Que hand wringing. The UAE can import the higher end Nvidia chips, just like Saudi Arabia does and they didn’t invest a dime into WLFI.

It’s my understanding that all the Abraham Accord signatories would be eligible to buy the advanced Nvidia chips.

The hand wringing in the story is typical leftist imaging.

“…while there was no direct allegation of a quid pro quo,….” the story says, they’re really, really concerned. There was no allegation of a quid pro quo, because there could be no allegation of a quid pro quo.

President Trump is unique as President go. Will the new qualifications require the president be a pauper? I’m sure the Mamdani socialist wing of their party would like it to be.

If the Bidens and Clintons got away with trolling foreign interests for big cash, Trump sure as heck was going to do it, and do it bigger and better than they did.

Now that should be an entertaining metric…

Like a quick search shows the Clinton Foundation having once received $2 bil.

Per the top of this article, UAE poured in only half a billion into this coin. So by that measure alone Trump is nowhere near the “bigger and better” than the Clintons – he’s only at a quarter of their grift.

I have a few points:

(1) I’m sure some will seize on this to discount everything I write, but it’s true so I’m going to say it anyway. As it related to this issue, the J6 stuff is just noise. I completely agree that de-banking is a crime against the rule of law. I completely agree that the Trumps, and other high-net-worth conservatives, are smart to hold crypto to protect themselves from it. That’s not the issue here. If Trump were simply holding crypto, there would be no problem.

(2) What Trump is alleged to have done is not simply holding assets in crypto. His company issued its own cryptocurrency. If you buy crypto for which there is an already established market, you rely on that market to give value to your purchase. If you issue your own crypto, it is worthless unless you can get other people to buy it. For example, if Trump held Bitcoin, and the UAE bought $2B of Bitcoin, it would raise the value of Bitcoin, but that value would be distributed over all of the issued Bitcoin. In this instance, where Trump issued his own crypto, when the UAE bought $2B of it, that value was split among a much smaller group of people who owned the new Trump crypto, most likely Trump and his close partners. In other words, by issuing a new cryptocurrency, Trump’s company basically created a mechanism by which people could transfer value directly to him. And it looks like they are.

It’s as rotten as the day is long.

(3) If you’re making the argument that, sure Trump may be corrupt but he’s better than the left, then you understand exactly why Democrats spent so many years defending the indefensible behavior of the Clintons, Bidens, Pelosis, et al. If the cost of good governance is spectacular corruption, then forget about MAGA, there is no making America great again.

(4) The key I’ve found for understanding/predicting Trump’s behavior is to look at what his enemies do, and assume that he’s going to try to do the same thing, except bigger. I think that’s what you’re seeing here. If the Bidens and Clintons got away with trolling foreign interests for big cash, Trump sure as heck was going to do it, and do it bigger and better than they did.

The aim is or should to to allow a business to grow in an “open” way, or coast without losing value and money, while the politico is in office (and perhaps for a 1 to 5 year period afterwards??).

To repeat my earlier statement about conflict of interest or insider trading, the idea of prohibiting members of congress or SES or judiciary to invest in stocks (buy and sell) seems overly constraining and anti-liberty. But part of the sacrifice of public service could and should be to have them announce their intentions to buy or sell stocks/assets a week or two prior to doing so (optional to make public the reason or purpose of the transaction and its timing). This removes the insider trading aspect but let’s them also demonstrate faith in the country’s businesses and as an example of how almost everyone should be investing part of their assets/wealth in such venues. Even public figures have a range of life situations and investment goals that change as they and their children age.
It is another version of America First.

This always torques me. Trump’s business is primarily licensing his brand. You can’t put that into a blind trust, that’s a contradiction in terms. The things say “Trump” right on them, that’s why people buy them, and it doesn’t matter who runs the trust, it can’t possibly be blind.

In addition, presidents rarely own their own businesses. A blind trust is appropriate for investments, but all the assets have to be sold and replaced with different ones in order for it to qualify as “blind”. A blind trust would destroy everything Trump spent his life putting together.

Same would apply to Oprah Winfrey or Elon Musk or any business owner famous enough to consider politics.