What Melania’s Mystery Money Tells Us About Trump Scandals

Have you seen all the headlines about the mysterious payment of $237,500 to Melania Trump?

Probably not. That’s because there haven’t been many headlines about this. Earlier this week, CNN, citing the financial disclosure report Donald Trump had to file as a federal candidate, noted that his wife, who has been largely absent from his crusade to regain the White House, pocketed this cash as payment for a speech she gave in April to the gay and lesbian organization Log Cabin Republicans. That’s a helluva lot of money for a nonprofit to compensate a speaker. In 2022, the last year for which its tax records are available, its entire revenue was $1 million, and its debts were $163,000. From the start of 2023 through June of this year, its political action committee raised only $21,700. LCR clearly doesn’t have the resources to hand such a sum to anyone for a speech. And if Melania is one of their most prominent supporters—she has previously appeared at its events—why must she be paid at all?

Except, of course, that this is the Trump way.

The Log Cabin Republicans told CNN Melania’s fee did not come from them, meaning someone else paid her to talk to the organization. Or perhaps used her appearance as an opportunity to supply her a nearly a quarter of a million dollars. But on Trump’s financial disclosure form the source of these funds is not identified. The cable network also reported that this payment was arranged by Ric Grenell, the combative Trump ally who was a diplomatic envoy and acting national director of intelligence in the Trump administration. He wouldn’t talk to CNN. (Last year, Noah Lanard, Dan Friedman, and I broke the story of other funny-money business at Log Cabin Republicans involving Grenell and the corrupt and felonious George Santos.)

The whole point of the financial disclosure system is to ensure that voters know who might be dumping money into the bank accounts of candidates and their families. (And you know how deeply Republicans have cared about that when it comes to the Bidens and Clintons.) Yet in this instance, there’s no telling who handed Melania this big payday. (One curious note: The amount—$237,500—is 5 percent less than $250,000. Did someone take a broker’s cut or agent’s fee?) You can let your imagination run wild here: a foreign government, an overseas businessperson, an American corporation, a pro-Trump super-PAC or fat-cat donor, a criminal, a despot, an office-seeker—anyone looking to win a future favor from Trump? Grenell, who was a major proponent of Trump’s Big Lie and who could be secretary of state in a new Trump administration, also has been working with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner developing deals in Serbia and Albania.

Once upon a time, a shady move like this one would have been considered a good-sized scandal, but this episode is yet another reminder of how Trump scandals often don’t register deeply, if at all. In the Trump era, it’s barely a blip. As I write, I have seen neither a New York Times nor Washington Post story on this.

That's hardly unusual. Last month, the Washington Post published an eye-popping exposé reporting that a secret federal and criminal investigation had been triggered in 2017 due to classified US intelligence indicating that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi sought to slip Trump $10 million for his 2016 presidential campaign. (It’s illegal for a foreigner to donate to an American presidential election.) This was a complicated tale, and the evidence was not slam-dunk. But, not surprisingly, then–Attorney General Bill Barr raised doubts about the case, and the Justice Department killed the probe. With Barr involved, there’s good reason to be suspicious of this decision. He had run cover for Trump on the Russia investigation and other matters. Yet the possibility that an Egyptian autocrat funneled money to Trump did not trigger much of a response. House Democrats, led by Reps. Jamie Raskin and Robert Garcia, have sent a letter to Trump demanding answers to questions about this. But there’s no full investigation being waged in the House or Senate.

So many eyebrow-raising Trump ventures that opened the door for rampant corruption have been shoved aside or quickly memory-holed. Consider the $2 billion from the Saudis that Kushner received. The millions that foreign officials poured into Trump’s hotel in Washington, DC, during his presidency. Trump’s selling of NFTs, trading cards, Trump commemorative coins, golden sneakers, and, as of this week, $100,000 Trump watches. These and other avenues have allowed anyone looking to suck up to Trump, possibly the next president, to place large loads of money directly into his pockets or those of his family.

Then there’s his failing social media company—the stock has plummeted from $66 a share to $14 in the past six months—and his new crypto venture, which includes, as the New York Times noted, his two oldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, “and two little-known crypto entrepreneurs with no experience running a high-profile business.” Trump’s promotion of crypto has (coincidentally, right?) occurred as prominent cryptocurrency champions have contributed to his presidential campaign.

