Swampy fixer

It’s an achievement of sorts to be banished from Donald Trump’s court due to a lack of ethics, but Trump attorney Boris Epshteyn may yet pull that off. A report that Trump requested from several of his other attorneys has documented that Epshteyn attempted to shake down various aspirants for high-level Trump appointments, offering to talk them up with the president-elect if they saw their way clear to paying him “consulting fees” to do just that.

According to the report, Epshteyn told hedge fund manager Scott Bessent that he’d recommend him to Trump for the post of Treasury secretary if only Bessent could pay him a monthly retainer of $30,000, or, that failing, invest a cool $10 million in a three-on-three basketball league in which Epshteyn had an interest. When Bessent turned down these enticements, Epshteyn made clear just who, exactly, Bessent was spurning. “I’m Boris Fucking Epshteyn!” he declared, and followed up with what sundry Mar-a-Lagoans have reported as an intimidating exchange with Bessent in front of various Trump courtiers.

The report goes on to say that Epshteyn sought a $100,000 monthly fee from a defense contractor, adding that the offer amounted to a “do or die” proposition for the contractor’s hopes of landing either a gig or a much-desired contract.

Epshteyn has been omnipresent at Mar-a-Lago since Trump’s election, and Trump has repeatedly sought his counsel on appointments. One of Epshteyn’s strong recommendations, The New York Times has reported, was Matt Gaetz for attorney general. Even if Epshteyn didn’t solicit Gaetz for a monthly retainer, there can be no doubt that had Gaetz actually been confirmed for the post, Epshteyn would have come out ahead, assured that the Gaetz Justice Department would never look into Epshteyn-related shakedowns.

Epshteyn’s yearslong presence in Donald Trump’s court is not without precedent; in many particulars, it follows the pattern laid down by Rasputin in the court of Nicholas II. As was the case with Rasputin, most members of Trump’s court apparently considered Epshteyn unbearable, a source of generally rotten advice to his sovereign and belligerent about it to boot. According to the Times, Epshteyn’s influence and access to Trump “jarred a number of people in the incoming president’s orbit,” including Elon Musk, who “expressed surprise that Mr. Epshteyn had been granted so much authority.” (Some feel that about Musk, too, but we’ll let that pass for now.) (...)

 Isabeau wrote:
I'm waiting for the huge debacle that will be the immigrant deportations. Deporting a large mass of people takes a large amount of planning and resources. The planning would also include the countries who will be taking in the deportees. If we wants to go down the path that he wants to go down... he would start planning now for a potential rollout of this effort in 2026 maybe 2027. You need all the people hired, trained and in place as well as the facilities, transportation and logistics ironed out beforehand. And NO, just making a declaration that it is going to happen and expecting the National Guard to handle it isn't the answer. 
 
The way it will likely play out is that there will be this intense rush and pressure by Trump on his Border Czar to do something but that "something" will turn out to be a clusterf*ck of epic proportions and when the inevitable blowback happens Trump will blame Tom Holman and Tom Holman will be fired or resign (probably within 6 months). By that point Trump may be tired of everything and move onto something else shiny and new and claim the whole effort as a job well done.
 
That sounds about right.

 kurtster wrote:
Join the club.

 VV wrote:


Come January we are going to be so f*cked as a Country planet.

 VV wrote:
That's been my assessment for the last two weeks. 

As a survivor of an entire childhood of PTSD, I found I tend to go for the worst case scenario right off the bat when the shite flies. After repeated smashing of hope; the subconscious only laughs when you try to have any. Only a sense of being prepared for the worst all the time makes it tolerable. 
(imagine what its like to never know when or where the bombs will hit. Like kids in Palestine. Dysfunction, Rage, Addiction, Physical Abuse and the twisted coping families do, produces the same corrosive chemicals in the brain. Uncertainty and Fear creates a hyper-vigilant state. These kids brains (along with their bodies) will never be the same.)

The context being, 'it can only improve from here.'

Right there with ya, VV. We get to be right, until - hopefully - proven wrong. 

Come January we are going to be so f*cked as a Country. 
 
No doubt in my mind that Trump and his minions begin destroying it immediately and the devastation doesn't end until he walks out the door 4 years later.

 VV wrote:
The best ones are, baby. 

