Donald Trump tries to convince U.S. judges he had absolute immunity but winds up adding to the deluge of evidence that he is unfit to serve as president

Donald Trump leaves Washington hotel after court hearing

 

While his lawyers tried to convince a panel of federal judges yesterday that he, while president, enjoyed absolute immunity, Donald Trump instead provided more evidence -- on top of evidence that we already had -- that he is unfit to serve as president.

How did that happen, in a New York courtroom where arguments on the election-interference criminal case against Trump were being heard? As many of us have suspected for some time -- and you can include me in that crowd -- Trump is utterly clueless about the workings of government in the United States. A reasonably sentient being might ask, "If this guy wants to lead our government, shouldn't he have at least some idea of how it operates?" The answer is yes, but Trump proved yesterday that he is out to lunch on fairly important matters --including the justice system and the electoral process.

Let's first examine Trump's view of the justice system. He has stated on multiple occasions that, as president, he would have the authority to prosecute political opponents -- to even make up bogus cases against them. . .  Raise your hand if you think that's how the U.S. justice system is supposed to work. I don't see many hands, not even in the hard-core MAGA section, so let's move into the real world, as we did in a post from September 2023. This is from a report about a Trump campaign speech in South Dakota:

Trump mused about the possibility of indicting opponents even when they did nothing wrong, claiming that he would ask his attorney general to "indict him on income tax evasion" and that the Attorney General will just "figure it out. . . . "

He said the cases filed against him would “allow” him, if elected president, to call up his attorney general and demand an investigation into his political adversaries. “Indict my opponent, he’s doing well,” Trump said, implying that was exactly what Biden had done.

Would you want to live in a nation where the president actually thinks he could get away with such actions? If so, you are living in the wrong country. Let's introduce some reality to this equation, some insight on how the U.S. system actually works. From our post of last September:

How wildly unlawful is Trump's vision of being able to prosecute his political opponents, even concocting bogus charges against perceived foes who had not violated the law in any way? Here is the short answer: Since the late 1970s, during the post-Watergate era when our country still was reeling from Richard Nixon's scandal-riddled administration, U.S. policy has been that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will operate independently of the White House -- that the president will have no say in the DOJ's charging or non-charging decisions. The Jimmy Carter administration produced the first memorandum spelling out this policy -- and it has been followed by almost every president (of both political parties). From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, every president has signed off on the idea that the White House should not influence DOJ decision-making. The only exception might be Donald Trump; it is unclear if the Trump White House followed the law on DOJ independence during his first term -- and he clearly has no intention of following the law during a second term. Here is a memorandum on the subject from the current attorney general, Merrick Garland.  

A 2017 report from protectdemocracy.org spells out the history of DOJ independence from the White House and also addresses reports that the Trump administration might have violated the law:

The promise that every American will be treated equally under the law and that none is above the law is a bedrock principle of American democracy. The freedom from political influence — real or perceived — on law enforcement underpins all of our other freedoms. By contrast, political influence or interference in law enforcement has been a clear hallmark distinguishing authoritarian regimes from true democracies around the globe.

For decades, to prevent even the appearance of political meddling in federal law enforcement, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had written policies governing White House contacts with agencies and offices within the executive branch that have investigatory and enforcement responsibilities. To ensure the impartial application of the laws, these policies have extended to White House contacts with any executive branch agency or office regarding investigations, enforcement actions, regulatory decisions, grants and contracts involving specific parties.

To date, the Trump Administration has not articulated publicly a White House policy on agency contacts. Further, multiple reported contacts between senior political staff at the White House and enforcement officers at the Department of Justice (DOJ) appear to have violated 40 years of accepted, bipartisan policy. In light of the questions that its actions have raised, and in order to demonstrate its commitment to upholding the rule of law, the Trump White House must release and abide by an agency contacts policy that is consistent with accepted, bipartisan norms.

Part of the problem is that Trump seems to think he could be both president and prosecutor. But the section above shows that is not the case. Further, Trump seems to think he could do that because President Joe Biden had him prosecuted. But I've yet to find a published report that supplies the slightest evidence Biden is behind any of Trump's four criminal indictments. 

Joyce White Vance, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and current legal analyst for MSNBC, stated in a tweet last month: "Joe Biden didn't indict Trump. Prosecutors must go before a grand jury, made up of citizens, including Republicans & Democrats. These citizens hear evidence & vote on whether a defendant should be charged. Different grand juries have now done that with Trump 91 times."