So much of this grift has enormous implications should Trump return to the White House bearing a boatload of conflicts of interest. If he’s invested in crypto, how do you think his administration is going to deal with crypto regulations? What’s going to be his approach to matters regarding the Saudis, Albanians, or Serbians who are wheeling-and-dealing with his family? Trump is also part of a multibillion development project in Oman that involves a Saudi real estate firm. This venture aims to use his name to sell luxury villas at prices of up to $13 million to superrich buyers from Russia, Iran, India, and elsewhere. How might that affect his policies in the Middle East, much less his ever-curious relationship with Russia and Vladimir Putin?

Many of these ventures offer a direct pipeline for payments to Trump from...well, virtually anyone. Someone seeking a pardon, someone who wants a government contract, someone desiring a particular policy, or a presidential thumb on a scale. Buy his crypto or one of those rip-off watches for a hundred grand! Voters will never know where the money is coming from.

There’s so much about Trump’s finances that remains opaque or outright mysterious. For example, he has never explained a puzzling $50 million loan seemingly related to the Trump International Hotel and Tower in downtown Chicago that might be evidence of tax fraud. Recently, a Senate committee initiated an inquiry into Kushner’s Saudi deal, noting that Kushner’s firm, Affinity Partners, was paid $157 million in fees since 2021 without delivering any profit to investors. As the Guardian pointed out, this has fueled suspicions that this project “may be a foreign influence-buying operation established in anticipation of the former president returning to the White House.” Though Democrats are poking into this, it’s unlikely that voters will get the full picture before Election Day.

In 2016, my Mother Jones colleague Russ Choma and I repeatedly wrote stories describing various financial conflicts of interest related to Trump’s businesses, loans, and international deals. I was sad to see back then that much of the media did not follow our lead. Eight years later, there’s almost too much Trump sleaze for the media to cover or for the electorate to absorb. From Melania’s speeches—she’s been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for others—to Trump’s watches, to the coming Trump cryptocurrency, the Trump clan keeps holding out a collection plate for sycophants and favor-seekers. The potential bribery is hiding in plain sight, yet it disappears in the midst of all the Trump craziness. This failed casino owner has long been known as the ultimate grifter. Should Trump return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, with the protection of the expanded immunity recently granted him by the conservative justices of the Supreme Court, the brazen greed of the Trumps will run wild—after all, this could well be their last shot to exploit power for personal profits—and corruption will reign.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

A date has been set for our next Zoom get-together of Our Land readers: Monday, October 7, 8 p.m. ET. As always, these Zoom shindigs are only open to folks who subscribe to the premium edition of Our Land. (You can do that here.) On the day of the event, premium subscribers will receive a Zoom invitation. Click on that at the appointed hour, and our well-trained Our Land bouncers will let you in.

And allow me to remind those who receive the abbreviated edition of Our Land that for a few bucks a month you can join our noble band of premium subscribers. Without them (and their contributions), this newsletter would not exist. If you appreciate my journalism and analysis—and you have the means to do so—please subscribe to the full shebang and support my work. The complete version includes a slew of features: additional reports on what’s in and not in the news, the Dumbass Comment of the Week contest, access to the interactive Mailbag, and my reviews of books, film, TV shows, music, and podcasts. Plus the indispensable MoxieCam™.

Is there a mathematical formula that captures how stupid remarks increase as the time before an election decreases? Seems like there ought to be. Let’s start with Donald Trump Jr., a DCotW regular. In an interview, speaking about his pop, he declared, “Honestly, his political liability is frankly that he has so much empathy and kindness.”

Was this just another expression of cynical gaslighting or was it one of breathtaking delusion? In either event, we hope the hardworking legal Haitian migrants of Springfield, Ohio, were not watching.

Speaking of the horrific crusade mounted by Donald Trump, JD Vance, and GOP cultists against those Haitians and other legal immigrants, we saw Rep. Glenn Grothman, a MAGA Republican from Wisconsin, join the feeding frenzy. Appearing on C-SPAN, he proclaimed, “Democrats can’t wait a few years until some of these new immigrants become citizens or have children and they become citizens. The Democrat Party is so radical right now that they want these people voting immediately.”

Yes, he was promulgating the noxious Trumpian conspiracy theory that the Democrats are purposefully bringing in undocumented migrants and having them illegally vote in elections. Which, as you know, doesn’t happen. The host dutifully enquired, “What’s your evidence that it’s happening? Where have you seen that.” Grothman replied, “I haven't seen it, but we know it's happening, right?”