 Red_Dragon wrote:
That too. I'll bet she's a nasty woman as well.

 buddy wrote: 
For sure.  Communication 101 ... message sent does not always equal message received.

I guess the message I sent was not the one received.  I thought that the message I sent was that I was tired of beating my head against a wall to no avail.

Oh well.

 kurtster wrote:
Don’t forget to include yourself. It’s called “self care”.

 VV wrote:
 Particularly when it's a woman doing the explaining.

 islander wrote:

 kurtster wrote:
So when you said "No, imho. They are receiving no compensation for their efforts."...  what exactly was your point? 

Either you're so full of shit you can't remember the reason you type things... or you happen to be "that fucking stupid".  Which is it?

 VV wrote:

She did say that she would respond in kind. So he probably thinks that she'll be nice to him if he slaps tariffs on everything. 

 kurtster wrote:

Technically, Musk and Ramaswamy might not receive salaries for their future work as heads of DOGE. But they'll have plenty of opportunity to steer government contracts to entities they own or are invested in. And they'll have an easier time of limiting or killing regulatory oversight when it gets in their way. 

U.S. Agencies Fund, and Fight With, Elon Musk. A Trump Presidency Could Give Him Power Over Them.

By Eric LiptonDavid A. FahrentholdAaron Krolik and Kirsten Grind

• Published Oct. 20, 2024Updated Oct. 21, 2024

Elon Musk’s influence over the federal government is extraordinary, and extraordinarily lucrative.

Mr. Musk’s rocket company, SpaceX, effectively dictates NASA’s rocket launch schedule. The Defense Department relies on him to get most of its satellites to orbit. His companies were promised $3 billion across nearly 100 different contracts last year with 17 federal agencies.

His entanglements with federal regulators are also numerous and adversarial. His companies have been targeted in at least 20 recent investigations or reviews, including over the safety of his Tesla cars and the environmental damage caused by his rockets.

Given Mr. Musk’s immense business footprint, he will be a major player no matter who wins the election.

But he has thrown his fortune and power behind former President Donald J. Trump and, in return, Mr. Trump has vowed to make Mr. Musk head of a new “government efficiency commission” with the power to recommend wide-ranging cuts at federal agencies and changes to federal rules.

That would essentially give the world’s richest man and a major government contractor the power to regulate the regulators who hold sway over his companies, amounting to a potentially enormous conflict of interest.

Through a review of court filings, regulatory dockets and government contracting data, The New York Times has compiled an accounting of Mr. Musk’s multipronged business arrangements with the federal government, as well as the violations, fines, consent decrees and other inquiries federal agencies have ordered against his companies. Together, they show a deep web of relationships: Instead of entering this new role as a neutral observer, Mr. Musk would be passing judgment on his own customers and regulators.

Already, Mr. Musk has discussed how he would use the new position to help his own companies.

He has questioned a rule that required SpaceX to obtain a permit for discharging large amounts of potentially polluted water from its launchpad in Texas. He also said that limiting this kind of oversight could help SpaceX reach Mars sooner — “so long as it is not smothered by bureaucracy,” he wrote on X, his social-media platform. “The Department of Government Efficiency is the only path to extending life beyond Earth.”

Earlier this month, he attacked the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees the internet satellites that SpaceX launches. He suggested on X that if the commission hadn’t “illegally revoked” more than $886 million worth of federal funding the company had sought to deliver internet access to rural areas, satellite kits would “probably have saved lives in North Carolina” after a hurricane devastated parts of the state.

A spokesman for the commission said it didn’t award the money because the company was proposing to provide services in some areas that weren’t actually rural, including the Newark Liberty International Airport.

...

Legal experts who have studied federal ethics rules and the use of outside business executives as government advisers said Mr. Musk’s interactions with the federal government are so broad it might not be possible for him to serve as a prominent adviser to the president without creating major conflicts of interest.

Mr. Musk “has had very contentious interactions and entanglements with regulators,” said Kathleen Clark, an ethics lawyer who has served as an adviser to the District of Columbia Attorney General’s office. “It is entirely reasonable to believe that what he would bring to this federal audit is his own set of biases and grudges and financial interests.”

Mr. Musk and his companies often question federal regulations — particularly when they threaten to slow plans to further expand his operations.

