federal nonsense round-up: week ending Nov 18 2017

week in review

Week in review compiled by:
​ Shalin M, RepMD Volunteer, Baltimore City, Laura H, RepMD Volunteer, St Michael's,
Lisa M, RepMD Volunteer, Baltimore City & Cristi D, RepMD Chair.

1.) 
​Trump Made Millions of Dollars From Drug Money Laundering in Panama: Report

About:
Prior to running for president, Donald Trump profited through a drug-money laundering in Panama using a Trump affiliated property.  

Excerpt:
The Sunlight Foundation has compiled a list of what it claims are Trump’s conflicts of interest: It numbers more than 600 for the president and 1,100 for the first family.  
The report said the Panama project is a textbook case of money laundering.

“Investing in luxury properties is a tried and trusted way for criminals to move tainted cash into the legitimate financial system, where they can spend it freely,” the report noted. “Once scrubbed clean in this way, vast profits from criminal activities like trafficking people and drugs, organized crime, and terrorism can find their way into the U.S. and elsewhere.”

“In the case of the Trump Ocean Club, accepting easy – and possibly dirty – money early on would have been in Trump’s interest; a certain volume of pre-construction sales was necessary to secure financing for the project, which stood to net him $75.4 million by the end of 2010.”

Read More:  
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-drugs-corruption-panama-hotel-money-laundering-714891

Additional Info:
Trump is known to be strongly against personal use of any illegal narcotics.  However, of course, he is also known to be one that cannot seem to resist acquiring more wealth.  Around the time this is reported to have occurred, the Trump organization was having financial troubles.  

Our Thoughts (Shalin M.): 
Although it may be odd for Trump to knowingly support a narcotics operation, at the time it appears the "easy money" aspect of it was too tempting for him and his business partners.  This is especially worrying now that he occupies the Oval Office and makes the reason for vigilance on all his moves and interests that much more important.  

2.) 
​Feds: Philly officer sold drugs stolen by corrupt Baltimore police squad

About:
Federal agents have broken up a suspected illegal drug trade where members of the Baltimore police stole drugs from their city's drug dealers and sold them to Philadelphia Police force member.  

Excerpt:  
"Snell began his police career in Baltimore before arriving in Philadelphia in 2014. It was at the police academy in Maryland that he met Jemell Rayam, a fellow officer and his primary contact with the Baltimore Gun Trace Task Force.

The squad had been deployed to crack down on the proliferation of illegal guns in that city. But prosecutors now say that Rayam and several cohorts, including two commanding sergeants, used their positions to rob drug dealers and pocket hundreds of thousands of dollars uncovered while searching homes and cars of suspected criminals.
[...]  
After Snell’s brother sold the drugs, the officer allegedly deposited $1,000 in proceeds in Rayam’s bank account, keeping $1,000 for himself. Several similar transactions followed over the next two months, the indictment alleges."  

Read More:  
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/philadelphia/feds-philly-officer-sold-drugs-stolen-by-corrupt-baltimore-police-squad-20171114.html

Additional Info: 
This effort by federal agents appears to be associated with the request of former Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake request for federal support of the Baltimore Police Dept after the "uprising" events in April 2015.  

Our Thoughts (Shalin M.): 
This appears to be a good news / bad news story in that suspected Baltimore and Philadelphia police officers have a substantial amount of evidence against them and are now under arrest.  However, it also gives the Baltimroe police department (another) black eye from the perspective of whom they are sworn to serve - the citizens of Baltimore city.  Hopefully this will prevent others in the police force considering to embark on similar illegal activity.  

3.) 
House Democrats Help Republicans Pass $700B in Military Spending

About: 
​Despite prior pledges to oppose Trump's defense plans, many House Democrats voted to approve a military budget that was over the capped amount.  And, again, makes plans to acquire more equipment than the Dept of Defense has requested.  


Excerpt:  
"The total is nearly $100 billion more than President Trump requested earlier this year. It calls for 90 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, 20 more than requested; 24 Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets, 10 more than requested; and 13 new Navy ships, five more than requested.

In a year of bitter partisan fights over healthcare, tax reform, and immigration, the House approved it with rare unity. The final vote was 356-70, including 127 out of the House's 194 Democratic members. The bill now goes to the Senate, where it's expected to be easily approved. An earlier Senate version was passed by a 89-8 margin. The nearly uniform Democratic support comes despite initial pledges to oppose Trump's proposed military spending increase, which was smaller than what they have now approved."  