Trump must have missed that tweet because he started down the "Biden did it to me" path yesterday, stating to the press:

It's very unfair when a political opponent is prosecuted by the Biden DOJ. I think that's how they are going to try to win, and that's not the way it works. I think there will be bedlam in our country. 

Earth to Donald: Check in with Joyce White Vance, who knows a thing or two about such matters, and you will learn that Biden did not, and could not, have you prosecuted.

As for what happened at the Jan. 6 insurrection, Trump now has a novel explanation for that -- more or less claiming he was just doing his job, a statement apparently designed to enhance his immunity argument with judges:

I worked on voter fraud; you have to have strong borders and free elections, above almost everything else. I worked very hard for the country and we found voter fraud. We worked on that, that's what I was doing. We found tremendous voter fraud, determinative voter fraud. we have a list of it, We have some findings.

How did Trump get the idea that issues related to voter fraud are for the president to investigate? Who knows, but he is wrong -- and the statement above likely is false. The truth? Such matters generally come under the authority of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Given that Trump was a candidate for the election in question, it's absurd to think he also could be in charge of investigating alleged fraud. Could even the most avid MAGAphile believe this stuff? I guess most anything is possible in the politics of postmodern America.

Trump turned the presidency into his personal piggy bank, raking in millions of dollars from China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other thuggish foreign regimes

 

Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C. (Getty Images)

Donald Trump used the White House as his own personal cash register, drawing millions of dollars from foreign governments, clearly violating U.S. law, and raising questions about Trump's motivations for even seeking the presidency, according to reports at multiple news outlets. Could this lead to a fifth criminal indictment against Trump? That is just one of many troubling issues raised by this latest episode of Trump: Acting Above the Law.

The story started with reporting from The New York Times (NYT), under the headline "Trump Received Millions From Foreign Governments as President, Report Finds. The secondary headline also is illuminating: "House Democrats released evidence that he took in at least $7.8 million from foreign entities while in office, engaging in the kind of conduct the GOP is grasping to pin on President Biden." From a joint report at the NYT and Yahoo! News:

 Donald Trump’s businesses received nearly $8 million in payments from foreign governments while Trump was president, according to new research by Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Unlike Republicans in their efforts to pin corruption on President Joe Biden, Democrats on the House oversight committee have receipts — more than 400 pages of them — that show payments to Trump’s businesses from foreign officials likely seeking to influence the U.S. government. 

Trump refused to divest from his business empire when he became president, creating an opportunity for anyone hoping to win his favor to put money straight into his pocket by staying at his hotels.

“When he arrived in the White House, Trump was determined not only to keep this well-branded global corporate empire going but to seize a new and unprecedented opportunity to make it ever more lucrative for himself and his family,” the oversight committee’s Democratic staff, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), said in their report.

Democrats and nonpartisan ethics experts have long argued that Trump’s refusal to divest violated the U.S. Constitution’s ban on presidents accepting gifts or “emoluments” from kings, princes or foreign states. Trump faced emoluments lawsuits, but the Supreme Court declared the cases moot after he left the White House in January 2021.

Meanwhile, since 2019, Democrats on the House oversight committee have sought records from Trump’s accounting firm reflecting his foreign income. After a federal court awarded access in 2022, Democrats said they’d found records reflecting more than $750,000 in payments from foreign officials at Trump’s hotel in Washington, D.C. Despite a court order requiring more material to be turned over, Republicans quietly shut down document production last year as they launched their quest for dirt on Biden. 

Using documents obtained by the court order, plus already-public records, Democrats tallied $7.8 million in foreign payments from 20 countries during Trump’s presidency. Most of the sum came from Chinese sources, including China’s embassy in the U.S. and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a state-owned enterprise that leased property at Trump Tower in New York. Democrats suggest in their report that the payments from ICBC could have affected the Trump administration’s decision not to sanction the bank for ties to North Korea in 2017.

Democrats stressed Thursday that their report was based on records from only two years of Trump’s time in the White House, and that the $7.8 million is likely an undercount of the full money Trump received from foreign governments.

“What we have is essentially the tip of the iceberg,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) told reporters. “So this $7.8 million is just a small window ― obviously a significant amount of money, but a small window ― into what is likely a fairly large sum of money and gifts.”

Why is this concerning? The New Republic (TNR) shines light on that question, under the headline "Trump's Two-Year Take From Foreign Governments While He Was President Is Staggering":

If you still had any doubts as to whether Donald Trump had self-serving motivations as the nation’s 45th president, then a new report detailing the millions of dollars he received from foreign governments should make it clear it definitely wasn’t America he was putting first.

Trump’s businesses received at least $7.8 million from nearly two dozen foreign governments during his presidency, according to documents released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee. The pocket-lining funds include money Trump received from some of the “world’s most unsavory regimes,” without ever asking for congressional approval as mandated by the U.S. Constitution. (There is one violation of law; more to come on that issue.)

The report, titled “White House for Sale: How Princes, Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump,” notes that it is likely an inconclusive analysis. It details just two years of Trump’s presidency and transactions between just four of his businesses, of which he owns more than 500, with 20 countries.

The biggest spenders included China, which gave Trump the largest sum out of all the nations—$5.5 million from entities including China’s Embassy in the United States, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, and the Hainan Airlines Holding Company—as well as Saudi Arabia, which gave Trump $615,000. Other nations on the list include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malaysia, Albania, Kosovo, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, India, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Kazakhstan, Thailand, the Self-Declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Mongolia, Lebanon, Latvia, Turkey, Hungary, and Cyprus.

“These payments were made while these governments were promoting specific foreign policy goals with the Trump Administration and even, at times, with President Trump himself, and as they were requesting specific actions from the United States to advance their own national policy objectives,” the report notes.

In other words, these countries wanted something from Trump, and they decided to pay for it -- which sounds a lot like bribery. What does U.S. law say about such activities? It clearly is illegal, and a report from NPR provides specifics:

It is illegal for presidents to accept any money from foreign governments without congressional approval per Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "no person holding any office ... shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." (That is a second violation of law, a big one.)

Democrats say at least 20 foreign governments or state-controlled businesses paid Trump-owned businesses during his presidential term.

The Democrats' evidence consists primarily of thousands of Trump's business records obtained from his longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA, which were obtained after a yearslong legal battle which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.

Despite warnings from government ethics officials, Trump broke with tradition and did not divest from his businesses before taking office. Instead, he announced that he would cede responsibility for day-to-day decision making to his two eldest sons. He also pledged that there would be no new foreign deals during his time in office.

But payments from foreign governments appear to have continued.

The largest documented payment was $5.4 million in rent from China's state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank during his first two years in office.

The bank's lease payments for the space in New York's Trump Tower began in 2008, according Kimberly Benza, a spokesperson for the Trump Organization.

At the time, Trump was a frequent political commentator who floated running for president — but the lease deal was initiated many years before his 2015 presidential campaign announcement.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, India, and Malaysia each spent more than $200,000 at Trump hotels and properties, according to the report.

At least some properties, including the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., said that they would not pursue or market to foreign delegations and related groups — though, as detailed in the report, did not deny foreign government bookings.

The year 2023 might have seemed like a drag, but it could turn out to be "Humanity's Miracle Year," the one that provided renewed hope for a troubled world

 

When the clock struck midnight on New Year's Eve, many Americans -- realizing 2023 had passed -- probably thought to themselves, "Good riddance.' It's been a trying year, with war breaking out in at least two hot spots on the globe; corruption in our nation's highest court, thanks largely to Justice Clarence Thomas; dysfunction in the U.S. House of Representatives, which almost reached comedic levels; and a presidential candidate for one of our two major parties, stating repeatedly that, if elected, he intended to act in authoritarian and undemocratic ways, indicating he had little respect for he rule of law -- with his main goal being to seek retribution against his perceived political enemies, who he deems responsible for the four criminal indictments he is facing in multiple jurisdictions. His words suggest he intends to discard democracy and take America toward a dictatorship. This candidate, Donald Trump, seemingly must blame someone else because he is incapable of accepting responsibility for his own actions and appears to be disinclined to listen to anybody -- even on his own staff -- who could give him sound advice that might help keep him out of at least some trouble. Yet, polls tell us a sizable chunk of the electorate deems this flawed, deeply disturbed man fit to serve in our nation's highest office. 

No wonder many Americans are glad to wave goodbye to 2023. A recent post from Axios, however, shows the year really wasn't so bad after all -- and they even call it "Humanity's miracle year." Why? Here is how the Axios' staff puts it:

A key ingredient for life spotted on one of Saturn's moons. An early chapter in human history revised. AI takes hold. It all happened this year.

• Why it matters: The world urgently needs new ideas and inspiration to alleviate chronic and infectious diseases, climate change, energy demands and other complex problems, Axios managing editor Alison Snyder writes.

