Citing an article in the Washington Post that characterizes Donald Trump‘s recent quid pro quo offer to oil industry executives as “audacious,” former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steel repeats the word and adds a question mark.
“Audacious?” Steele asks, incredulous, further quoting an article that asserts Trump is “testing the boundaries of federal campaign finance laws” by “tying donation requests to pledges of tax cuts and other policies.”
In his response, Steele warns “Let’s be clear, Trump ain’t testing [expletive].” What the presumptive GOP presidential candidate is doing when he promises a group of oil executives favorable treatment when he’s in office if they pony up a billion dollars now to help get him there isn’t “testing the boundaries,” Steele rages. It’s “deliberately distorting and breaking the rules.”
Trump can do this, Steele says, because our complicit “media, legal and political systems allow him to.”
“By tying donation requests to pledges of tax cuts and other policies, Trump is testing the boundaries of federal campaign finance laws”
“Audacious”? Let’s be clear, Trump ain’t testing shit. He is doing what he always does–deliberately distorting and breaking the rules because…
— Michael Steele (@MichaelSteele) May 29, 2024
The responses to Steele’s post were equally blistering, calling out Trump’s alleged emoluments violations, Jared Kushner‘s $2 billion from the Saudis, and the compliant “feckless” Democrats who play by rules MAGA adherents consider it their privilege to ignore.
Beyond outrageous! The lawlessness, grifting, treachery and flagrant hypocrisy of the devolving GQP, which worships a genocidal madman, is just breathtaking, only matched by the utter fecklessness of the corporatized press, Dems, and the DOJ.
— Lon Taylor (@LonTaylor7) May 29, 2024
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, is pursuing an investigation into Trump’s promise and “demanding answers from nine Big Oil CEOs following reports of quid pro quo propositions made by former President Donald Trump to dismantle fossil fuel regulations in exchange for $1 billion in contributions to his presidential campaign.”
“Media reports raise significant potential ethical, campaign finance, and legal issues, Raskin wrote, “that would flow from the effective sale of American energy and regulatory policy to commercial interests in return for large campaign contributions.”