US law prohibits foreign countries, individuals, businesses and other entities from contributing funds to US political candidates – federal, state and local.
Yet influence buying and selling is rife in Washington under Republicans and undemocratic Dems – most everywhere else as well.
The NYT highlighted the connection between Lebanese-American businessman George Nader and the UAE.
He’s under investigation by special counsel Mueller, seeking information on whether he may have represented attempts by Emiratis “to buy political influence by directing money to support Mr. Trump during the presidential campaign,” the Times reported.
It’s illegal as explained above, but examining this exceeds what Mueller was appointed to do – probe any improper or illegal links between Trump’s team and Russia.
He’s apparently extending his witch-hunt to investigate anyone anywhere he chooses, likely going all-out to find something damning on Trump – directly or indirectly, genuine or dubious, anything to suggest a possible impeachable offense.
Former attorney general Eric Holder said he believes Mueller intends charging Trump with obstruction of justice – despite no evidence suggesting it, discussed in an earlier article.
Holder is no one to point fingers. He was held in contempt of Congress, yet never prosecuted, for obstructing a congressional investigation into the Obama administration’s Fast and Furious operation, letting Mexican drug cartels acquire guns.
The Times called Nader a UAE advisor and “frequent visitor to President Trump’s White House,” adding:
“The focus on Mr. Nader could also prompt an examination of how money from multiple countries has flowed through and influenced Washington during the Trump era.”
“How much this line of inquiry is connected to Mr. Mueller’s original task of investigating contacts between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia is unclear.”
It’s very clear he’s going far beyond his mandate, a greater unrestricted witch-hunt than already.
If Holder is right, he may charge Trump with something, even if unrelated to improper or illegal ties to Russia, even if unjustifiable, even if tough to prove in court – something to tarnish him, making him vulnerable to impeachment and removal from office.
Throughout the campaign, post-election and inauguration, the Times has gone all-out to delegitimize Trump – part of a sinister campaign to oust him for the wrong reasons.
Earlier, the self-styled newspaper of record failed to report on dubious Clinton Foundation practices – its pay-to-play money-laundering racket, posing as a charitable NGO.
It raised billions of dollars from corporate predators, political donors, foreign governments, and other interests buying influence – greatly enriching the Clintons in the process when Hillary was secretary of state, later a presidential candidate.
She, husband Bill, and Chelsea became super-rich doing what would land ordinary people in prison. The Times and most other media scoundrels ignored it.
They sought and received large sums from around 1,100 foreign individuals in numerous countries – including $5,000,000 from UAE officials.
Influence selling for self-enrichment is longstanding practice in Washington. The Times failed to report on dubious Clinton Foundation operations.
Nor did it lay a glove on her during the 2016 presidential campaign, instead turning truth on its head, calling her one of the most eminently qualified US presidential aspirants in memory.
In contrast, it continues going all-out to delegitimize Trump – for defeating media darling Hillary.
Whatever George Nader and the UAE may or may not have been up to, it’s unrelated to witch-hunt searching for improper or unlawful Trump team ties to Russia.
Yet a very detailed Times article, discussing Mueller’s focus on Nader’s advisory UAE dealings, suggests possible wrongful Trump connection to them – despite no evidence proving it.
The article likely wouldn’t have been written if Hillary was president. Three Times correspondents wrote it, another attempt to vilify Trump like so many others – a virtual daily blitzkrieg against him, unprecedented against an elected US president.