One such example was the test launch this month of Starship, SpaceX’s newest rocket. NASA has agreed to pay the company as much as $4.4 billion to take astronauts to the surface of the moon on two future missions — although the dates will depend on when all the equipment is ready. So far, Starship has not flown any humans.

But the Federal Aviation Administration held up this most recent test launch for weeks, in part because of questions about harm SpaceX has caused to wildlife near its Texas launch site, a delay that infuriated Mr. Musk.

“We continue to be stuck in a reality where it takes longer to do the government paperwork to license a rocket launch than it does to design and build the actual hardware,” SpaceX said in a statement.

Last month, the F.A.A. started the process to fine SpaceX $633,009 for disregarding license requirements related to two of its Florida launches last year that may have compromised safety, the agency said.

This was a shift for the F.A.A., which in past instances had not imposed fines when SpaceX ignored the agency’s direct orders. Marc Nichols, the F.A.A.’s chief counsel, said in a statement last month that “failure of a company to comply with the safety requirements will result in consequences.”

Mr. Musk responded on his social media site: “SpaceX will be filing suit against the FAA for regulatory overreach.” The company followed up with a four-page letter to Congress complaining about the F.A.A. which it said had been “unsuccessful in modernizing and streamlining its regulations.”

The list of clashes by Mr. Musk’s companies extends to many other federal agencies.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened five investigations of Tesla, including for complaints of unexpected braking, loss of steering control and crashes while cars were in “self-driving” mode.

Tesla has tried to block at least two rulings from the National Labor Relations Board, including one punishing Mr. Musk for tweeting that factory workers would lose stock options if they joined a union.

Neuralink, Mr. Musk’s brain-implant company, was fined for violating Transportation Department rules regarding the movement of hazardous materials.

The Justice Department sued SpaceX, arguing that the company refused to hire refugees and people granted asylum because of their citizenship status.

By Jonathan Corum

Mr. Musk in recent years has particularly attacked the Securities and Exchange Commission, which in 2018 charged him with securities fraud for a series of false and misleading tweets related to taking Tesla private. Mr. Musk had posted on Twitter that he had planned to take the company private at $420 a share, and that he had “funding secured” for a transaction. As part of a later settlement with the S.E.C., he stepped down as Tesla’s chairman and Tesla paid a $20 million fine.

In a 2022 TED Talk, Mr. Musk lambasted regulators, calling them “bastards.”

See also

How much of Musk’s wealth comes from tax dollars and government help?

By Chris Isidore, CNN 6 minute read Published 6:30 AM EST, Wed November 20, 2024

Government crucial to Musk’s net worth

It’s worthwhile to ask just how much of his world-leading net worth comes from government help over the last 10 to 15 years. The answer is not simple.

By some measures, little of his wealth is thanks to taxpayers. Musk is worth an estimated $326 billion, according to Bloomberg’s real-time billionaire tracker. His companies have received “only” tens of billions from government contracts and programs.

But in other ways, virtually all of his net worth can be pinned to government help. Tesla and SpaceX got started – and survived their early days – with assistance from state and federal policies, government contracts and loans.

“The foundation for Musk’s financial success has been the US government,” said Daniel Ives, tech analyst for Wedbush Securities.

And the value of Tesla and SpaceX doesn’t come from their profits so far.

Instead, their value comes from investments in their future worth, such as Tesla’s publicly traded stock and private funding rounds for SpaceX.

Since Trump’s election, Musk’s net worth has increased $64 billion, or nearly 25%, according to Bloomberg’s estimate. This is partly based on the assumption that future growth will be easier with Musk offering advice on topics including artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles and funding for agencies that have given his companies regulatory trouble.

...

SpaceX’s value depends on NASA

Even without his shares and options in Tesla Musk would still likely be worth more than $100 billion and one of the richest people on the planet. SpaceX will likely be valued at about $250 billion in an upcoming round of funding from investors, Reuters said. Ives said while SpaceX has not disclosed Musk’s holdings, his estimate is close to 50%.

Taxpayer support for SpaceX comes from direct government contracts that are worth billions.

According to USASpending.gov, the government database that tracks federal spending, SpaceX has signed contracts worth nearly $20 billion. The most crucial one came just before Christmas in 2008, when SpaceX and Musk were both virtually out of cash.

