By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump made significant investments in corporate and government bonds, totaling at least $22.1 million and potentially reaching $65.3 million, according to a recent financial disclosure. The investments, made between late October and mid-November, include bonds from companies like Netflix, Oracle, and Amazon, as well as local government bonds from Wayne County, Michigan, and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. These purchases raise conflict of interest concerns given Trump’s potential influence over policies affecting these entities, including financial institutions and local governments, and they add to his already extensive bond holdings and other investments.
Read the original article here
Trump Buys Tens of Millions in Corporate and Government Debt
Let’s dive right in: It appears the former president is heavily involved in acquiring significant amounts of both corporate and government debt. This isn’t just a casual investment; it’s a substantial financial play, potentially involving tens of millions of dollars. The core issue here is the conflict of interest, amplified by the position of power held.
This is where the concerns escalate. Congress, it seems, has relinquished a significant amount of control over government spending, effectively placing the financial reins in the hands of the former president. This setup creates a situation where he can essentially dictate the debt levels, choose who to borrow from, and then potentially acquire that debt at a discounted rate. The subsequent act of collecting from taxpayers to cover this debt raises serious ethical questions. It’s like using someone else’s credit card and then buying the debt back from the credit card company – a scenario that feels deeply unfair and potentially exploitative.
The gravity of the situation is compounded when we consider the scale of the financial gains. Some have observed what seems to be a significant increase in his personal wealth during his time in office. This type of financial maneuvering has seemingly gone unchecked, raising serious questions about the integrity of the process.
This scenario raises a fundamental question about the very nature of political ethics. The level of transparency and accountability is being tested, and it raises the uncomfortable question of whether existing safeguards are sufficient to protect against potential abuses of power. It’s almost as if the rules have been rewritten to accommodate such actions.
Adding to the complexity, the reported financial activities appear to be shielded from mainstream media scrutiny. The lack of coverage by major financial news outlets like CNBC, Fox Business, WSJ Marketwatch, and Bloomberg raises a critical question: why the silence? This apparent lack of public awareness contributes to a sense that these actions are being hidden from view, which fuels concerns about the potential for unchecked financial activity.
The motives behind such actions are also questioned. The former president, at his stage of life, doesn’t appear to have any need to accrue more wealth. This makes the hoarding of wealth look less like a personal investment and more like a strategy to change, bend, or break rules for his own financial gain. The focus on accumulating wealth is a fundamental driver.
The underlying concern here is the potential for abuse of power for personal enrichment. The scenario could involve using the power of the office to create debt, then capitalizing on that debt through personal investments. It’s a system where the taxpayers bear the burden, while the former president potentially profits. It is, perhaps, the ultimate conflict of interest.
The possible strategy involves not just acquiring debt, but also potentially using the office to create conditions that would make those investments profitable. This would appear to involve actions such as garnishing wages for student loan defaults, potentially after purchasing the debt for a discounted price, and then using the IRS to enforce repayments. The result could be a windfall of profits, paid for by the general public.
This raises concerns about whether these actions are being done legally, and whether the former president’s actions are simply the product of a system rigged in his favor, or a system that can be manipulated in favor of the wealthy. The questions of ethics come to the fore, and the call for greater accountability is even more intense.
This potential financial play has the hallmarks of a “pump and dump” scheme. It involves potentially creating situations to increase the value of certain assets and then selling those assets for a profit. The implications of these actions potentially go beyond the individual financial gain. They also could further erode public trust in government institutions.
The overall sentiment is one of extreme concern and skepticism. The scale of the financial transactions, the apparent lack of media coverage, and the potential for a conflict of interest all combine to create a deeply troubling situation. It highlights the importance of ethical behavior in positions of power and the need for robust oversight to prevent abuses.