By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During his This Week broadcast, George Stephanopoulos accused the Trump family of leveraging the presidency to amass billions of dollars through various deals. Stephanopoulos cited instances such as a pardon for a tax cheat after a substantial Mar-a-Lago donation and the SEC dropping a lawsuit against Binance after the platform listed a Trump family cryptocurrency. He quoted The Atlantic, describing the situation as unprecedented corruption on a scale comparable to post-Soviet or postcolonial dictatorships. This accusation comes despite ABC’s previous settlement with Trump for a false statement made by Stephanopoulos.
Read the original article here
Stephanopoulos’s condemnation of the Trump family’s actions is striking in its intensity. He doesn’t mince words, characterizing their behavior as “brazen corruption” on a scale unprecedented in American history. He rejects any comparison to past presidential scandals, asserting that the Trump administration’s actions defy historical precedent and are comparable to the corruption seen in post-Soviet republics or postcolonial African dictatorships. This forceful language underlines the gravity of the situation, portraying the alleged corruption as a profound threat to American democratic institutions.
The sheer volume and audacity of the alleged offenses are highlighted. The claim is that Trump is consistently abusing the presidency for personal gain, engaging in what are described as “massive and blatant impeachable offenses.” The suggestion is that these actions aren’t isolated incidents but rather a pattern of behavior that directly undermines the integrity of the office and the principles upon which the nation was founded. This paints a picture of a deliberate and sustained effort to exploit the power of the presidency for personal enrichment, rather than serving the public good.
The call to action is equally emphatic. The suggestion is that turning a blind eye to the alleged corruption is unacceptable. There’s a clear demand for accountability, advocating for Trump’s immediate removal from office and subsequent prosecution for serious corruption charges. This underscores the sense of urgency and the belief that the alleged actions represent a crisis that demands swift and decisive intervention. The argument is not simply about criticizing the alleged actions; it’s about demanding concrete consequences to prevent further damage.
The criticism extends beyond Trump himself to encompass his family, emphasizing the alleged corruption as a systemic issue deeply embedded within the Trump family’s activities. This broadens the scope of the accusations, suggesting a pattern of behavior ingrained in the Trump family’s approach to power and wealth. It further reinforces the idea that this is not merely a case of individual misconduct but a potentially systematic problem involving a network of individuals.
The criticism also acknowledges the complicity of various actors, implicitly including those in the media who failed to adequately report on the alleged wrongdoing. The argument is that the normalization of Trump’s behavior allowed the situation to escalate to its current state. This is a powerful statement about the role of media and public accountability in exposing and preventing such alleged abuses of power. It suggests that the current situation is partly a consequence of a past failure to adequately scrutinize and challenge Trump’s actions.
The gravity of the situation is emphasized by comparing it to the conditions preceding the collapse of authoritarian regimes. The concern is expressed that ignoring the alleged corruption could lead to further destabilization and possibly violence. This comparison is intended to heighten the sense of urgency and underscore the potential consequences of inaction. It serves as a warning, suggesting that ignoring the alleged corruption now could have severe long-term repercussions for American democracy.
The concluding remarks emphasize the need for immediate action and accountability. The claim is that a failure to act sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents, regardless of party affiliation. The suggested consequence is that future presidents might feel emboldened to engage in similar misconduct, arguing that the lack of accountability for Trump would legitimize such actions. This highlights the long-term implications of not addressing the alleged corruption and its potential to normalize unethical behavior in the future. It’s a powerful plea for taking immediate action not just to address the present situation, but to prevent similar incidents in the future.