Where is Voter’s Choice?

On Saturday, April 6, 2024, over 100 ultra-rich individuals assembled for an exclusive fundraising dinner for Trump, billed as “Inaugural Leadership Dinner.”  It was hosted by billionaire investor & hedge founder Paul Johnson. at his lavish Palm Beach estate in Florida. The purpose behind this event was to bolster the electoral campaign of former President Trump, aiming to facilitate his return to the presidency as the 47th President of the United States on November 5th, 2024.

Attendance at this event came with a significant financial commitment, ranging from $250,000 per person for those serving on the “host committee” to an extraordinary $824,600 per person for those designated as “chairmen.” There was a slot for “co-chair” also. Individuals contributing at the highest level were granted the privilege of being seated at Trump’s table during the dinner.

Few weeks before the event, billionaire host Paul Johnson discussed the upcoming fundraiser for Trump with CNN, stating, “I’m pleased to support President Trump in his re-election efforts.” He praised Trump’s policies on the economy, energy, immigration, and foreign policy as beneficial for the country. However, he didn’t mention Trump’s 2017 Billionaires Tax cuts that favored wealthy individuals like himself. Paul had previously supported Ron DeSantis’ campaign but switched to Trump when he became the presumptive nominee. Johnson had also funded Trump’s campaigns in 2016 and 2020. Another billionaire co-chair of the event supporting Ron DeSantis was Robert Bigelow, owner of Budget Suites of America and founder of Bigelow Aerospace.

After the event, Trump’s campaign announced it had raised $50.5 million in Palm Beach, Florida, setting a record for single-event fundraising. This amount nearly doubled the $26 million raised by Biden’s campaign at a Hollywood star-studded gathering, which also include former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, at Radio City Hall in New York.

It’s evident that the ultra-wealthy individuals who attended Trump’s fundraiser and donated substantial amounts of money cannot be equated with average Americans who have often been deceived by both Democrats and Republicans in every election cycle. These donors are aware of Trump’s legal issues, including the December 2023 ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that found Trump had been “engaged in an insurrection.” Although the US Supreme Court ultimately allowed Trump to remain on the 2024 ballot in Colorado, it did not overturn the state’s high court decision regarding Trump’s involvement in an “insurrection.”

Let’s examine some prominent legal state and federal cases pending against former President Trump from the perspective of Trump’s ultra-rich donors. Unlike average Americans, these elites are well aware that in a civil case, damages are measured in dollars, while in a federal case, they can lead to jail time or house arrest.

• Property over valuation Civil Fraud case:

NY AG Letitia James utilized a state law dating back to 1956, granting the attorney general’s office extensive authority to investigate and penalize corporations for wrongdoing. This law imposes a lower burden of proof than other fraud cases, crucially requiring prosecutors to not demonstrate the defendant’s intent to commit fraud or financial harm to anyone. Despite Mr. Trump’s repeated claims that the banks he dealt with profited, Judge Engoron found him liable for falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud, and conspiracy to falsify business records.

In addition to the $355 million penalty, representing repayment of what the judge deemed “ill-gotten gains” from Trump’s fraudulent financial statements, Trump must pay interest on that amount at a rate of 9% per annum, as prescribed by New York law. James’ office calculates that, to date, Trump owes an additional $98.6 million in interest, bringing his total penalty to $453.5 million. The interest will continue to accrue until Trump settles the debt.

Initially, Ms. James may have anticipated Trump’s inability to furnish a bond while appealing the verdict, enabling her to seize his property. However, legal experts question the validity of her stance, considering it speculative and lacking evidential support. Her assertions regarding inflated figures rely on assumptions about potential bank actions, such as higher interest rates, which remain unsubstantiated. Moreover, it’s widely acknowledged that Trump organizations have historically secured favorable deals, casting doubt on the alleged misconduct.

The appeal in AG James’ Civil Fraud case against Trump concerning property value manipulation to get lower interest rates from the banks, is likely to encounter challenges, potentially even reaching the Supreme Court due to the substantial fine involved. The outcome of this case carries significant implications for banking institutions, putting considerable pressure on them. The exorbitant nature of the fine raises serious constitutional concerns, potentially exceeding reasonable bounds relative to the court’s findings. Such fines, if disproportionate, could potentially violate constitutional protections against excessive penalties, necessitating judicial scrutiny.

Shark Tank star Kevin O’Leary While appearing on Fox News spoke about the $454 million bond amount Trump is required to pay following a lawsuit brought by James. He said, “it has absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump at this point.” “This is an attack on America.”  “And I don’t know how you can look at it any other way.”