Once the story dives into specifics, you begin to realize that some really good stuff happened in 2023. Per Alison Snyder:

Here are some of 2023's biggest discoveries and advances:

• AI-assisted discovery: The growing use of AI for science transformed coding, revealed a new class of antibiotics, and predicted the structure of 400,000 possible new materials needed for next-gen batteries, solar cells and computing.
• Gene-editing cure: The FDA approved the first therapy that uses CRISPR gene editing, a treatment for sickle-cell disease. The approach could be used for other diseases but is right now expensive, raising concerns about access to therapies.
• Human history revised: A genetic analysis provided more evidence that modern humans emerged from at least two populations that migrated across Africa and mixed with one another. The finding put "a nail in the coffin" of the idea that modern humans had a single birthplace, a researcher told the N.Y. Times.

Not all of the developments were of this world, and not all centered on humans. Writes Snyder:

• Brain maps drawn: A census of the cell types in the human brain, a map of the maggot brain and a complete atlas of the cells in the mouse brain — multi-year efforts involving hundreds of researchers at dozens of institutions — were released this year. They could help provide much-needed insights into learning, behavior, and brain diseases and disorders.
• Astronomy challenged: The James Webb Space Telescope spotted unusual possible early galaxies and pairs of worlds — perhaps planets or maybe stars — orbiting each other. If confirmed, they could require a reexamination of the formation of stars and the evolution of the universe.
• New species spotted: Spiders, sea slugs, octopi, plants, insects, microbes and hundreds of other species discovered this year are a reminder of Earth's vast biodiversity.

Maybe 2023 will wind up being known as "The Year That Gave Us New Hope."

In a foul display of shortsighted cowardice, Alabama A&M will make no attempt to collect on a $527-million debt the state of Alabama owes the university

The Alabama A&M campus in Huntsville

 

Alabama A&M University has secured its place as the most poorly run school in the country -- and that includes elementary schools, junior highs, the whole educational shebang. How did the A&M campus in Huntsville manage to earn such a "distinction"? By hearing from the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Education that the state of Alabama owed it more than $527 million due to chronic underfunding over roughly 30 years, continuing a trend that dates to the American Civil War. 

The sum involved likely would have transformed A&M into one of the finest universities of its kind in the country. But A&M's leaders certainly would not want that because it would have required them to show some imagination and spine -- and risk incurring the wrath of the right-wing stranglehold Republicans have on state government. So, how did A&M's "leaders" decide to solve this self-imposed problem? They chose to make no attempt to collect the debt. Talk about a "profile in courage."

How did A&M sink to such depths? Donald Watkins, a longtime Alabama attorney who has used his investigative skills to chronicle the A&M disarray for several months at his donaldwatkins.com website, spells it out. Under the headline "It’s a Wrap: Alabama A&M University Will Not Pursue Collection of Its $527,280,064 Debt from the State of Alabama," Watkins writes:

Yesterday, I confirmed that Alabama A&M University will not pursue the collection of its $527,280,064 debt from the state of Alabama. 

Public notice of this debt was provided to Alabama Governor Kay Ivey in a September 18, 2023, letter from the U.S. Departments of Education and Agriculture.

When Alabama A&M President Daniel K. Wims learned of this letter, he promptly notified the governor’s office that his university would take no action to collect this debt.

Publicly, neither Wims, nor his board of trustees, has said a word about this $527,280,064 debt. Privately, they are running from Alabama A&M's entitlement to this money.

Gov. Ivey and her staff were stunned by the news that Alabama A&M would not be pursuing the collection of this debt. They never thought Alabama A&M would surrender its entitlement to $527,280,064 without a fight.

Gov. Ivey and her staff waited 10 days before she responded to the September 18, 2023, letters evidencing the debt. They honestly thought Alabama A&M's board of trustees might feel a fiduciary duty to pursue and collect this money on behalf of the university and its faculty, staff, and students.

As it turned out, the board of trustees was only interested in pleasing Gov. Ivey. After all, Ivey is the statutory "president" of Alabama A&M's board of trustees. She is also the state official who appoints/reappoints trustees to the board.

Issues in this peculiar tale go beyond Alabama's White Republican governor, the kind of GOPer who seems much more interested in building prisons than schools. But it's not just about here, and Watkins makes this clear:

To Gov. Ivey's surprise, no Black state legislator, no Black candidate running for Congress, and no Black elected or appointed official in the state has uttered a public word about this $527,280,064 debt. All of these officials have avoided this subject like it is a plague.

Inside the State Capitol and Legislature, the collective silence of Black public officials on the subject of this $527,280,064 debt is seen as a testament to the sway that Gov. Ivey holds over Alabama A&M and Black public officials. Ivey's dominion and control over this cadre of Black Alabamians is unlike anything White public officials have seen in the state since the days of slavery.

In lieu of pursuing the collection of its $527,280,064 debt, President Wims, his allies on the board of trustees, and university attorneys have spent countless hours trying to figure out who is leaking information to my news team about their unprecedented display of cowardice. They also unleashed a couple of paid "hustlers" in an unsuccessful campaign to attack my name and character on social media. Finally, they threatened me with a “Cease and Desist” letter, which I ignored. (Note: Having written quite a bit about the Alabama A&M story here at Legal Schnauzer, I also received a cease and desist letter. The letter did not cite one example of supposedly false and defamatory statements in my articles and did not name one person who supposedly had been defamed. I've seen this kind of conduct before from integrity-challenged attorneys. I'm sure Mr. Watkins has seen this before, too.)

President Wims has said nothing about the debt publicly, but Watkins' sources say he is well aware of it. If that's the case -- and we know the debt is real, and the money belongs to Alabama A&M, why is it so difficult to demand payment of the money? This sounds like a predominantly White government exerting its power and issuing threats, which could mount to extortion, in order to steal from a Black university. And the people of Alabama -- Black and White -- are OK with this? Writes Wakins:

President Wims privately acknowledges that Alabama A&M is owed this $527,280,064 debt. However, Wims has told his supporters that going after the money would somehow “hurt” the university.

The stunning display of cowardice by President Wims and his board of trustees has surpassed anything that my confidential news sources have ever seen in a state agency. My sources simply could not believe that a deserving HBCU in Alabama would lay down on this $527,280,064 legal claim without a fight. 

In the HWCU world, there would have been a “battle royale” over the collection of this $527,280,064 debt.

Alabama A&M has displayed blinding incompetence on financial matters in 2023, as Watkins explains. If someone on the Huntsville's campus cannot professionally manage the university's assets, it surely is time to clean house -- to show Wims, the board of trustees, and everyone else in a position of authority to the exits.

Alabama would not tolerate such incompetence from a college football coach, so why should the state tolerate it from a university president and his enablers? Writes Watkins:

From September 18 to December 31, 2023, Alabama A&M lost two staggering financial opportunities.

First, Alabama A&M executed a new four-year Magic City Classic agreement in October that allowed the event's promoters and marketers to gouge millions of dollars in economic value from this event.  The main promoter, Gene Hallman of Eventive Sports, promptly sold his company to Arizona-based Troon after the new contract was signed.

Alabama State is being gouged under the new agreement, as well.

Second, Alabama A&M has convinced itself that the university is better off (a) begging prospective donors for financial contributions and (b) collecting unpaid student debt, rather than pursuing the collection of its $527,280,064 debt from the state.

Unlike Alabama A&M, Alabama State never received a letter from the U.S. Departments of Education and Agriculture stating that it was owed money from the state. Only Alabama A&M held the legal right to pursue this $527,280,064 payment from the state of Alabama.

For the record, the primary news sources for my articles on Alabama A&M’s failure to collect its $527,280,064 debt are: (a) publicly available documents and (b) individuals within state government who are in a position to know what's going on with this situation. Among the news sources in Montgomery, a total and complete lack of respect for Alabama A&M’s weak and compromised president and board of trustees kept the “insider” information flowing to my news team.

It's a wrap for Alabama A&M University. The institution will not collect a dime of this $527,280,064 as a result of its own efforts.

With Donald Trump's mouth surprisingly shut, and Bill Clinton seemingly unperturbed, what should we make of the Jeffrey Epstein document dump? So far, the story is a dud, and our guess is it will stay that way

Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell & Co.

 

How has Donald Trump responded to being named in the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking documents? In a stunning development, Trump has kept his mouth pretty much closed about the matter. How are average Americans supposed to react to that? Most of us probably have no idea because we've never seen Trump with his mouth shut before? Does it mean he is scared, contemptuous, confident, unconcerned? Heck, your guess is as good as ours. The New Republic (TNR) tries to shine light on Trump's peculiar silence under the headline "Here's How Trump Is Responding to Being Named in Epstein Documents." /Writes reporter Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling:

The first series of Jeffrey Epstein documents have been released, and as expected, they name Donald Trump. And how is the country’s social media–obsessed former president responding? Well he’s gone surprisingly mute.

Donald Trump’s last slew of posts on his Twitter-dupe social media platform TruthSocial seemed like an effort to flood his MAGA followers’ timelines with unrelated content. In a series of rapid-fire posts Thursday morning, Trump shared endorsements for his presidential campaign, as well as a slew of videos from news outlets validating his legal strategy in his upcoming criminal trials. He also made more than two dozen posts attacking E. Jean Carroll, all within the span of half an hour.

Despite the flurry of activity, there are absolutely zero mentions of the revelatory unsealing of nearly 900 pages of a lawsuit launched by one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre, nearly a decade ago, even though she’s one of Trump’s former employees, meeting Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell roughly two weeks into her employment at Trump’s Florida estate Mar-a-Lago, according to court documents.

Along with Trump’s, some of the major names that jump off the pages range from some of the world’s biggest politicos to show-stopping entertainers. They include former President Bill Clinton, British Prince Andrew, Epstein, and Trump legal ally Alan Dershowitz, Michael Jackson, David Copperfield, and Stephen Hawking.

Their presence in the documents is not proof of any legal wrongdoing.

Trump and Clinton  clearly are the two biggest names revealed so far, and Clinton does not seem too concerned about it, as Houghtaling reports:

A Clinton spokesperson has redirected attention to a 2019 statement put out on behalf of the forty-second president denying any knowledge of Epstein’s pedophilic, sex-trafficking empire.

“In 2002 and 2003, President Clinton took a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane: one to Europe, one to Asia, and two to Africa, which included stops in connection with the work of the Clinton Foundation,” read the statement.

The list of Jane and John Does, which was formed nine years ago, after Giuffre filed a defamation claim against Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, was partially released on Wednesday. More of the documents could be unsealed sometime today (Thursday, (1/4/24) or in the coming days.

Many of the names are expected to be publicly known Epstein associates, including employees of the financier. Other possible names to be unveiled could include Epstein’s clients and perpetrators, though the judge has specified that the identities of minors or sexual assault victims will not be released.

This story could spring to life in the next few days, but so far, it has been a dud -- and my guess is that it will stay that way. If Bill Clinton is unperturbed, and Donald Trump is quiet . . . well, those aren't the responses you would expect from two of the most talkative presidents of modern times. Maybe being tied to a sex-trafficking scandal isn't as interesting as most of us thought it would be.

Alabama A&M and Alabama State put on the hit show, but Gene Hallman and his partners rake in the big dough from the Magic City Classic football game

Fans pack Legion Field for the Magic City Classic

 

Two Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in Alabama unwittingly helped make a White sports promoter rich via a deal with an Arizona-based company that provides leisure and hospitality services, according to a post today at donaldwatkins.com. The universities, meanwhile, received only a fraction of what their high--profile sports event -- the Magic City Classic football game, held annually at Birmingham's Legion Field --  is worth, reports Watkins, a longtime attorney who has become a leading voice in online investigative reporting.

How did all of this shake out? Watkins explains, under the headline "Alabama State and Alabama A&M Made It Possible for Gene Hallman to Get Rich by Selling Eventive Sports to Troon":

Alabama State University (ASU) and Alabama A&M University (AAMU) never saw it coming. They had the Alabama Sports Council, Gene Hallman, and Eventive Sports over a barrel last year while they were negotiating a new four-year sports management and promotions contract for the Magic City Classic.

Historically, the Magic City Classic has been the biggest revenue generator for the Alabama Sports Council, Gene Hallman, and Eventive Sports (formerly known as the Bruno Event Team). 

While the two participating HBCUs only focused on the “pocket change” or "tip money" that Eventive Sports and the City of Birmingham agreed to pay each school to play in the Magic City Classic, Gene Hallman and Eventive Sports focused on locking down a new four-year Classic sports-management deal. 

In essence, Watkins reports, the universities did not know the value of their prized asset. It appears Gene Hallman and his partners at Troon certainly did know the value of what they were getting -- and it paid off, big time, Watkins writes:

While the two universities that owned the Magic City Classic name, trademark, and related intellectual-property rights were showboating with VIP parties and social-media postings during the Classic weekend last October, Gene Hallman was putting his deal together with Troon, a Scottsdale, Arizona, company that provides golf and club-related leisure and hospitality services.

The new Magic City Classic contract made Eventive Sports an attractive acquisition target for Troon. The Classic contract guarantees Troon four years of exorbitant profits from the nation’s premier HBCU sports event. 

ASU and AAMU never understood the economic value that their Magic City Classic contracts conferred upon Eventive Sports/Bruno Event Team.  Likewise, these universities never understood how badly they were being ripped off.

While university leaders apparently stumbled around in the dark during negotiations students, alumni, and regular folks -- who shelled out serious dollars for tickets to the game and related events -- likely had no idea what was going on behind the scenes. Watkins writes:

While the patrons of the Magic City Classic busied themselves with tailgating, VIP parties, and cheering for the two participating football teams, Gene Hallman was working hard on an acquisition deal that would make him rich -- thanks to ASU and AAMU.

Gene Hallman and Ice Cube at the Magic City Classic.

To this day, neither ASU, nor AAMU, knows how many millions of dollars Gene Hallman and Eventive Sports/Bruno Event Team made from the Magic City Classic. In past years, neither university conducted proper audits of Hallman’s financial books and records for the Classic event.

Neither university understood the sports promotion, management, operations, licensing, merchandising, and accounting business. Neither university was properly represented in their contract negotiations with the Alabama Sports Council and Eventive Sports.

ASU and AAMU never acted like the “owners” of the Magic City Classic event. They always assumed the role of “beggars,” and they got what beggars get – nothing but “pocket change" or "tip money."

Does Watkins, who is Black, hold ill will toward Hallman? Not at all. In fact, he writes:

ASU and AAMU were gouged during the previous four-year contract with Eventive Sports/Bruno Event Team. However, the new four-year contract announced last October amounts to gouging on steroids.

I congratulate Gene Hallman and Eventive Sports!  Hallman took the premier HBCU football Classic game in America and made a fortune from it. 

Gene Hallman did what business owners do. Hallman engineered a great business deal that heaped economic value upon Eventive Sports and himself.  Once his deal with ASU and AAMU was signed, Hallman sold Eventive Sports to Troon. 

Hallman reportedly got big bucks from Troon's acquisition of Eventive Sports.  Several individuals associated with the Alabama Sports Council reportedly benefited financially from this transaction, as well. That's a story for another day.

What did football fans, the ones who packed Legion Field to cheer on their teams, get from it all? They did not walk away empty-handed -- but they did not take home big bucks, either. Writes Watkins:

The patrons of the Magic City Classic got wonderful memories and great photos of the Classic weekend. ASU and AAMU got shafted in every way possible. Gene Hallman got the money and economic value from the Classic events!

Finally, Gene Hallman's power moves and personal enrichment opportunities were NOT the result of White racism. They were a direct result of willful ignorance on the part of ASU and AAMU.

Four hours as a "White" man taught Attorney Donald Watkins that Nikki Haley will always be "Colored," no matter how far she leans to the extreme political right

Nikki Haley (upper left, blue shirt) with her parents and siblings.

 

As a light-skinned Black man, Donald Watkins has known --at least for a few hours -- the benefits that come with White privilege in American society.That experience gives Watkins insight into Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, whose recent failure to acknowledge slavery as the central cause of the American Civil War -- along with her other statements and actions, indicate she wants to be seen as White. Watkins, however says that no matter how far her politics might learn to the right, Haley's efforts to be seen as White are doomed to fail.

How did Watkins, who has a distinguished legal career of roughly 50 years in Alabama and has become a leading voice in online investigative journalism (especially in the areas of criminal defense, civil rights, business, and higher education) experience White privilege? It came under unusual circumstances, as he explains under the headline "I Understand Why Nikki Haley Desperately Wants to Be 'White.' Once Upon a Time, I was 'White' for 4 Hours!"

I understand why Nikki Haley desperately wants to be "White." Let me shed some much-needed light on this subject for my reading audience.

On August 28, 2019, I entered the minimum-security Federal Prison Camp at FCI Talladega, Alabama,  as a high-profile "political prisoner."  My designated Federal Bureau of Prison name was Inmate 36223-001.  

This was my assigned "slave" name in a federal penal colony. As American historians know, penal slavery is an express exception to the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on commercial and private slavery.

To be clear, inmates in America's state and federal penal colonies are legally and technically "slaves." See, Ruffin v. Commonwealth, 21 Gratt. 790, 62 Va. 790, Virginia Supreme Court (1871). For political-correctness purposes, American society refers to these slaves as "inmates.