Read More:  
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=20477

Related Stories:
House passes $700B compromise defense bill
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/house-passes-defense-bill-244899 , Schumer says Democrats will 'emphatically oppose' Trump's proposed cuts (March 2017) 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/16/schumer-says-democrats-will-emphatically-oppose-trumps-proposed-cuts.html

Our Thoughts (Shalin M.): 
The reasons for House Democrats going back on their pledge to oppose Trump's military spending increase remains a mystery and warrants a closer look.  However, considering that military contractors have strategically located offices and manufacturing in many House districts, it may have been a calculation for jobs and economic activity that the House Democrats relented to.  This may also be why, again, the budget includes acquiring more equipment and systems than the US Dept of Defense has requested.  This is an obvious symptom of the outsized influence of the "Military-Industrial Complex" that President Eisenhower warned about.  

​4.)
​Trump turns to drug industry for his new health secretary

About:
After the ouster of Tom Price from the position of Health and Human Services Secretary, President Trump has tapped Alex Azar to lead. Azar served in senior roles under George W. Bush, but has worked for the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly for the past 10 years. With his deep ties to the pharmaceutical industry and big business, many wonder if Azar will have conflicts of interest between lowering drug prices for Americans, and his loyalties to his former employer. 

Excerpt:  
“Insurers and for-profit hospitals … reacted positively [to Azar’s nomination], while the Public Citizen advocacy group likened Azar’s nomination to a “coup d’etat” by drug companies…

If confirmed, Azar would join the club of Trump administration officials from big business. Ross was chairman of a private equity firm he founded and later sold. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was a former Goldman Sachs executive and hedge fund manager. Tillerson was CEO of ExxonMobil.”

Read More:  
https://www.statnews.com/2017/11/13/alex-azar-hhs-trump/?utm_content=buffere9507&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=facebook_organic


Our Thoughts (Laura H.): 
​If the leadership of government and business is one in the same, who will be protecting the best interest of the American people when it comes in conflict with the best interest of a corporation’s bottom line? Eli Lilly’s raising of the price of insulin in order to improve profits is just one example of this conflict in action. While President Trump has rallied against the pharmaceutical industry at times, his appointment of Alex Azar suggests he is willing to join with the industry in order to pursue his own political goals, a theme that has arisen repeatedly in his appointments. While Azar’s background includes governmental leadership, in the current climate there is little beyond his own conscience to prevent Azar from continuing to work in the best interest of the already very powerful pharmaceutical companies. At the very least, his appointment brings about the potential for serious conflicts of interest, should he be confirmed.

​5.) 
​Corruption trial of Senator Menendez ends in mistrial

About:
The corruption trial of New Jersey’s Democratic U.S. Senator Bob Menendez ended in a mistrial on Thursday. Menendez was accused of using his power as a U.S. Senator in various ways to help his personal friend and wealthy donor, ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen. 

Excerpt:
“Prosecutors accused Menendez of pressuring Medicare officials to change the agency’s billing practices after it concluded that Melgen overbilled it by millions of dollars….According to the government, Menendez also helped secure visas for the married Melgen’s foreign girlfriends and asked U.S. officials to resolve a port dispute in the Dominican Republic involving one of Melgen’s businesses…

In exchange, Melgen showered the senator with luxury vacations and hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars, prosecutors said.”

Read More:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-jersey-menendez/corruption-trial-of-senator-menendez-ends-in-mistrial-idUSKBN1DG2NP

Additional Info:
A recent Supreme Court decision to vacate a bribery conviction (of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell) has narrowed the definition of corruption. The decision was relevant to the Menendez trial, and the trial judge even considered throwing out the case when the Supreme Court ruling was made.   This more permissive ruling, paired with the information that the hung jury for the Menendez trial had deliberated to 10-2 in favor of acquittal, suggests the government will be hesitant to attempt prosecution corruption cases in the future. 

Our Thoughts:
Robert Menendez is expected to run again for his seat. Of this recent trial, he has said ““To those who were digging my political grave so they could jump into my seat: I know who you are, and I won’t forget you.” Will our leaders really continue to be people who act badly, barely escape criminal conviction, and threaten political retaliation?  If poor conduct on the part of Menendez is not currently illegal under the law, perhaps the law should be changed. Congress should develop legislation to prohibit officials from influence-peddling, and to do so will require a Congress willing to set rules for itself.