This reminds me of Adani Groups CFO in Jan 2023 standing by Indian National Flag, accused a US investment firm Hindenburg of launching “a calculated attack on India, its economy and investors”, by publishing a report accusing the group of “brazen stock manipulation, group’s offshore entities interlinked corporate structure, and accounting fraud scheme over the course of decades.”  “IndiaStandsWithAdani” was among the top trending hashtags on Twitter in response to the exposure.

• Manhattan DA, Stormy Daniels Hush Money Criminal Case:

Trump’s role in a hush-money payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels who threatened during the 2016 presidential campaign to go public with her story of a sexual encounter with him. The payment was made by Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen, who was reimbursed by him after becoming President. While paying hush money is not inherently criminal, D.A. Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 felonies for falsifying business records related to the payments and the reimbursement of Mr. Cohen. By covering up the potential scandal during the presidential campaign, thus Trump interfered in the 2016 election, DA Bragg has argued. In 2023, Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.  He denies having a sexual encounter with Daniels. His lawyers argue the payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses and were recorded correctly.

This is the only case out of 4 criminal cases against Trump that may have a verdict before Nov. 5, 2024. If convicted, Trump could face 4 years of jail time. This is the only case where he cannot pardon himself, even if he becomes US President in November 2024. It’s important to note that this is a state case, and he illegally paid Stormy Daniels. However, it’s unlikely that he will go to jail, as sitting Presidents are typically not incarcerated during their term. The Trial started on April 15, 2024.

• E Jean Carrol Sexual Assault & Defamation:

In May 2023, columnist Ms. Carroll was awarded $5 million for sexual assault by Trump in 1996 and defamation. Even after that, Trump repeatedly denied knowing E. Jean Carroll, prompting her to sue him again in New York City. In January 2024, she obtained a jury verdict for an additional $83.3 million in damages. This is particularly embarrassing for former President Trump, as if he were to be elected President on November 5, 2024, he would be the only President in US history to have been indicted for sexual assault.

It’s worth noting that in Indian politics, having allegations or even convictions related to sexual offenses has unfortunately become somewhat normalized. Currently, PM Modi’s party BJP, is notorious for having the highest number of sexual abuse offenders, including rape cases. A bomb maker and a terrorist also represent BJP in the Indian Parliament.

• Georgia Election Case:

The GA election case involves 18 co-conspirators facing 34 felony charges. At the core of this case is the alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. Charges filed under RICO, essentially used against corrupt organizations, were pioneered by a prominent young attorney, Rudy Giuliani, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, targeting mob activity. Giuliani is named in this case as a co-conspirator.

The racketeering law was initially designed to dismantle organized crime groups. In essence, prosecutors assert that Mr. Trump headed a criminal enterprise designed to maintain his hold on power. Trump is facing 13 counts, including racketeering and conspiracy to commit forgery.

• Classified Documents Mishandling Charges:

The grand jury indictment brings 40 felony counts against Trump related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents after his presidency, to which he has pleaded not guilty. The case marks the first federal indictment of a former U.S. president. Trump is charged separately for each of 32 documents under the Espionage Act. The other eight charges against him include making false statements and engaging in a conspiracy to obstruct justice.  The judge has set a pretrial hearing for May 14, 2024, and the trial for May 20, 2024.

Special Counsel Smith’s team acknowledged that though there are “superficial similarities” in the Trump case to similar such cases. But they stand apart in meaningful ways, including Trump’s “extensive and repeated efforts to obstruct justice and thwart the return of documents bearing classification markings.” They cite the Hur report as noting that Biden, by contrast, alerted authorities to the presence of classified documents, willingly returned them, consented to searches of his homes and otherwise cooperated with the investigation. Smith’s team rejected additional Trump arguments seeking to dismiss the case, including the former president’s claim that he is immune from prosecution for acts committed in office.

• Federal Election Charges:

Trump has pleaded not guilty to four federal charges in the case before the Supreme Court − three for conspiracy and one for obstruction − for falsely claiming election fraud and tried to overturn the legitimate election results.

Trump wants the Supreme Court to dismiss his indictment on federal charges “he tried to steal the 2020 election”, arguing criminal prosecution presents a “mortal threat” to the independence of the presidency.

“The President cannot function, and the Presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence, if the President faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office,” Trump’s lawyers told the court last month in his major brief before the oral arguments. They’ll get a chance to respond to Smith’s arguments in their final legal filing before facing the nine Supreme Court justices on April 25, 2024.