That’s how a scoundrel responds to a direct question when he has no evidence to back up a crazy and dangerous assertion.

It was another scoundrel who ran off with the honors this week. CNN host Jake Tapper interviewed Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), shortly after Trump appeared at an event supposedly held to combat antisemitism and suggested that if he loses the election it will be the fault of the Jews. Tapper played the video of Trump’s comment for Cotton: “Any Jewish person who votes for [Harris], especially now, her or the Democrat Party should have their head examined...If I don’t win this election...in my opinion the Jewish people will have a lot to do with the loss.”

Tapper asked Cotton, “Are you comfortable with that, with Donald Trump saying that if he loses, preemptively, it’s the fault of Jews, who are already experiencing a rise of antisemitism in this country from the left and the right?”

Ever the loyal Trump devotee, Cotton replied, “Well, Jake, Donald Trump has been saying things like this for at least 11 months, since October 7. The only reasons the Democrats latch on to this this month is they see the polling that reflects Donald Trump winning record high amounts of Jewish voters who are Republicans. The point he has been making all along is that any Jewish voter, any Christian voter, any other kind of voter who cares about Israel, who cares about our relationship with Israel, should not vote for Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.” Then Cotton complained about how Vice President Harris has treated Benjamin Netanyahu, the war-mongering prime minister of Israel.

Cotton did not answer the question, and Tapper shot back: “I’m not talking about Israel. I’m talking about American Jewish voters.” He pointed out that the American Jewish Committee had called Trump’s remark “outrageous and dangerous.” Cotton repeated his initial answer, insisting Jewish voters should support Trump because of Israel. Tapper gave it another go: “You keep talking about Israel. I’m talking about Jewish voters.” Cotton then moved from refusing to acknowledge Trump’s antisemitic remark to attacking Harris for supposedly being silent on antisemitism: “[Trump] was at an event talking about combatting antisemitism here and around the world. When was the last time Kamala Harris spoke about combatting antisemitism?”

It looked as if Tapper was about to explode. He retorted: “Her husband is Jewish and is in charge of a group combatting antisemitism in the US.” Cotton returned to bashing Harris for not being fully supportive of Netanyahu’s horrible war in Gaza. Tapper persisted: “Are you comfortable about him blaming it on the Jews.” Cotton wouldn’t answer. “Yes, or no, are you comfortable?” Tapper repeated. Still, no answer.

This was quite the pretzel of a performance from Cotton. With his silence on the question at hand, he defended Trump’s antisemitism and used the occasion to suggest that Harris, whose spouse is a Jewish activist on this front, was somehow weak on this issue. For this ugly display of chutzpah, Cotton easily won the prize.

My attempt to explain why so many Trump supporters have forgotten the horrors of the Trump years—the pandemic, the January 6 riot—drew a robust response.

Craig Berrington wrote:

Color me skeptical on all these sophisticated reasons why voters have forgotten all the chaos of the Trump Pandemic. I grew up in Chicago, so sophistication is not part of my DNA. Trump has gotten away with all his lies on the pandemic and the economic chaos because Democrats have been too timid to challenge him. Because of that, they have ceded these issues to him. Voters “remember” what they are told to remember. What voters are being told to remember on these issues is what Trump is telling them. There is no calling him out on his lies.

Here is how I think Kamala Harris—and all other Democrats—should start their pitches on the economy and the pandemic: “When Trump left the White House on January 20, he was leaving a country flat on its back. Flat on its back medically. Flat on its back economically. Trump had lied the country into the pandemic. When he finally had to face it, he told Americans to drink bleach. Because of his lies, millions of Americans were thrown out of work and faced financial destitution. Like a circus elephant walking down Main Street, Trump left Main Street America with steaming piles to clean up. And clean up those steaming piles we have done. It has been hard work, and the country has had to overcome MAGA obstruction on Main Streets all across America, but the recovery has been historic. Now, we need to move forward. And here’s how we do it….”

For reasons probably based on polling and research, the Democrats now seem inclined to believe that dwelling on the past, especially related to the pandemic, is not going to win over voters who are not already with them. They appear to want to avoid all the Covid-related debates about lockdowns, masks, and the rest. The cliché in politics is that elections are about the future, not the past. My article noted that those who forget are those people who want to believe Trump. Thus, a frontal assault on their false narrative about those chaotic years might not be the most effective campaign messaging.

