 18
n
May 1, 2003, the day President George W. Bush landed on the U.S.S.
Abraham Lincoln in front of the massive “Mission Accomplished” sign, I
was in Baghdad performing what had become a daily ritual. I went to a
gate on the side of the Republican Palace, in the Green Zone, where an
American soldier was receiving, one by one, a long line of Iraqis who
came with questions and complaints. I remember a man complaining that
his house had been run over by a tank. There was a woman who had been a
government employee and wanted to know about her salary. The soldier had
a form he was supposed to fill out with each person’s request and that
person’s contact information. I stood there as the man talked to each
person and, each time, said, “Phone number?” And each person would
answer some version of “The phone system of Iraq has been destroyed and
doesn’t work.” Then the soldier would turn to the next person, write
down the person’s question or complaint, and then ask, “Phone number?”
I arrived in Baghdad on April 12th of that year, a few
days after Saddam’s statue at Firdos Square had been destroyed. There
were a couple of weeks of uncertainty as reporters and Iraqis tried to
gauge who was in charge of the country and what the general plan was.
There was no electricity, no police, no phones, no courts, no schools.
More than half of Iraqis worked for the government, and there was
no government, no Army, and so no salaries for most of the country. At
first, it seemed possible that the Americans simply needed a bit of time
to communicate the new rules. By the end of April, though, it was
clear: there was no plan, no new order. Iraq was anarchic.
We journalists were able to use generators and
satellite dishes to access outside information, and what we saw was
absurd. Americans seemed convinced things were going well in Iraq. The
war—and the President who launched it—were seen favorably by seventy per
cent of Americans. Then came these pictures of a President touting
“Mission Accomplished”—the choice of words that President Trump used in a tweet
on Saturday, the morning after he ordered an air strike on Syria. On
the ground, we were not prophets or political geniuses. We were sentient
adults who were able to see the clear, obvious truth in front of us.
The path of Iraq would be decided by those who thrived in chaos.
I had a similar feeling in December, 2007. I came late
to the financial crisis. I had spent much of 2006 and 2007 naïvely
swatting away warnings from my friends and sources who told me of
impending disaster. Finally, I decided to take a deep look at
collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.s, those financial instruments
that would soon be known as toxic assets. I read technical books,
talked to countless experts, and soon learned that these were, in Warren
Buffett’s famous phrase, weapons of financial mass destruction. They
were engineered in such a way that they could exponentially increase
profits but would, also, exponentially increase losses. Worse, they were
too complex to be fully understood. It was impossible, even with all
the information, to figure out what they were worth once they began to
fail. Because these C.D.O.s had come to form the core value of most
major banks’ assets, no major bank had clear value. With that
understanding, the path was clear. Eventually, people would realize that
the essential structure of our financial system was about to implode.
Yet many political figures and TV pundits were happily touting the end
of a crisis. (Larry Kudlow, now Trump’s chief economic adviser, led the charge of ignorance.)
In Iraq and with the financial crisis, it was helpful,
as a reporter, to be able to divide the world into those who actually
understand what was happening and those who said hopeful nonsense. The
path of both crises turned out to be far worse than I had imagined.
I thought of those earlier experiences this week as I
began to feel a familiar clarity about what will unfold next in the
Trump Presidency. There are lots of details and surprises to come, but
the endgame of this Presidency seems as clear now as those of Iraq and
the financial crisis did months before they unfolded. Last week, federal
investigators raided the offices of Michael Cohen,
the man who has been closer than anybody to Trump’s most problematic
business and personal relationships. This week, we learned that Cohen
has been under criminal investigation for months—his e-mails have been
read, presumably his phones have been tapped, and his meetings have been
monitored. Trump has long declared a red line: Robert Mueller must not
investigate his businesses, and must only look at any possible collusion
with Russia.
That red line is now crossed and, for Trump, in the most
troubling of ways. Even if he were to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein and then have Mueller and his investigation put on ice, and
even if—as is disturbingly possible—Congress did nothing, the Cohen
prosecution would continue. Even if Trump pardons Cohen, the information
the Feds have on him can become the basis for charges against others in
the Trump Organization.
This is the week we know, with increasing certainty,
that we are entering the last phase of the Trump Presidency. This
doesn’t feel like a prophecy; it feels like a simple statement of the
apparent truth. I know dozens of reporters and other investigators who
have studied Donald Trump and his business and political ties. Some have
been skeptical of the idea that President Trump himself knowingly
colluded with Russian officials. It seems not at all Trumpian to
participate in a complex plan with a long-term, uncertain payoff.
