Several months into the Donald Trump administration, I was at a fancy Washington event, and a top editor at national newspaper said hello and offered a compliment: “You guys really did some good work on Trump’s conflicts of interest before the election. I wish we had been on it like that. But we’re catching up now.” This person was trying to be nice, so I didn’t yell in response, “Where the hell were you when it counted?” Instead, I replied politely, “Thank you. The more the merrier.”

This editor was referring to a series of stories that my colleague at Mother Jones Russ Choma and I did during the 2016 campaign about Trump’s mega-loans with Deutsche Bank. A reminder: When he was running for office, Trump owed at least $100 million to this institution. (That figure went up to more than $300 million.) We noted that “this prompts a question that no other major American presidential candidate has had to face: What are the implications of the chief executive of the US government being in hock for $100 million (or more) to a foreign entity that has tried to evade laws aimed at curtailing risky financial shenanigans, that was recently caught manipulating markets around the world, and that attempts to influence the US government?”

This struck us as being a highly unusual and serious matter. Meanwhile, as the campaign progressed, Deutsche Bank’s legal problems worsened. The US government demanded it pay $14 billion to settle claims dating back to the run-up to the financial implosion of 2007 and 2008, when the bank had misled investors into buying toxic mortgage-backed securities. Yet the bank reportedly had anticipated a much smaller settlement in the $2–$3 billion range. By Election Day, other potential conflicts had emerged: Trump had loans held by the Bank of China. He had been looking to score deals in Saudi Arabia and China and might have undisclosed partners in those and other countries. And then there were questions regarding various Trump properties—particularly his hotel in Washington, DC—receiving payments from overseas governments and entities, corporations, or anyone who might have an interest in currying favor with or influencing a president. If Trump were to win the White House, the range of potential conflicts would be immense. This issue received little notice during the campaign.

Eventually, the media tried to catch up—but by that time Trump had the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. During his presidency, there was a steady stream of reporting on his financial shenanigans—though many important questions went unanswered. (Of course, he refused to release his tax returns, despite promising he would.) And now, eleven months after he left office, we’re back to square one: a huge mystery about a new business endeavor that could pose the biggest conflict of interest yet, should Trump seek to regain the presidency in 2024.

Several weeks ago, Trump announced a plan to create the Trump Media & Technology Group, a media empire that would launch conservative alternatives to Twitter and Facebook (dubbed “TRUTH Social”), operate streaming and news services to compete with Netflix and cable networks, and a web-hosting company to take on Amazon. That’s an ambitious enterprise under any circumstances, even more so for Trump, given he has no business experience in any of this—nor does the guy he tapped to run the show: Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the Trumpy legislator who spent much of the last five years peddling conspiracy theories to protect Trump from assorted scandals.

Yet a few days ago, Trump announced he had landed $1 billion in initial investment by using a relatively new Wall Street concoction: a special purpose acquisition company, a.k.a. SPAC. A SPAC is essentially an empty shell that goes public before it has anything resembling an actual business. Then it finds a real company to merge with—bringing into that venture funding called “private investment in public equity,” or PIPE. That’s where the $1 billion is coming from. And there’s one helluva catch. As Choma explained:

That’s a huge influx of cash for Trump’s plans, but it’s also one that leads to a familiar issue for Trump, especially if he has designs on serving a second term in office: There is no transparency whatsoever into who exactly is putting up that $1 billion. Over the four years of his presidency, Trump was deeply in debt to a number of banks, including Germany’s Deutsche Bank, which was an unprecedented situation for a US president. If the PIPE funders remain anonymous and Trump retakes the White House in 2024, the country would once again face the possibility that a president is relying on deep-pocketed outside interests who hold a great deal of power over his business—but this time the sums would be much larger, and the funders completely anonymous.

Usually, the sources of PIPE funding in a SPAC deal are publicly known. But in this case, investors have been limited to controlling no more than 4.99 percent of the voting stock. The Securities and Exchange Commission requires identifying investors who control 5 percent or more. Coincidence?

More from Choma:

While the public and general shareholders don’t know who the PIPE investors are, Trump apparently does. In fact, Reuters reported last week that Trump has been personally calling certain potential PIPE investors, trying to get them to commit to a $100 million investment, which heightens a potential for a conflict of interest—only Trump would know what other interests he might have to serve.

It’s pure Trump. Not surprisingly, the SEC is already investigating the SPAC that is merging with Trump’s media wannabe-conglomerate for possibly having violated the rules that prohibit a SPAC from hooking up with another business (in this case, Trump’s new enterprise) before it goes public.

This deal is rotten. No transparency. Possible insider shenanigans. And this venture could be the largest purchase of political access in American history. Do these investors truly believe that Trump can raise a media kingdom from scratch? With Nunes at its helm? (Before entering Congress at the age of 29, Nunes was a farmer.) It could be these investors are getting in early because they think there are enough “greater fools” on whom they can dump their stock after the price is pumped up. Or are they looking to buy a piece of a former guy who might end up back in the White House? In any event, what’s being created could potentially turn into a supersized conflict of interest that outdoes any previous Trump conflict. Considering Trump’s history, that’s quite the accomplishment.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at thisland@motherjones.com.

Dumbass Comment of the Week

Sometimes it can feel that this feature should be renamed FoxWatch. Last week, Lara Logan. And this week, Tucker Carlson:

Contracting COVID, Carlson said, “does feminize people. No one ever says that but it’s true.” Carlson made this point on his Fox Nation streaming show, which is not to be confused with his primetime cable show, during a conversation with the British right-wing politician Nigel Farage. Many of Carlson’s most outrageous assertions are dangerous. A few issues back, I pointed out that he had certainly earned the “fascistic” label for his pseudo-documentary that advanced the notion that the January 6 attack on the Capitol was a “false flag” operation mounted by the US government to create a ruse that would justify a Deep State war on conservatives—a “patriot purge.” That show featured someone who claimed that “the left is hunting the right and sticking them in Guantanamo Bay.” And Carlson maintained that the sinister Biden administration is running a “new” war on terrorism that is aimed at white Americans, under the guise of combatting white supremacy. His demagogic message: The government is coming for you—with attack helicopters and guns. Prepare to defend yourselves.

By peddling this noxious conspiracy theory, Carlson was stoking paranoia and dismissing the true significance of January 6, when a sitting president incited a mob with lies about the 2020 election, and these brownshirts violently tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Tucker’s disinformation operation had a specific purpose: absolve Trump and the right of any wrongdoing on January 6 and turn that horrific event into evidence of Biden administration perfidy (even if Biden was not yet in office at that time). Who knows how some viewers might react if they believe this crap?

Carlson’s comment on COVID was not as dangerous, just stupid and misogynistic. He was equating physical infirmity with women. If a person’s strength is sapped, he is feminized, much like what happened to poor Samson after Delilah got out the scissors. Is this now part of the right-wing crusade to save male vitality? Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) recently gave a speech claiming masculinity was under attack by the left, and this potential 2024 contender vowed to make masculinity a top political issue. Is Hawley now also worried that COVID is emasculating men? (And what does it do to women? Renders them hyperfeminized?)

On Fox, Carlson has boosted COVID deniers, spread disinformation about vaccinations, and assailed public health efforts to vaccinate Americans. The hundreds of thousands of deaths and the economic crises caused by the pandemic did not spur Carlson to advocate basic public safety measures. But now that American manhood is on the line, perhaps Carlson will come around and champion a different message: Hey, manly men, vaccination protects virility.

The MailBag

First, a reminder: if you write in, please include your full name...There was lots of mail about the recent issue on a possible Trump restoration and Trump’s addiction to revenge. Chuck Rinaldi wrote:

This essay is right on the money. I have been saying what you expressed in private for some time. I have a background in psych and started calling him out on his malignant narcissism since 2015. It is that very narcissism that will drive (and does drive) his pathological need to deliver retribution to his supposed enemies and detractors. A return to the White House by Trump would spell a disaster unlike anything we’ve ever seen. There would be no governing, only quests for revenge. That the Republicans would get in line and help him in this is a forgone conclusion. Retribution has been inculcated into the GOP DNA.

Niles Wanger had a one-line observation:

Trump and his followers are just the most obvious symptom of a dying society.

That’s a rather blunt statement. But the fact that tens of millions of Americans support a man whose inept and ego-driven response to a pandemic led to the preventable deaths of 400,000 or so Americans and whose lies, delusions, and conspiracy theories incited a violent attack on the national legislature is something to dread. These people are embracing actions that weaken and endanger American society. If their numbers grow, the nation will be further imperiled. Whether or not they are a symptom of societal collapse, they are an ongoing threat.

Dot Hershey asks:

What is it going to take to get rid of the filibuster or at least modify it? Our future depends on this.

It will take a majority of the Senate to change the filibuster rule. There are several Democratic senators who have resisted such a move. They prioritize an archaic Senate rule over, say, the protection and expansion of voting rights. There is not much leverage that President Joe Biden or Democratic leaders have over these recalcitrant Democrats when the Senate is at 50–50. You can’t throw a Democrat out of the Democratic caucus—without risking control of the Senate. There are few pressure points—other than those that come from the home state.

There were several warm and touching replies to my remembrance of the day John Lennon was killed and the days that followed. Linda Georgeson responded, “Moving. Thank you.” Carmen Dedreira wrote, “Beautifully put.” Caroline Pufalt said, “Thanks for your remembrance of John Lennon and your inspiring story of ad hoc activism.” Frances Pelzman recalled:

I was working at Rolling Stone, as the assistant photo editor. Karin Silverstein was the photo editor. Mary Shanahan was the art director. As you can imagine, [publisher] Jann Wenner was emotionally eviscerated by the shock and horror of the murder and loss of his close friend. Annie Leibovitz had only completed the big photo shoot with John and Yoko that afternoon. I admired Wenner for using his publishing power to devote this coverage to gun control. I love your newsletter.

Thank you, Frances. I imagine that was an awful stretch for the folks at Rolling Stone, especially since Leibovitz had just been with Lennon and Ono hours before he was gunned down. That was when she snapped that iconic and poignant photo of a naked Lennon curled around Ono. You can read about the photo here. (I might get into copyright trouble if I reproduce it in this newsletter.) And here’s a piece on the gun safety stories Rolling Stone did in the aftermath of the Lennon shooting.

Lawrence McCrone had a question after reading my Lennon article, which referred to a Christmas card sent out by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) showing him with his wife and kids brandishing guns:

Just read your powerful piece. Kudos! I had seen the Massie family's disgusting Christmas picture earlier but seeing it again reminded me of a question I had. That is, what in the world is the weapon that Thomas Massie is holding? It certainly doesn't look like anything that should be legal. Do you know anyone who might know?

The Guardian did some reporting on this:

The weapon held by Massie…has been identified as an M60 machine gun, first developed for the US military in the late 1950s and which, with its belt-fed ammunition, became one the best-known weapons of the Vietnam war. A collector’s item, the M60 is relatively hard to buy on the open market, with sales prices estimated by some auctioneers at $69,000 or more. Machine guns made since 1986 are banned in the US—but US federal law allows any weapons that were registered before 1986 to be traded on an approved basis.

There’s no better way to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace than by cuddling with a killing machine, right?

Several readers wrote to ask, “Will there ever be gun control?” Richard Silvestri noted:

I went to DC for March for Our Lives. About 250k there, not sure. We need a presence in DC of several million, no march, do it on a Friday, just clog the streets so senators and House members can’t get to airport, close down the city. It’s not a repeat of 1/6; it’s bigger and peaceful…How many can we get 1, 5, 10 million? But forget it. Because come Monday and it will be business as always. And our votes aren’t even enough because the money folks buy theirs in greater numbers.

The March for Our Lives in 2018 that called for action to control gun violence attracted between 1.2 and 2 million people, according to various estimates. It was one of the largest protests in American history. Such demonstrations do serve a purpose; they show people that they are indeed part of a large movement. But the only thing that truly motivates obstructionist politicians is the fear of losing their jobs. Applying political pressure back home in the states is critical to changing minds and votes. And, yes, that pressure must be more potent than campaign contributions. It’s a tall order. But until a sizable majority of senators and representatives conclude they face serious risks for opposing sensible gun safety measures, our schoolkids—and all of us—will have to keep living in fear.

Ruth Corn Roth sent in this important observation:

Moxie looks elegant!

Thanks, Mom. (Literally). With that, let’s turn to our most popular feature...

Got anything to ask me (or Moxie) for the Mailbag? Email me at thisland@motherjones.com.

MoxieCam™

“Moxie,” I said, “I know poodles were bred as hunting dogs, but we’re not on a hunt now.”

Without looking at me, Moxie replied, “Speak for yourself.”

Read Recent Issues of This Land

December 7, 2021: John Lennon and the NRA—four decades later; Chris Christie: Trump is afraid to lose in 2024; an inspiring documentary about Jacques Cousteau; and more.

December 4, 2021: Donald Trump and the Cruddy Pan Theory of human behavior; Peter Thiel, kingmaker?; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

November 30, 2021: One big reason to fear a Trump restoration: revenge; why The Beatles: Get Back is one of the greatest documentaries ever; Tick, tick…BOOM! is Lin-Manuel Miranda’s love letter to theater geeks; and more.

November 23, 2021: How dangerous is Peter Thiel?; No Time to Die as a daddy-daughter film; spending time with Nick Offerman; Aimee Mann’s fabulous new album; and more.

November 20, 2021: Should the Democrats really push the panic button?; the Steele dossier and Donald Trump’s betrayal of America; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

November 16, 2021: New information on how Donald Trump killed 400,000 (or more) Americans; Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. on the witness stand in a Trump corruption trial?; American Rust shines with Jeff Daniels; Bruce Springsteen and John Mellencamp face the final song; and more.

November 13, 2021: Does blue-state America care more about red-state America than vice versa?; Dumbass Comment of the Week; how to get back issues of This Land; the Mailbag, MoxieCam™; and more.

November 9, 2021: Why an ex-Trump aide just told me to “burn in hell”; Matt Damon’s compassionate portrayal of a screw-up from Trump Country; behind the scenes at the Beatles’ Let It Be sessions; and more.

November 6, 2021: The Democrats’ anger problem; Dumbass Comment of the Week; the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

November 2, 2021: Whatever happened to Christian Nationalism and the January 6 attack?; thoughts and prayers for COP26; Rock ’n’ Roll Flashback: Bob Dylan, Jesus, and me; and more.