The White House came up with a handful of talking points to defend the president’s meme coin scheme, but they were all unbelievable.
In the beginning:
When Donald Trump unveiled a meme coin a few days before his second inaugural, the ethical mess was obvious. The Campaign Legal Center’s Adav Noti explained at the time, “It is literally cashing in on the presidency — creating a financial instrument so people can transfer money to the president’s family in connection with his office. It is beyond unprecedented.”
And recently:
But when the president and his partners launched a contest of sorts last month, it took the story to a new level: Those interested in investing in Trump’s meme coin — and by extension, giving the president money — were told they’d have a chance to win special access to Trump and the White House.
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said of the scheme, “This isn’t Trump just being Trump. The Trump coin scam is the most brazenly corrupt thing a president has ever done. Not close.”
The dinner:
The gambit proved predictably lucrative. NBC News reported this week:
More than 200 wealthy, mostly anonymous crypto buyers are coming to Washington on Thursday to have dinner with President Donald Trump. The price of admission: $55,000 to $37.7 million. That’s how much the 220 winners of a contest to meet Trump spent on his volatile cryptocurrency token, $TRUMP, according to an analysis by the blockchain analytics company Nansen. The top $TRUMP coin holders at a specific time — determined by the dinner’s organizers — secured a seat.
The dinner nevertheless happened at a Trump-owned property in Virginia on Thursday night, and it was described by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes as “the Met Gala of presidential pay-for-play.” Chris added that the dinner was “the most brazen act of corruption by a president in our lifetimes, probably in a century, possibly ever.”
While the resident Bimbo dodges questions …
Once:
The president’s chief spokesperson was asked, for example, whether Trump was using the gathering to enrich himself. Instead of answering directly, [White House Press Secretary Bimbo #1] Leavitt said the president was re-elected “because he was a successful businessman.” The problem with this, of course, was (a) she didn’t answer the question; (b) he wasn’t a successful businessman; and (c) there’s no evidence to suggest Trump’s private-sector background contributed to his successful 2024 candidacy.
Twice:
At the same briefing, [Bimbo #1] Leavitt also argued that Trump was attending the crypto dinner in his “personal time,” which made even less sense, given that presidents while in office don’t have the luxury of simply taking off the presidential hat and acting as a private citizen for a while. Ethical norms and legal standards always apply to the nation’s chief executive, especially when interacting with those eager to give them financial rewards.
Thrice:
But I was especially interested in [Bimbo #1]Leavitt’s third point: Trump’s assets, she insisted, are in a “blind trust” managed by his adult sons, which necessarily mitigates potential ethical conflicts.
This almost resembles a credible point, but there’s a problem: Trump’s “trust” isn’t actually “blind.”
When the president’s first term began, many urged the Republican to avoid ethical quandaries by utilizing a blind trust, but Trump refused. After he was elected to a second term, he did transfer assets into a trust controlled by his eldest son, but to call it “blind” is to stretch the definition to an unreasonable degree.
Indeed, The New York Times spoke to Dennis Kelleher, the chief executive of Better Markets, a nonprofit that pushes for more transparency on Wall Street, who emphasized the family connection. “This is not a blind trust with an independent trustee, where people can have confidence that the conflicts of interest are in fact removed,” he explained.
In other words, after having plenty of time to come up with a defense for Trump’s meme coin scheme, the White House came up with a handful of talking points, and all three fell apart rather quickly.
The conclusion:
All things considered, that’s not too surprising: Defending the indefensible isn’t easy.