Collusion is an imprecise word, but it does seem close to certain that
his son Donald, Jr., and several people who worked for him colluded with people close to the Kremlin;
it is up to prosecutors and then the courts to figure out if this was
illegal or merely deceitful. We may have a hard time finding out what
President Trump himself knew and approved.
However, I am unaware of anybody who has taken a
serious look at Trump’s business who doesn’t believe that there is a
high likelihood of rampant criminality. In Azerbaijan, he did business
with a likely money launderer for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. In the Republic of Georgia, he partnered with a group that was being investigated
for a possible role in the largest known bank-fraud and
money-laundering case in history. In Indonesia, his development partner
is “knee-deep in dirty politics”; there are criminal investigations of his deals in Brazil; the F.B.I. is reportedly looking
into his daughter Ivanka’s role in the Trump hotel in Vancouver, for
which she worked with a Malaysian family that has admitted to financial
fraud. Back home, Donald, Jr., and Ivanka were investigated for
financial crimes associated with the Trump hotel in SoHo—an
investigation that was halted suspiciously. His Taj Mahal casino received what was then the largest fine in history for money-laundering violations.
Listing all the financial misconduct can be
overwhelming and tedious. I have limited myself to some of the deals
over the past decade, thus ignoring Trump’s long history of links to New
York Mafia figures and other financial irregularities. It has become
commonplace to say that enough was known about Trump’s shady business
before he was elected; his followers voted for him precisely because
they liked that he was someone willing to do whatever it takes to
succeed, and they also believe that all rich businesspeople have to do
shady things from time to time. In this way of thinking, any new
information about his corrupt past has no political salience. Those who
hate Trump already think he’s a crook; those who love him don’t care.
I believe this assessment is wrong. Sure, many people
have a vague sense of Trump’s shadiness, but once the full details are
better known and digested, a fundamentally different narrative about
Trump will become commonplace.
Remember: we knew a lot about problems in
Iraq in May, 2003. Americans saw TV footage of looting and heard
reports of U.S. forces struggling to gain control of the entire country.
We had plenty of reporting, throughout 2007, about various minor
financial problems. Somehow, though, these specific details failed to
impress upon most Americans the over-all picture. It took a long time
for the nation to accept that these were not minor aberrations but,
rather, signs of fundamental crisis. Sadly, things had to get much worse
before Americans came to see that our occupation of Iraq was disastrous
and, a few years later, that our financial system was in tatters.
The narrative that will become widely understood is
that Donald Trump did not sit atop a global empire. He was not an
intuitive genius and tough guy who created billions of dollars of wealth
through fearlessness. He had a small, sad global operation, mostly run
by his two oldest children and Michael Cohen, a lousy lawyer who barely
keeps up the pretenses of lawyering and who now faces an avalanche of charges, from taxicab-backed bank fraud to money laundering and campaign-finance violations.
Cohen, Donald, Jr., and Ivanka monetized their
willingness to sign contracts with people rejected by all sensible
partners. Even in this, the Trump Organization left money on the table,
taking a million dollars here, five million there, even though the
service they provided—giving branding legitimacy to blatantly sketchy
projects—was worth far more. It was not a company that built value over
decades, accumulating assets and leveraging wealth. It burned through
whatever good will and brand value it established as quickly as
possible, then moved on to the next scheme.
There are important legal questions that remain. How much did Donald Trump and his children know about the criminality of their partners? How explicit were they in agreeing to put a shiny gold brand on top of corrupt deals? The answers to these questions will play a role in determining whether they go to jail and, if so, for how long.
There are important legal questions that remain. How much did Donald Trump and his children know about the criminality of their partners? How explicit were they in agreeing to put a shiny gold brand on top of corrupt deals? The answers to these questions will play a role in determining whether they go to jail and, if so, for how long.
There is no longer one major investigation into Donald
Trump, focussed solely on collusion with Russia. There are now at least
two, including a thorough review of Cohen’s correspondence. The
information in his office and hotel room will likely make clear
precisely how much the Trump family knew. What we already know is
disturbing, and it is hard to imagine that the information prosecutors
will soon learn will do anything but worsen the picture.
Of course Trump is raging and furious and terrified.
Prosecutors are now looking at his core. Cohen was the key intermediary
between the Trump family and its partners around the world; he was chief
consigliere and dealmaker throughout its period of expansion into
global partnerships with sketchy oligarchs. He wasn’t a slick politico
who showed up for a few months. He knows everything, he recorded much of
it, and now prosecutors will know it, too. It seems inevitable that
much will be made public.
We don’t know when. We don’t know the precise
path the next few months will take.
There will be resistance and denial
and counterattacks. But it seems likely that, when we look back on this
week, we will see it as a turning point. We are now in the end stages of
the Trump Presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment