Showing posts with label IRAN-CONTRA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IRAN-CONTRA. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 26, 2026

Trump’s Scandals Have No Precedent

                                                                                                                                                                  

   LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER.....

OR REMOVED ON THEIR WHIM!

ALL POSTS ARE AVAILABLE ON

MIDDLEBORO REVIEW AND SO ON

BLOGGER DOESN'T LIKE TRUTH OR FACTS!

BLOGGER DOESN'T LIKE FUND RAISERS AND DELETES

POSTS THAT INCLUDE FUNDRAISING THAT 'VIOLATES THEIR

UNDEFINED COMMUNITY STANDARDS SO ALL 'FUND RAISING'

IS DELETED - CONTRIBUTE AS YOU ARE INCLINED TO SUPPORT

IMPORTANT ISSUES! THESE ARE NOT SOLICITATIONS 


Trump’s Scandals Have No Precedent

The Trump administration corruption is breathtaking in scale and volume


By Max from UNFTR.com

U.S. President Donald Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. arrive at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 3, 2026. REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon

In just the past couple of weeks, there have been three separate instances of such unfathomable corruption that any other normal presidency wouldn’t have survived a single one of them. Let alone all three.

Confirmed insider trading — not by someone in the administration, but by the sitting president of the United States. A literal slush fund to help criminals who are allied with the administration. And a finance scheme so monumental it has the potential to set up Donald Trump and his family as one of the wealthiest dynasties in the world.

The level of corruption on display right now is so profound that historians will spend decades writing books about this period. The problem is we’re living in it in real time, which means we’ve lost our sense of scale. Thus, I think it’s helpful to remind ourselves what a real scandal looks like. What it used to take to bring down an administration. And how far we have fallen from that standard.


Teapot Dome

It’s the 1920s. Warren G. Harding is president and is about to be hit by a scandal so significant that for the better part of a century it was considered the single greatest act of government corruption in American history. Here’s how it went down.

The U.S. government had set aside oil reserves in California and Wyoming specifically for the U.S. Navy — strategic petroleum holdings that were not for sale, not for lease, not for the private market. In Wyoming, one of those reserves sat beneath a rock formation that looked vaguely like a teapot.

A man named Albert Fall was Harding’s Secretary of the Interior and in 1921 he maneuvered to have oversight of those naval reserves transferred from the Navy Department to his own Interior Department. Then he quietly leased the Teapot Dome reserve to oil tycoon Harry Sinclair and the Elk Hills reserve in California to Edward Doheny — without competitive bidding, public disclosure or congressional approval. In exchange, Fall received up to $400,000 in bribes — cash delivered in a black bag, Liberty bonds, livestock for his New Mexico ranch.

When Senate investigators started pulling threads in 1924, the whole thing unraveled. Fall resigned. The leases were canceled by the Supreme Court, which declared them fraudulent and called Fall a “faithless public officer.” Criminal trials followed and Fall was convicted of bribery — becoming the first sitting cabinet member in American history to go to prison for crimes committed in office.

Harding died before the full scope of the scandal was known, spared the final reckoning.

The legacy: Teapot Dome produced a landmark Supreme Court ruling affirming Congress’s subpoena power in investigations. It defined the outer boundary of executive corruption for a generation. Its name became shorthand for what a cabinet official selling public assets for private gain looked like.

Watergate

Fifty years later, we got something even bigger and this time the guy at the top caught the heat.

June 17, 1972. Five men are arrested inside the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. They’re there to photograph documents and plant listening devices. They work — directly or indirectly — for the Committee to Re-Elect the President. Richard Nixon’s committee.

The burglary itself was comically unnecessary. Nixon was ahead in the polls and likely to win in a landslide. But paranoia is its own logic and the cover-up that followed the arrest was where Nixon destroyed himself.

Hush money was paid to the burglars. FBI investigations were obstructed. Nixon’s own White House counsel John Dean told him directly that there was a “cancer on the presidency.” And all of it was recorded — on Nixon’s own secret taping system — including the smoking gun conversation in which Nixon ordered the CIA to obstruct the FBI’s investigation. That tape, revealed two years after the break-in, ended his presidency.

Photo: Demonstrators in front of the White House calling for Nixon’s impeachment.

Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. The only American president in history to do so, prompting Gerald Ford to declare, “Our long national nightmare is over.”

But here’s the corollary to our current situation. Nixon didn’t just authorize a break-in. His administration was a catalogue of abuses: illegal use of military force, domestic spying, outright bribery, campaign contributions laundered through shell companies, the weaponization of the IRS against political enemies. And in one specific act of executive overreach — withholding congressionally appropriated funds for programs he opposed, a practice called impoundment — Nixon forced Congress to pass a law specifically to stop him.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. It passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, over Nixon’s veto. It established the Congressional Budget Office and required congressional approval before any president could rescind appropriated funds. This matters greatly today because Russell Vought—perhaps the most capable and dangerous person in this entire administration—is the one who orchestrated the theft of government funding to almost every agency in 2025, essentially flouting the Impoundment Act.

This is a very, very big deal. In fact, before we move on to another huge scandal in our little history lesson, let’s hang here for a second

Vought has testified that Congress can set the appropriations amount but cannot direct funds. That’s one interpretation, but it’s completely false. But because we live with the Roberts Supreme Court, this isn’t going to be considered. This is Russell Vought’s modus operandi and why he’s so dangerous. He knows with control of all three branches he can just break norms, protocols and laws to fuel his white Christian nationalist agenda. This is clearly the guy in the president’s ear because Donald Trump is too inept and distracted to pull this stuff off. And Vought is moving quickly and deliberately to tear as much down as he can. USAID, the departments of Education, Interior, Energy, EPA… all of these cuts and kneecapping of authority is this guy’s design and in the first year he did it all by ignoring the biggest thing that came out of the Nixon administration scandals.

Back to Nixon. In the end Watergate produced more good-government reforms than any single event in American history. The War Powers Act. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Inspector General Act. Civil service protections. Campaign finance reform. And Impoundment. And of course, it gave us the suffix. Every scandal since has been appended with “-gate” to signal the depth of the wrongdoing. Monicagate. Deflategate. The suffix is so ubiquitous we’ve almost forgotten why it exists.

Iran-Contra

Let’s move ahead to the go-go 1980s and a scandal that revealed something even more troubling than personal corruption: a secret government operating inside the official one. Also chillingly familiar in today’s world.

In the early to mid-1980s, Congress passed a series of amendments referred to as the Boland Amendments to curtail US involvement in Nicaragua. They were specifically designed to prohibit U.S. government funding of the Contras, the anti-Sandinista rebels in Nicaragua. The Reagan administration disagreed with this law. So rather than work through democratic channels to change it, senior officials decided to simply ignore it.

Photo: Oliver North testifying on the Iran Contra affair

Under the scheme, U.S. officials would sell arms to Iran — which was under an arms embargo, and which had taken American hostages — and use the proceeds to secretly fund the Contras. The operation was run out of the National Security Council by a Marine lieutenant colonel named Oliver North, who kept meticulous notebooks documenting every step of the scheme. When the Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa broke the story in November 1986, the whole covert architecture collapsed into public view.

Reagan went on national television and insisted the U.S. did not trade arms for hostages. (Just like Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman. Like Trump barely knew Jeffrey Epstein). Anyway, four months later, he went back on national television and said that yes, in fact, it did. “What began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages.” His approval rating suffered the largest single-month drop of any American president in history — from 67% to 46%.

This was back when presidents cared about approval ratings.

The fallout: Reagan appointed the Tower Commission to investigate. Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh spent nearly seven years on the case. He secured a dozen indictments, eight convictions or guilty pleas. Among the convictions were Oliver North and National Security Advisor John Poindexter. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger was indicted. Most convictions were later vacated on appeal, or pardoned by George H.W. Bush in his final days in office — a pardon Walsh suggested was partly designed to prevent Bush himself from being implicated.

In the end, no one went to prison. But the scandal cracked something open about how American foreign policy actually worked — covert operations, off-the-books funding, a shadow government running foreign wars without congressional knowledge. The public’s trust in the presidency, already damaged by Vietnam and Watergate, dropped another floor.

The legacy: Iran-Contra revealed that the guardrails of democratic oversight could be routed around if the executive was determined enough.


Insider Trading

The aforementioned scandals were legitimately a big deal. Historic ones we study in school. Now let’s talk about what has happened in a matter of weeks in the Trump administration to give you an idea of the speed, the scale, and the brazenness of what is unfolding.

In mid-May, Trump filed a mandatory ethics disclosure covering his stock trades for the first quarter of 2026 — January through March. What was in it is extraordinary. Over 3,700 individual stock transactions with a total value of somewhere between $220 million and $750 million. More than 30 individual purchases worth $1 million or more apiece in a single quarter.

The companies: Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Broadcom, Goldman Sachs, Alphabet, AMD, Intel, Micron. And here’s where it gets interesting. The executives of nearly all those companies accompanied Trump on his trip to Beijing the week before the disclosures came out. The president was on Air Force One with the CEOs of the companies he had just bought millions of dollars of stock in.

It gets worse. Trump toured a Thermo Fisher Scientific manufacturing facility and on the same day he purchased tens of thousands of dollars in Thermo Fisher stock. Trump gave a speech calling Apple “a great company” and praising Tim Cook by name. Same day: he purchased hundreds of thousands of dollars in Apple stock. Trump gave a Fox News interview in which he described Micron Technology as “one of the hottest companies.” One day later: he purchased Micron stock. Trump gave a speech in Georgia and told the audience — directly, on camera — to “go out and buy a Dell computer.” Nine days later: he purchased millions of dollars in Dell stock.

Let’s be precise about the structure here: the president of the United States has a trust that holds his assets. That trust is managed not by an independent blind trustee — as every ethics norm and presidential tradition requires — but by his son, Donald Trump Jr. There is no legal or practical barrier preventing Trump from communicating with Trump Jr. about what to buy and when.

Now layer in the prediction markets. Bubblemaps, a data analytics firm, identified nine anonymous accounts on Polymarket and Kalshi — the betting platforms — that placed more than 80 bets on U.S. military actions: the timing of bombardments, ceasefire announcements, geopolitical events. Their win rate was 98%. Total winnings: over $2.4 million. One account called “Magamyman” made $553,000 betting on the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei. An active duty Army Master Sergeant was indicted in April for using a VPN to place a $34,000 bet on the capture of Nicolas Maduro — a bet that paid out $400,000. The White House itself sent a memo to staff in March reminding them that using nonpublic government information to bet on prediction markets is a federal crime. They sent the memo because it was already happening.

Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump Jr. is an investor in Polymarket through his venture capital firm, 1789 Capital.

No charges have (yet) been filed. Nothing has been proven in a court of law. But remember, in the Teapot Dome scandal it took two years of Senate investigation just to establish that Albert Fall had accepted a bribe. The mechanics of accountability move slowly. But the pattern here is not subtle. The president buys stock. The president makes a public statement that moves that stock. The president profits. Over and over and over again, more than 3,700 times in ninety days.

But wait, there’s more.

Slush Fund

On the same day that the stock trading disclosures were generating headlines, the Trump Justice Department quietly announced something else. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche — who, before taking that job, was Donald Trump’s personal defense attorney — unveiled what they called the Anti-Weaponization Fund totaling $1.776 billion to be drawn from the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund and for the stated purpose of compensating people who claim they were unfairly targeted by the Biden administration’s Justice Department.

Let’s walk through how this money was created, because the mechanism is as important as the amount.

Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS — his own IRS, the one that reports to his own Treasury Secretary — over the leak of his personal tax returns. A federal judge had already cast doubt on the basic legality of a sitting president suing a department he controls. But before any ruling came down, the Justice Department settled the case. Against itself. The $10 billion suit became a $1.776 billion fund — controlled entirely by Blanche, Trump’s former personal attorney — to pay out Trump’s allies. Payable by the Treasury. Also his.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin did not mince words: “No president can concoct a fake case for $10 billion in damages against the government so he can be plaintiff and defendant and then ‘settle’ his bogus case against himself as a judge. This case is nothing but a racket.”

Senator Ron Wyden called it “the most brazen theft and abuse of taxpayer dollars by any president in American history.”

But here’s where it gets worse. The money doesn’t go to Trump directly — at least not yet. It goes into a fund controlled by a five-member commission. Those five members are hand-picked by Todd Blanche. The recipients of the payouts will not be made public nor will the amounts apparently. The process is entirely internal to an administration that has already demonstrated it will use every lever of government for political purposes.

And who are the beneficiaries? The roughly 1,600 people charged over the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Proud Boys. Militia members. Trump allies who claim they were “weaponized” against. Trump’s inner circle. Actually, we don’t really know, do we?

And what happened when this was announced? The Treasury’s own general counsel Brian Morrissey, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, resigned. A man who worked for Clarence Thomas decided even this was a bridge too far.

