Based on a recent book laying bare what Trump did to the Justice Dept in his first term (Injustice: How Politics and Fear Vanquished America's Justice Department by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters Carol Leonnig and Aaron Davis), Charlie narrates a possible $10 million illegal foreign donation to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign from Egypt. This would have tripled as not only the illegal donation but also as both a bribe for favourable treatment of its leader El Sisi if Trump won and a criminally corrupt kickback to Trump himself if it is true that the $10 million in cash that exited Egypt went to Trump so that he could then donate exactly also $10 million to his campaign (following pressure on him to do so as he was faltering in fundraising efforts and resisting using any of his own money).

This was, somehow, never revealed throughout the entirety of the Biden administration until the very end when in August 2024 the Washington Post reported how the investigation was shut down during the time of Trump’s AG William Barr. Here is the Guardian’s account based on WAPO: theguardian.com/us-news…

Yet (again, somehow) this news made not a ripple during the presidential campaign of fall 2024. It seems the Democrats or Harris herself must not have believed it as they made nothing of it. Given that the Dept of Justice under the Biden admin did not reopen the investigation, perhaps Dems felt it could not be true or could not be proven — or that the failure of AG Merrick Garland to do anything would be taken as dispositive evidence that the WAPO report was “fake news.” Could the FBI under Biden (and thus also Harris) have decided to let this sleeping dog lie because they knew the White House and State Dept preferred a good relationship with Egypt under El Sisi? Is it plausible Garland would have allowed himself to be influenced by such a background consideration that would cause him to decide not to open a can of worms or did he look at the decision to close the investigation under Barr and find that it was legit in terms of a lack of evidence? Or maybe a combination of the two (insufficient evidence + no interest in proactively getting the FBI back looking for more evidence)?

Who knows, but this new book does seem like it needs reading to see if there is indeed new or clearer evidence. If so, this is corruption on such a massive scale that it would be a stand-alone basis for impeachment and — dare one imagine, even supported by a dozen Republican Senators tired of Trump —a conviction? Trump told Republicans a day or two ago that, if they Dems took back the House this coming fall, they would seek to impeach him. Lord knows there are many reasons — start with serial murder on the high seas — but this kind of corruption may just be the kind of thing a critical mass of Republicans could decide no longer to ignore if the evidence is compelling. That is probably as naive as it sounds but the political winds could be blowing hard against Trump including if MAGA becomes convinced (finally) that Trump has scammed them when it comes to some of their (more reasonable) core values from isolationism in world affairs to investigation of alleged Epstein-circle pedophiles to it finally becoming clear to a critical mass of MAGA that Trump and his family are gluttonously and obscenely amassing furthewealth without a care that their lives are becoming less and less affordable.

Would also be a chargeable crime because the US Supreme Court decision to give a sitting president lifetime immunity from prosecution applies only to in-office decisions and conduct. Immunity should also not apply to conduct that is done in office (I e to make good on the bribe) as a consequence of criminal conduct (accepting the money) done in Trump’s capacity not as President but as Republican Party candidate, but there the Supreme Court seemed to define the scope of immunity so broadly and absolutely when it comes to core presidential acts (that likely would include all foreign relations decisions) that only impeachment is likely available for that in-office part of the conduct.