Does White privilege reign in the prison environment? Absolutely, says Watkins, and he got a first-hand view of how it works. He writes:

The Camp at Talladega, which is located about 40 miles east of Birmingham, Alabama, had an overwhelming Black inmate population, staff of guards, and administrators.

Unbeknownst to me, when I was processed into the Camp, I was officially classified as a “White” inmate. I would later learn that White inmates actually ran the Camp, bossed the guards, and held great sway over the administrators.

During the walk from the intake office to the Camp, the counselor who was escorting me there provided me with an unsolicited explanation of all of the benefits, perks, and privileges that White inmates enjoyed.  She apparently did not realize I am Black.

I was told how to create my own job.  She suggested that I consider a teaching job for myself.  I was told how to get the highest inmate pay and best working conditions. She told me that the Camp assigns the hardest manual labor jobs to Black inmates, who often performed these jobs in unfavorable weather conditions and without adequate safety training and equipment.

Once I entered the Camp, I noticed that the small White inmate population ran the Commissary, served as “town drivers” who transported inmates to the bus station and doctors’ office, and filled the administrative jobs in the Library and Warden’s office. Prison officials even bought a $7,000 Baby Grand piano for one White Camp inmate. (Prison officials paid 7,000 for a Baby Grand piano for a White inmate? There has got to be quite a story behind that. Either the guy was an Elton John-like talent at the keyboard, or he did a lot of favors for someone near the top of the prison food chain.)

The White inmates also received new prison uniforms, underwear, towels and face clothes, mattresses, sheets, and blankets, as opposed to used clothing and bedding items that were routinely issued to Black inmates.

How was Watkins "unmasked" as a Black inmate? First, he answered basic questions honestly, plus he had no desire to be known as anything other than Black, he writes:

All of this "White Privilege" occurred under the ingratiating watch of Warden Cheron Y. Nash, a Black female version of Clarence Thomas.  Like Thomas, Nash was a failed experiment in affirmative action.  What is more, the Camp’s drug-dealing ring operated directly out of Warden Nash’s office.

My status as a “White” inmate changed four hours after I entered the Camp when I visited the Camp’s psychologist, Dr. Petty, for the routine questions asked of new inmates (i.e., Do you have suicidal thoughts? No. Have you abused drugs or alcohol? No. Were you abused as a child? No., etc.).

During Dr. Petty’s questioning, she astutely realized that I am a light-skinned Black man. She politely asked me to confirm this fact.  I confirmed my ethnicity without hesitation. Dr. Petty immediately called the intake office and demanded that I be reclassified as “Black,” right then and there. The intake office made the change on my racial designation to "Black."

Once I reverted back to being officially “Black,” all of the generous benefits, perks, and privileges I enjoyed as a “White” inmate were gone, except for my newly created job as a teacher (without the high salary).  From that point on, I was treated in the same shabby manner as all of the other Black inmates at the Camp. 

How does all of this circle back to Nikki Haley? Watkins ties it together for us:

Given my weird personal experience of being “White” for 4 hours, I understand why Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley is desperately trying so hard to escape her status as a “Colored” person to become “White.” 

Haley, whose real name is Nimarata Nikki Randhawa, even falsely claimed on her voter registration application that she is "White

I do not agree with Nikki Haley's endless efforts to achieve an officially acknowledged reassignment of her racial identity, as evidenced by her rhetoric and actions. In fact, I find it to be sickening.

Nikki Haley knows that Whites are routinely treated better than Blacks in American society, even when they are imprisoned. This has always been the case. It's ingrained in our culture.

Unfortunately for Nikki Haley, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the “Aryan racial purity” claim that a Sikh Indian like Haley argued in his bid to be reclassified as “White.” In the case of United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), the Supreme Court ruled that Sikhs like Thind and Haley are “Colored,” just like me.

Like her political bedfellow Clarence Thomas, Nikki Haley can act “White” and pander to the worst racial instincts in Whites, but this kind of interaction with the White world will not make either one of them "White."  

Like Clarence Thomas, that old “one-drop” of “Colored” blood racial classification rule has Nikki Haley hopelessly trapped in the “Colored” world.

Even though I was "White" for 4 hours, I enjoy my life as a Black man. I came into the world exactly the way God created me -- a loving human being with compassion for every member of the human race. Within my family, "love sees no color."

Life is too short for self-hatred or the endless hatred of others based solely on the color of your skin.