Crypto Grift

Last year we connected the dots on the Trump Family’s World Liberty Financial stablecoin gambit that sets the family up to be one of the wealthiest families on the planet. For this to happen, three distinct bills would have to clear Congress. The GENIUS Act, The CLARITY Act and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance Act. Together these bills would allow the Trump family to possess one of the only authorized mechanisms to buy U.S. Treasuries on the blockchain.

The GENIUS Act, which in and of itself is not a bad piece of legislation, is already law. But it’s the next two that in tandem weaponize the GENIUS Act and set the family up for life.

Last week the CLARITY Act cleared the an important milestone being passed by the Senate Banking Committee on May 14th in a 15-9 vote. Every Republican voted yes. Two Democrats crossed over. No Democratic amendments were adopted — not on ethics, not on anti-money laundering, not on consumer protection. All rejected or ruled out of order by Senator Tim Scott who chairs the committee.

Here is what this bill does and who it benefits. The Trump family, through an entity called World Liberty Financial, issues a stablecoin called USD1. They reportedly pocketed $57 million on the launch alone and have secured over $2 billion in institutional deals, including one with an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund. The CLARITY Act creates the regulatory framework that legitimizes their coin, protects their market position, and hands oversight of the entire crypto industry to the CFTC — a smaller, more industry-friendly regulator — rather than the SEC.

Meanwhile, a companion bill called the Anti-CBDC Surveillance Act permanently prohibits the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital dollar. A government-issued digital currency would be the Trump family’s primary competitor. Congress is in the process of banning it. Forever.

Tether, the largest stablecoin issuer, earned over $10 billion in profit last year from reserve income alone. Circle, the second largest, is on pace for nearly $3 billion. Those numbers will look small in a decade. And the Trump family’s USD1 is positioned — through legislation their allies are writing, with amendments from their opponents blocked — to capture an ever-growing share of that market in perpetuity. Since the Trump USD1 was launched it has already doubled in market cap and currently sits as the world’s fourth largest stablecoin by issuance volume.

The most vocal and righteous opponent of this bill is Elizabeth Warren, but despite her objections, she doesn’t represent all Democrats. One of two Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee to cross over to advance this bill is Ruben Gallego of Arizona who received approximately $10 million in crypto industry support in his 2024 Senate race. He was subsequently named Ranking Democrat on the Digital Assets subcommittee — the subcommittee that oversees this exact legislation.

Earlier this year he held a fundraising retreat at a luxury Sedona resort alongside Marc Andreessen, whose firm has invested in over 100 crypto startups and contributed more than $44 million to the same PAC that spent millions electing Gallego. So there’s blame to go around.


Teapot Dome was one transaction. One bribed official. One cabinet secretary. This is a sitting president using the legislative process to build a private financial empire — with no ethics provisions, no guardrails on his personal conflicts, and seemingly only one senator fighting it.

Three scandals. Three weeks. Any one of them, in any previous era of American governance, would have ended a presidency. Together, they represent something we don’t yet have adequate language for — not because the words don’t exist, but because we’ve never needed them at this scale before.

The historians will have plenty to write about. Our job is to make sure the story doesn’t get lost in the noise while it’s still happening.

Meidas+ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.


For deeper dives into economic and socioeconomic stories, visit UNFTR.com or @UNFTR on YouTube. Make sure to sign up for the FREE weekly UNFTR newsletter here.


SOURCES

Yahoo News / Daily Beast: Trump’s Own Handpicked Lawyer Quits Treasury in Disgust at Massive $1.8B Grift https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-own-handpicked-lawyer-quits-080655433.html

The Intercept: Trump’s “Anti-Weaponization” Fund Is a Handout to His Hardcore Supporters https://theintercept.com/2026/05/19/trump-anti-weaponization-fund-jan-6/

The Daily Beast: Trump Insiders Face Wild Allegations After ‘Insane Pattern’ Spotted on Polymarket and Kalshi

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-insiders-face-wild-allegations-after-insane-pattern-spotted-on-polymarket-and-kalshi/

Euronews - Stock Trades Reveal Trump Made Massive Gains on Big Tech Bets

https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/05/15/trump-discloses-stock-trades-revealing-massive-gains-in-2026-with-bets-on-big-tech