Special Counsel Jack Smith in his brief has said, “No president before Donald Trump has suggested the Constitution grants him criminal immunity and the Supreme Court shouldn’t now find that it does.

“The effective functioning of the presidency does not require that a former president be immune from accountability for these alleged violations of federal criminal law,” Smith wrote. “To the contrary, a bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law including the president.”

Citing examples from history that brought the U.S. to the edge of a Constitutional crisis, Smith pointed out in his brief that President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon precisely because he otherwise faced prosecution.

Likewise, he argued, the special counsel that investigated the Iran-Contra affair considered whether President Ronald Reagan’s actions were criminal.

“The absence of any such absolute immunity claim throughout our history weighs heavily against its novel recognition now.” Smith also argued that any immunity former presidents enjoy for official acts would not apply to Trump because attempting to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power is the “paradigmatic example of conduct that should not be immunized, even if other conduct should be.”

“Nothing in constitutional text, history, precedent, or policy considerations,” “supports the absolute immunity that petitioner seeks.”

The legal filings come ahead of the Supreme Court’s April 25 oral arguments in Trump’s appeal of a decision that he’s not immune from prosecution. It will hear oral arguments, on the question of whether a former president is shielded from prosecution for official acts, an argument Trump has raised in Classified Documents case & 2020 Election case brought by special Counsel Jack Smith.

Even if Trump loses his appeal, the Supreme Court may not reach a decision quickly enough for a trial to proceed in time for a verdict before the November election.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the charges are politically motivated. If he returns to the White House, he could appoint an attorney general who would seek to dismiss any pending federal charges. Trump could also simply pardon himself, although his power to do so is debated.

Billionaires supporting Biden

“An even larger group of billionaires, along with two former Presidents Obama and Clinton, supported Biden in 2020 and are continuing to support his re-election campaign for the US presidency in 2024.” Especially, Obama’s endorsement was not only a public show of support in 2020 and now in 2024, but also brought with it a network of donors, organizers, and volunteers who had been part of his successful campaigns of 2008 and 2012. Some people refer the Biden presidency as proxy 3^RD term of Obama. These billionaires and 2 former presidents are fully aware of the disastrous 4 years of Biden Presidency.

• Afghanistan Withdrawal

One of the most controversial decisions of Biden’s presidency was the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Critics argue that the withdrawal was poorly planned and executed, leading to a rapid takeover of the country by the Taliban and leaving many Afghans who assisted the U.S. at risk, later to be executed by Taliban.

• Immigration

Biden administration has faced criticism for its handling of immigration issues, particularly at the southern border. Critics argue that the administration has not effectively managed the influx of over 10 million illegal migrants, leading to overcrowded detention facilities and humanitarian concerns. It also brought the influx of these migrants to several cities that led to financial crisis for these cities, for providing humanitarian aid to them.

• Supply Chain Issues and Inflation

The Biden administration’s failure to address challenges related to supply chain disruptions and rising inflation. Critics argue that the administration has not taken sufficient action to address these issues, leading to increased costs for consumers and businesses. In the first quarter of Biden Presidency, the inflation dropped from 2.5% to 0.3%. After that the consumers experienced runaway inflation that peaked at 9.1% on June 1, 2022. On Jan 1, 2023, it was 6.1% and currently it is 3.1%.

• COVID-19 Variants and Response

While the Biden administration managed to do reasonably well in vaccine distribution, critics argue that it has been slow to adapt its COVID-19 response to new variants of the virus. Some also believe that messaging around public health measures has been inconsistent.

• Energy Policy

Biden’s approach to energy policy, including efforts to transition to renewable energy, has been a disastrous blow to the consumers with higher prices. It has potentially harmed the U.S. energy sector and leading to job losses in traditional energy industries.

• Crime and Public Safety

Rising crime rates in some Democrats controlled cities have led to criticism of the administration’s approach to public safety and law enforcement. Some critics argue that calls to “defund the police” from parts of the Democratic Party have contributed to a perception of increased lawlessness.

• Partisan Gridlock

Despite campaign promises to unify the country, the Biden administration has faced challenges in working with a deeply divided Congress. Many of its legislative priorities have faced opposition from Republicans, leading to gridlock on key issues like voting rights, infrastructure, and immigration reform.

• Cackling VP Kamala Harris

The most scaring to death issue is, if for any reason, Biden’s Cackling VP Kamala Harris takes over as President of the United States of America. Poll after poll that include foreign media also, says that Kamala is the worst VP in US history. In an NBC poll, last year she literally ran -17% (Negative Seventeen percent) approval rating.