Michele Levan wrote:

I enjoyed your article about how we compartmentalize past traumatic events and get fuzzy on those memories but not all of us are like this. I'm certain Kamala Harris would love to talk non-stop about Trump's failure on the pandemic and the horror of January 6. We know it's a political calculation for her not to. In addition, her base (including me) and the Dem politicians, politicos, and journalists remember these times vividly. Even the formerly Republican Never Trumpers (whom for many January 6 was why they forever broke with Trump) remind us daily of his tremendous incompetence during the pandemic and his sinister cynicism of The Big Lie. So how would social scientists and/or psychologists describe us: The minority of realists who don't forget and never want to? Also, do you think Kamala not dwelling on Trump's worst two failures is smart or a mistake?

I don’t believe that those who remember the horrors of the pandemic and the MAGA attempt to overturn American democracy are a minority. But clearly there are tens of millions of Americans who don’t view the past that way. And per my comment above, Harris seems to be more focused on persuading those few undecided voters that she can help them achieve better circumstances in the coming years and does not want to battle over the details of Trump’s worst actions. There’s no way to know if this work until it does—or doesn’t.

Mike Eckel shared this:

Appreciate your bringing this information forward, including a key factor I had not been aware of when you quoted psychology professor William Hirst saying, "Memory is designed to reinforce our in-group membership." I have felt since January 6, 2021, every day, the Biden administration should have been repeating several items: 1. The election was not fraudulent—there is no evidence of any fraud to have altered the result that Joe Biden was the winner of the election. 2. There was an insurrection at the Capitol, and American citizens attacked the Capitol police force there to protect the building and those who worked there. 3. Those attackers (dare we say, criminals) were there at the behest and direction of Donald Trump. My thought was, if Donald Trump is going to repeat his lies about the election every day, the American people needed to hear the truth repeated as often, if not more often, than the lies to offset their effect. The old adage is if you repeat a lie often enough, people begin to believe it is true. I hoped (Pollyannishly?) if we repeat the truth often enough, maybe it would be believed.

However, based upon the information you outlined, I am saddened to learn it might not have made any difference if our memories of events are mostly there to reinforce our tribal membership. I suppose this is also similar to how Americans continue to "forget" about how America was built partially upon the backs of racism and slavery. The Lost Cause myth would be a function of the same memory issues you point out, would it not? What is the value of focusing on the verifiable "truth,” if our memory is wired to be so willing to misremember the "truth"?

Tough question, Mike. My first thought is that you must try to promote the truth. Sure, some folks are going to be impervious to it because of other imperatives. But to those not already captured by false narratives, it still could matter.

In response to a recent item on how to define fascism, Larry Roth sent a long missive. He cited this interesting passage from media critic Jamison Foser on how the media mishandles political news by "privileging the lie”:

Sixteen years ago this month, when I was executive vice president of Media Matters for America, I introduced a phrase, “privileging the lie,” to describe the news media’s tendency to center lies in its coverage of politics— not to center the fact that the people telling the lies are liars, but rather to center the lie; to adopt it as the framing for their reporting. 

When a news report treats the truthfulness of a lie as an open question, it privileges the lie. When a news report devotes more and more prominent space to recounting the lie and the liar’s defense of it than it does making clear that it’s a lie, the article privileges the lie. When a news report focuses on the target of a lie’s struggle to deal with the impact of the lie, the article privileges the lie. And when a news report focuses on the topic of the lie — even if it does a good job of making clear the lie is a lie — it privileges the lie, because it allows the liar to set the topic of conversation, and thus increases the electoral salience of a topic the liar believes is to his benefit. 

Larry added:

That’s what the news media has done over the last week [with its coverage of Trump and Vance’s allegation of pet-eating in Springfield, Ohio]. The media surely affects what people think, but it has a larger and more powerful effect on what people think about. So even as the media has done a better-than-usual job of debunking the Trump-Vance lies, it has privileged those lies by helping Trump and Vance increase the salience of immigration, an issue the Trump-Vance campaign believes helps it.

This is an important point. But I wonder what responsible media should do when a demagogue like Trump makes a false and dangerous allegation. Ignoring his accusation will not keep it from spreading because there will be other media and social media that will eagerly amplify it. The only choice may be to report it as a lie as quickly as possible, even if that still brings attention to the disinformation. 

“Moxie, we need you to scare that deer off.”
“I’m barking and growling, and that deer isn’t moving.”
“You need to be more persuasive.”
“I don’t think this animal is reality-based.”