Britannica: Teapot Dome Scandal

https://www.britannica.com/event/Teapot-Dome-Scandal

Britannica: Watergate Scandal

https://www.britannica.com/event/Watergate-Scandal

Wikipedia: Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974

Bill of Rights Institute - The Iran-Contra Affair - https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/the-iran-contra-affair/

CNBC: Senate Banking Committee Advances CLARITY Act in 15-9 Vote https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/14/clarity-act-congress-crypto-senate.html

UNFTR: The Heist, Part Two: The CLARITY Completes It (Video)

Teapot Dome

https://www.history.com/articles/teapot-dome-scandal

Teapot Dome Photo credits: US Senate Historical Archive

Iran Contra Photo Credits: Britannica and National Security Archive

Watergate Photo Credits: History.com and FBI





Sunday, May 14, 2023

The Tragic Life of the War Criminal Elliott Abrams

 

The Tragic Life of the War Criminal Elliott Abrams

Elliott Abrams was once an innocent child. And then he decided to spend the rest of his life covering up brutal atrocities and defending right-wing dictatorships.


Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams being sworn in at Iran-Contra hearings. (Terry Ashe/The LIFE Images Collection via Getty Images)



Elliott Abrams once said the animating force behind his and Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy was that the world is “an exceedingly dangerous place.” And this is true, largely because men like Elliott Abrams exist in it.

Last month, Abrams was tapped by Trump to serve as his special envoy to Venezuela, to essentially help steer the Trump administration’s slow-burn effort to topple that country’s government — or as Mike Pompeo put it, “restore democracy” in the country.

It should go without saying that the idea the Trump administration is pursuing regime change in Venezuela for the sake of democracy and human rights is as laughable as calling Jamal Khashoggi’s murder a surprise party gone wrong. But in case you need to explain this to politically confused friends and relatives, here are eight good reasons why the appointment of Abrams, in particular, makes a mockery of any such high-minded rhetoric.

1. He was knee-deep in human rights atrocities

Let’s start with the most obvious point, which is that Abrams’ chief claim to fame is his role in Ronald Reagan’s blood-soaked foreign policy in Central America in the 1980s, for which he earned the nickname, “contra commander-in-chief.” The contras were the brutal right-wing paramilitary groups in Nicaragua who terrorized civilians throughout the decade, cutting a swath of torture, rape, and murder aimed at everyone from the elderly to children. Their methods were similar to those of right-wing paramilitaries in the other countries of the region, including El Salvador and Guatemala, all of which were supported by the Reagan administration. If you have the stomach to read about them, there’s no shortage of sources that outline their barbarity.

To Abrams, however, they were “freedom fighters,” their work in El Salvador was a “fabulous achievement,” and he mocked critics of Reagan as people forced to “run the risk” of arguing that such groups were “doing something wrong and ought to stop it.” He himself had no illusions about what it is that the contras were doing. “The purpose of our aid is to permit people who are fighting on our side to use more violence,” he said in 1985.

How involved was Abrams? “Sure, there was excessive micromanagement [of the contras],” he told Policy Review in 1989; “and I was one of the people who engaged in it. But I’m not going to go around trying to assess blame, because the contras were an enormous success.” The contras would have floundered and faded away were it not for the tens of millions of dollars Abrams helped funnel to them, including personally soliciting $10 million from the Sultan of Brunei for their cause (that money never made it because Abrams gave the Sultan the wrong account number).

This “micromanagement” at one point also involved Abrams secretly delivering military equipment to the contras under the guise of humanitarian aid. As commentators have noted, this is particularly relevant now, when the Trump administration attacks Maduro for refusing to let humanitarian aid from the US into Venezuela.

2. He covered up brutal acts of terror

Key to Abrams’ role under Reagan was playing down and denying the copious human rights abuses being committed by the forces and governments he and the administration supported.

As Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar pointed out in her grilling of Abrams earlier this week, part of the Reagan administration’s “fabulous achievement” in El Salvador was the horrific El Mozote massacre, which took place shortly before Abrams took up his post. In his attempt to convince the Senate to certify that El Salvador’s government was improving its human rights record — a precondition for receiving US aid — Abrams testified that the massacre had been “publicized when the certification comes forward to the committee,” and was “being significantly misused, at the very best, by the guerrillas.” He claimed he had sent military officers to investigate the reports, and that the massacre couldn’t be confirmed.

Another incident was the 1980 assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, killed on the orders of Major Roberto D’Aubuisson, one of the administration’s partners in the country. “Anybody who thinks you’re going to find a cable that says that Roberto d’Aubuisson murdered the archbishop is a fool,” said Abrams. In fact, two such cables existed. Abrams would later insist that any criticism of the Reagan administration’s activities in El Salvador were simply “a post-Cold War effort to rewrite history.”

Meanwhile, as Guatemalan dictator Ríos Montt embarked on a campaign of genocide in the country, Abrams said he had “brought considerable progress” on human rights. He defended Reagan’s lifting of a military aid embargo on Montt’s government, claiming the slaughter of civilians was “being reduced step by step” and that it was “progress” that had to be “rewarded and encouraged.”

3. He’s an unrepentant liar

Abrams told Omar that it is “always the position of the United States” to protect human rights, including in Venezuela, and he stressed the US didn’t want to arm anti-Maduro forces. Besides his well-documented record of doing exactly the opposite, Abrams’ words are even less relevant when you consider his history of outright lying.

We’ve already seen how Abrams regularly lied to cover up or play down abuses by the right-wing forces he supported. This practice would ultimately land him in trouble when he misled Congress about the Iran-Contra affair with statements that ranged from outright lies (“we’re not in the fund-raising business”), to lawyerly parsing of the truth (“I said no foreign government was helping the contras, because we had not yet received a dime from Brunei,” he would write later).

Abrams would forever maintain he did nothing wrong, later writing a sanctimonious book that painted himself as the victim of an unjust, vindictive system that had criminalized “political differences.” “This kind of prosecution is something new in America, and it is wrong,” he wrote, before bleating about the “bloodsuckers” and “filthy bastards” who wanted to do him in.

Abrams rained ire upon Lawrence Walsh, the special prosecutor tasked with investigating the Iran-Contra scandal: “You, Walsh, eighty years old, and nothing else to do but stay in this job till the grim reaper gets you. Is this your idea of America?” Abrams insisted the independent counsel law under which Walsh (along with Watergate prosecutor Archibold Cox) served was unconstitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court had upheld it 7-1, with even the conservative chief justice Rehnquist affirming (Scalia dissented). It didn’t matter anyway, because the late George H. W. Bush pardoned him.

Abrams managed the trifecta of showing contempt for the truth, the constitution’s separation of powers, and the concept of checks and balances, all in one fell swoop. There’s no reason to believe any of his assurances now.

4. He hates democracy

Abrams has also shown a lifelong contempt for the very thing he’s now meant to be advancing: democracy.

When the Uruguayan military government imprisoned Wilson Ferreira, the country’s most popular politician and a fierce liberal opponent of its rule, Abrams defended the Reagan administration’s meek response, which the New York Times had called “stunning.” Abrams explained that “the transition [to elected government] itself is more important than the immediate situation of any individual politician.” Abrams had earlier insisted there was no evidence the Uruguyan military was stifling political freedom, even as it closed newspapers, arrested its opposition, and continued to ban political leaders, among other things.

Around this same time, Abrams was one of a number of Reagan officials who supported Oliver North’s call to pardon Honduran general Jose Bueso Rosa, despite his having received a relatively lenient sentence. Rosa had been convicted after being caught in Florida plotting to overthrow the Honduran government.

In 2002, Abrams reportedly “gave a nod” to the military coup that attempted, ultimately unsuccessfully, to remove the democratically elected Hugo Chavez from power. The Observer, which broke the story, called Abrams “the crucial figure around the coup.” Abrams has had his eye on toppling Venezuela’s government for some time.

When Hamas defeated Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, Abrams, then the point man for George W. Bush’s Middle East policy, helped implement a scheme to nullify the results by fomenting a Palestinian civil war which, they hoped, would remove Hamas from power. When the plan backfired, with Hamas emerging victorious and in full control of Gaza, Abrams accused Hamas of staging a “coup.”

5. His only political principle was anticommunism

Abrams’ disregard for democracy is part and parcel of his general philosophy, which views left-wing governments uniformly as threats to be stamped out.

Abrams, who once told a reporter that he’s “been a counterrevolutionary for a long time,” cut his teeth opposing student protesters at Harvard in the 1960s. He believes the idea that human rights extend past the political and into the economic realm to be “nonsense” and “old Soviet bromides.” As such, he viewed defeating the Soviet Union as the greatest US priority, telling one interviewer that “the greatest threat to human rights is the Soviet Union, not Guatemala or the Philippines.”

In 1984, Abrams quite candidly explained to Policy Review that his human rights policy was one of double standards: fierce opposition to communist rights abusers, and coddling of oppressors friendly to the US.

“Liberalization for purposes of letting out steam always involves line drawing,” he said. “How much steam should you let out? At what point do you risk anarchy and destabilizing the regime?” He went on to explain that “the line drawn varies from country to country,” and that “even a highly imperfect regime may well give a much better prospect of democratization than would the Communist regime that might follow.”

In other words, no matter how brutal or outright fascist a government, it was by default preferable to a communist one, a philosophy he applied in obvious ways to his work in the Americas. It was also evident in his treatment of Cuba, whose prisons he denounced in 1984 as “barbaric” and whose leader, Fidel Castro, he labeled “oppressive” and accused of “betrayal.” He attacked human rights groups, politicians, reporters, and church groups who praised Cuba as “apologists” who “will never take off their rose-colored glasses” and had spent “years defending tyrants” and “years obfuscating the truth.”

At literally the same time he was doing this, Abrams publicly defended Turkey, a key regional ally, from criticism of its human rights record. Abrams praised Turkey, which had recently been pilloried in an Amnesty International report for widespread torture of its people, for “extraordinary progress,” charging that “some who criticize Turkey’s human rights situation have no interest in human rights in Turkey or anywhere else,” but “simply use this issue as a weapon with which to attack a vital member of the Western alliance.” He dismissed Amnesty’s claims as “false history,” criticized human rights groups for “an appalling shallowness of analysis” that ignored social, political, and historical context, and charged that the Turkish people “resent the activists’ shrill and uninformed criticisms of their country.”

As Abrams had earlier said, “the line drawn varies from country to country.” If you played nice with the Reagan administration, your human rights record was tempered by nuance and context, and it was getting better anyway. And if you didn’t, you were beyond redemption.

6. He dislikes journalists and accountability

Abrams no doubt sympathized with Turkey’s rulers because he himself had first-hand experience dealing with pesky journalists and human rights groups.

He said critics of Reagan’s support of the contras would have “blood on their hands,” and accused human rights groups of having communist sympathies. He hopped aboard the Reagan administration’s McCarthyite attempt to shame congressional critics into giving him a blank check in Latin America, claiming that there was an “elaborate and skillful” campaign by Nicaragua’s Sandinista government to “manipulate Congress and the press.” When the GAO released a report alleging contra corruption that was inconvenient for the administration’s attempts to secure aid, Abrams dismissed it as a “smear campaign” cooked up by Democrats.

While Abrams didn’t have a police state at his disposal, that didn’t prevent him from lobbing heavy-handed broadsides against reporters he didn’t like. He refused to be questioned by or debate certain journalists he perceived as critical. Most infamously, from 1986 to 1987, Abrams accused left-wing Colombian journalist Patricia Lara of being a “Cuban agent” and “an active liaison” between Colombian terrorist organization M-19 and “the Cuban secret police.” In October 1986, Lara was stopped by New York immigration officials and imprisoned, before being sent back home, without explanation.

Abrams claimed to have “concrete evidence” that Lara was “heavily engaged” with M-19, but when challenged to reveal evidence, claimed it was based on “intelligence information” that he couldn’t reveal. The Colombian Defense Ministry, then battling M-19, categorically denied they had any such information, and assigned her a bodyguard because Abrams’ accusation had put her in danger. The country’s foreign minister said “we don’t know where the US government obtained” such information.

Abrams also granted a “meritorious honor” award on the Office of Public Diplomacy, a government body responsible for waging an illegal domestic propaganda campaign, in which Iran-Contra architect Oliver North was closely involved, that disseminated Abrams’ preferred narrative about the region. Abrams praised it for “setting out the parameters and defining the terms of the public discussion on Central America policy” and countering the “formidable and well established Soviet/Cuban/Nicaraguan propaganda apparatus.”

7. He’s a fan of regime change

Like any neoconservative worth his salt, Abrams has an abiding faith in the US government’s ability to simply remove world leaders it dislikes at will. (He’s also continued the neocon tradition of never personally fighting in any war, avoiding Vietnam thanks to a hurt back that happened to clear up once the war was over.)