That contract was worth $1.6 billion and involved flying 12 supply missions to the International Space Station. The deal allowed SpaceX to complete the Falcon 9 rocket, its main workhorse, and the Dragon capsule, said Casey Dreier, senior space policy advisory for the Planetary Society, a public interest group advocating space flight.

“They were right on the edge of insolvency,” Dreier said. “Elon has pointed out at that moment they were on the edge, and that helped to save the company.”

...

SpaceX has since gotten numerous additional contracts from NASA, the military and other US government agencies. It won a $3 billion contract to develop the next vehicle to carry astronauts to the moon. And Dreier  (Casey Dreier, senior space policy advisory for the Planetary Society, a public interest group advocating space flight) said the company and other NASA contractors benefit from access to the agency’s employees and expertise.

Ives said that if the Trump administration increases funding for NASA’s efforts to return to the moon and travel to Mars, SpaceX’s value could easily increase to $500 billion or more.

“The $250 billion estimate is pretty conservative,” he said.

 R_P wrote:
Well, I see one major problem right away with this statement. Way too many big words for Trump to digest. Wonder which lackey it falls to explain it to him?
 
Another miss was not including cartoons to illustrate concepts. 

Not a chance in hell that Trump will take any of this to heart. He doesn't like being "explained to" when he already knows everything.

From the female President down south:

Dear President-elect Donald Trump,
I am writing to you regarding your statement on Monday, November 25, concerning migration, fentanyl trafficking, and tariffs.

You may not be aware that Mexico has developed a comprehensive policy to assist migrants from different parts of the world who cross our territory en route to the southern border of the United States. As a result, and according to data from your country’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP), encounters at the Mexico–United States border have decreased by 75% between December 2023 and November 2024. Moreover, half of those who arrive do so through a legally scheduled appointment under the United States’ CBP One program. For these reasons, migrant caravans no longer arrive at the border.

Even so, it is clear that we must work together to create a new labor mobility model that is necessary for your country, as well as address the root causes that compel families to leave their homes out of necessity. If even a small percentage of what the United States allocates to war were instead dedicated to building peace and fostering development, it would address the underlying causes of human mobility.

On another note, and for humanitarian reasons, Mexico has consistently expressed its willingness to help prevent the fentanyl epidemic in the United States from continuing. This is, after all, a public health and consumption problem within your society. So far this year, Mexican armed forces and prosecutors have seized tons of various types of drugs, 10,340 firearms, and have detained 15,640 individuals for violence related to drug trafficking.

Furthermore, the Mexican Congress is in the process of approving a constitutional reform to classify the production, distribution, and commercialization of fentanyl and other synthetic drugs as a serious crime without bail. However, it is publicly known that the chemical precursors used to produce this and other synthetic drugs are illegally entering Canada, the United States, and Mexico from Asian countries. This underscores the urgent need for international collaboration. You must also be aware of the illegal trafficking of firearms into my country from the United States.

Seventy percent of the illegal weapons seized from criminals in Mexico come from your country. We do not produce these weapons, nor do we consume synthetic drugs. Tragically, it is in our country that lives are lost to the violence resulting from meeting the drug demand in yours.

President Trump, migration and drug consumption in the United States cannot be addressed through threats or tariffs. What is needed is cooperation and mutual understanding to tackle these significant challenges.

For every tariff, there will be a response in kind, until we put at risk our shared enterprises. Yes, shared. For instance, among Mexico’s main exporters to the United States are General Motors, Stellantis, and Ford Motor Company, which arrived in Mexico 80 years ago. Why impose a tariff that would jeopardize them? Such a measure would be unacceptable and would lead to inflation and job losses in both the United States and Mexico.

I am convinced that North America’s economic strength lies in maintaining our trade partnership. This allows us to remain competitive against other economic blocs. For this reason, I believe that dialogue is the best path to understanding, peace, and prosperity for our nations. I hope our teams can meet soon to continue building joint solutions.

Trump's threatened new tariffs would appear to violate the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on trade. The deal which Trump signed into law took effect in 2020 and continued the largely duty-free trade between the three countries.

 islander wrote:
Not free of charge.