• Mishandling of Ukraine & Israel-Palestine War

Biden has failed in his handling of the issues in Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict during his presidency. Biden’s handling of Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict has been criticized for being inadequate or ineffective. There are critics that feel that no one in Biden administration talk about 40,000 Palestinians mostly women & children killed by Israeli forces with American Military and cash aids.

• Genocide in Gaza

Large number of young black voters raised as Democrats openly say that Biden has aided and abetted Genocide in Gaza, may vote for independent candidate, paving the way for a smooth victory for Trump, who is more Pro-Israel than Biden.

• Biden involvement in cash for influence paddling as VP of Obama

Biden family’s Banks statements, emails & statement of associates shows that Biden as VP of Obama, was involved in the family influence paddling scheme, getting money from foreign govt. for unknown favors shown to them.

• Biden’s Age

The billionaires and both former Presidents supporting Biden know it too well when it comes to Biden’s age; there are 3 things in play, 1. Age, 2. Age, & 3. Age. It is not like Trump’s legal issues that may go away after becoming President. All of them are discounting the Federal Special Counsel’s report that described the 81-year-old Biden’s memory as “hazy,” “fuzzy,” “faulty,” “poor” and having “significant limitations.” It noted that Biden could not recall defining milestones in his own life such as when his son Beau died or when he served as vice president. The report ruled out prosecution of Biden over his retention of highly classified materials as a private citizen. Special counsel Robert Hur suggested he (Biden) would seem too feeble to prosecute: “It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

The rhetoric that “America stands for freedom” has been echoed by every U.S. president since 1947. However, none have shown the courage to address the issue of Palestine’s liberation from what many consider to be Israel’s illegal occupation. Israel is often cited as the only country in the world that is illegally occupying another country. Despite this, the United States has provided over $300 billion since 1948 to support Israel, contributing to the ongoing plight, casualties from bombings, and humanitarian suffering of Palestinians.

A particularly concerning aspect is the behavior of the U.S. Congress, which consists of 535 members—100 Senators and 435 Representatives. There appears to be a visible competition among them to demonstrate who is more loyal to Israel and who can more effectively suppress information about Israel’s alleged illegal occupation of Palestine.

In the absence of term limits, the U.S. Congress, rather than being a noble place to serve the country, has become a lucrative career opportunity for politicians from both parties to serve themselves. There’s a competitive race among politicians to serve the longest, aiming to capitalize on the power, perks and influence-peddling that come with long tenures.

The longest-serving U.S. Senator in history was Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. He served in the Senate for over 51 years, from January 3, 1959, until his death on June 28, 2010. On the House side, the longest-serving member was John Dingell Jr. of Michigan, who served for 59 years from December 13, 1955, to January 3, 2015. He succeeded his father, John Dingell Sr., who served in Congress for 22 years from March 4, 1933, until his death on September 19, 1955, establishing the Dingell family as one of the most enduring political dynasties in U.S. history.

Nancy Pelosi has served in the U.S. Congress for 35 years, from 1987 to 2022, representing California‘s 12th Congressional District. Her net worth was estimated to be as high as $171.4 million in a 2021 report by The Washington Free Beacon. While her annual salary of $179,000, which alone would not make her a millionaire, it appears that the rest of her wealth comes from influence-peddling and stock investments, possibly based on inside information.

The other concerning aspect of the U.S. electoral system is that it allows leaders to choose their voters. Many congressional districts are non-competitive, meaning they heavily favor either Republicans or Democrats. This lack of competitiveness is often a result of gerrymandering, which is conducted by leaders of both parties to benefit themselves. Similarly, many states lean heavily towards one party or the other, further reducing political competition and choice for voters.

In conclusion, the influence of U.S. billionaires and Israel on the selection of presidential candidates and members of the Congress raises important questions about the democratic process and the representation of the American people’s interests. While financial support plays a significant role in modern political campaigns, voters must remain vigilant and informed to make choices that align with their values and priorities. It’s crucial for voters to look beyond the candidates endorsed by powerful interests and evaluate each candidate’s policies, integrity, and commitment to serving the public good. Voters must demand “Term Limits” in both houses of the Congress and more transparency in their financial dealings. By staying engaged, asking critical questions, and voting based on their convictions, voters can help ensure that their voices are heard and that their elected leaders truly represent them.

( Dave Makkar is a social activist. He can be reached at davemakkar@yahoo.com)