When Abrams wanted to remove former ally Manuel Noriega from power in Panama, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Reagan wrote, he threatened sanctions, then actually imposed sanctions, then established a Panamanian government-in-exile on a US military base. Abrams finally called outright for the US military to topple Noriega, in an op-ed titled “Noriega Respects Power. Use It,” which is what George H. W. Bush ultimately did. It was a chilling preview of where US policy on Venezuela may now be heading if Maduro stays in power.

Reflecting on the mistakes of Reagan’s Latin American policy in 1989, Abrams’ regret was that it hadn’t been more forceful. “You can make a very good argument that after the successful rescue mission in Grenada the president should simply have said, ‘Look, we have to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, we cannot have a Communist government in Nicaragua,’ and done whatever we needed to do to get rid of it, including a naval blockade or possibly even an invasion,” he said.

In 2007, Abrams blessed Bush’s plan to launch a covert operation to destabilize Iran’s government. Two years later, he mused about what should happen if Iran develops a nuclear weapon. “Responsible leadership cannot allow this to happen,” he said. “Preventing it through military action perhaps is the second worst decision we could make. The only worse one being to say it’s all right now, it’s acceptable, we will not act.” But this wouldn’t involve regime change or the killing of civilians, he stressed; just a strike on nuclear facilities. Iran, Abrams warned, was one to three years away from developing a nuclear weapon.

In 2013, Abrams told a House Armed Services Committee hearing that the US had to get militarily involved in Syria. Why? Because “a display of American lack of will power in Syria will persuade many Iranian officials that while we may say ‘all options are on the table,’ in reality they are not — so Iran can proceed happily and safely toward a nuclear weapon.” Two years later, he said at a Council of Foreign Relations event that Netanyahu had two options: either strike Iran right then, or wait two years and see if an administration willing to take a tougher line, or sanction an Israeli strike, would be elected. Abrams, it seems, got his wish.

8. He’s beloved by the Right

In case anyone still believes the fiction that “anti-Trump” conservatives actually oppose Trump, Abrams is a living reminder that there’s no daylight between Trump and the establishment Right that pretends to dislike him.

Abrams was once an “anti-Trump” Republican who signed a letter opposing his candidacy in 2016. He tutored Paul Ryan in foreign policy when he was Mitt Romney’s 2012 running mate, and served on Marco Rubio’s so-called National Security Advisory Council in 2016. It’s no surprise the Florida senator, long viewed as an establishment-friendly, “sensible” conservative alternative to Trump, is now all but directing Trump’s Latin American policy, sounding virtually indistinguishable from Abrams.

Abrams has now served in every Republican administration since he first entered government bar one. In between, he’s worked at the Heritage Foundation (whose head of Latin American policy just called him “a patriot and dedicated voice for repressed communities”), helped found “anti-Trump” Bill Kristol’s Project for the New American Century, was a fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a board member of the National Endowment for Democracy, the US government’s arm for foreign political meddling.

Meanwhile, just look at who came to Abrams’ defense after his grilling by Rep. Omar. The National Review — which not long ago put out a much-celebrated “Against Trump” issue whose purpose, according to its editor, was to say, “He’s not one of us. He’s not a conservative, and he’s not what conservatism is” — just published an editorial calling Abrams “one of the wisest, most experienced foreign-policy heads in this country,” and “a steadfast advocate of freedom, democracy, and human rights.”

A former Bush administration official and current Harvard professor defended Abrams as “a devoted public servant who has contributed much of his professional life to our country.” The newly rebranded neocon Max Boot, who very publicly proclaims he’s seen the error of his ways and broken with the ugliness he now sees in the GOP, deemed him “a leading advocate of human rights and democracy.” Unfortunately, it’s not just the Right; the Center for American Progress’ vice president of National Security and International Policy called him “a fierce advocate for human rights and democracy” who simply “made serious professional mistakes.”

That someone like Abrams, who’s now leading Trump’s regime change efforts in Venezuela, is warmly embraced by the coterie of establishment and “never-Trump” conservatives should tell you everything you need to know about these groups.

CONTRIBUTORS

Branko Marcetic is a Jacobin staff writer and the author of Yesterday's Man: The Case Against Joe Biden. He lives in Toronto, Canada.

LINK


Trump's Friday Meltdown: Begging Iran, Ditching Ukraine, and Blaming Everybody But Himself – 7/31/26

                                               LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER..... OR REMOVED ON THEIR WHIM! ALL POSTS ARE AVAILABLE ON MI...