Heather Cox Richardson

 

November 3, 2025 Heather Cox Richardson Nov 4   At the end of her interview with President Donald J. Trump, recorded on October 31 at Mar-a-Lago and aired last night, heavily edited, on 60 Minutes, Norah O’Donnell of CBS News asked if she could ask two more questions. Trump suggested previous questions had been precleared when he mused aloud that if he said yes, “That means they’ll treat me more fairly if I do—I want to get—It’s very nice, yeah. Now is good. Okay. Uh, oh. These might be the ones I didn’t want. I don’t know. Okay, go ahead.” O’Donnell noted that the Trump family has thrown itself into cryptocurrency ventures, forming World Liberty Financial with the family of Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East. In that context, she asked about billionaire Changpeng Zhao, the co-founder and former chief executive officer of Binance. Zhao is cryptocurrency’s richest man. He pleaded guilty in 2023 to money laundering, resigned from Binance, paid a $50 million fine, and was sentenced to four months in prison. Trump pardoned him on October 23. O’Donnell noted that the U.S. government said Zhao “had caused ‘significant harm to U.S. national security,’ essentially by allowing terrorist groups like Hamas to move millions of dollars around.” She asked the president, “Why did you pardon him?” “Okay, are you ready?” Trump answered. “I don’t know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that. And I heard it was a Biden witch hunt. And what I wanna do is see crypto, ‘cause if we don’t do it it’s gonna go to China, it’s gonna go to—this is no different to me than AI. “My sons are involved in crypto much more than I—me. I—I know very little about it, other than one thing. It’s a huge industry. And if we’re not gonna be the head of it, China, Japan, or someplace else is. So I am behind it 100%. This man was, in my opinion, from what I was told, this is, you know, a four-month sentence.” After he went on with complaints about the Biden administration—he would mention Biden 42 times in the released transcript—O’Donnell noted, “Binance helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin. And then you pardoned [Zhao].” She asked him: “How do you address the appearance of pay for play?” Trump answered: “Well, here’s the thing. I know nothing about it because I’m too busy doing the other….” O’Donnell interrupted: “But he got a pardon….” Trump responded: “I can only tell you this. My sons are into it. I’m glad they are, because it’s probably a great industry, crypto. I think it’s good. You know, they’re running a business, they’re not in government. And they’re good—my one son is a number one bestseller now. “My wife just had a number one bestseller. I’m proud of them for doing that. I’m focused on this. I know nothing about the guy, other than I hear he was a victim of weaponization by government. When you say the government, you’re talking about the Biden government.” And then he was off again, complaining about the former president and boasting that he would “make crypto great for America.” “So not concerned about the appearance of corruption with this?” O’Donnell asked. Trump answered: “I can’t say, because—I can’t say—I’m not concerned. I don’t—I’d rather not have you ask the question. But I let you ask it. You just came to me and you said, ‘Can I ask another question?’ And I said, yeah. This is the question….” “And you answered…” O’Donnell put in. “I don’t mind,” Trump said. “Did I let you do it? I coulda walked away. I didn’t have to answer this question. I’m proud to answer the question. You know why? We’ve taken crypto….” After another string of complaints about Biden, he said: “We are number one in crypto and that’s the only thing I care about.” If, among all the disinformation and repetition Trump spouted in that interview, he did not know who he was pardoning, who’s running the Oval Office? It appears House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) doesn’t want to know. At a news conference today, journalist Manu Raju noted: “Last week…you were very critical of Joe Biden’s use of the autopen…[you said] he didn’t even know who he was pardoning. Last night, on 60 Minutes…Trump admitted not knowing he pardoned a crypto billionaire who pleaded guilty to money laundering. Is that also concerning?” Johnson answered: “I don’t know anything about that. I didn’t see the interview. You have to ask the president about that. I’m not sure.” Pleading ignorance of an outrage or that a question is “out of his lane” has become so frequent for Johnson that journalist Aaron Rupar of Public Notice, who is very well informed about the news indeed, suggested today that journalists should consider asking Johnson: “Do you ever read the news, and do you agree it’s problematic for the Speaker to be so woefully uninformed?” Johnson continues to keep the House from conducting business as the government shutdown hit its 34th day today. Tomorrow the shutdown will tie the 35-day shutdown record set during Trump’s first term. Representative Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), whom voters elected on September 23, is still not sworn in. She has said she will be the 218th—and final—vote on a discharge petition to force a vote requiring the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files. Trump and Johnson continue to try to jam Democratic senators into signing on to the Republicans’ continuing resolution without addressing the end of premium tax credits that is sending healthcare premiums on the Affordable Healthcare Act marketplace soaring. They continue to refuse to negotiate with Democrats, although negotiations have always been the key to ending shutdowns. To increase pressure, they are hurting the American people. The shutdown meant that funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits on which 42 million Americans depend to put food on the table ran out on October 31. Although previous administrations—including Trump’s—have always turned to contingency funds Congress set aside to make sure people can eat, and although the Trump administration initially said it would do so this time as usual, it abruptly announced in October that it did not believe tapping into that reserve was legal. SNAP benefits would not go out. On Friday, U.S. District Judge John McConnell of the District of Rhode Island ordered the administration to fund payments for SNAP benefits using the reserve Congress set up for emergencies. Since that money—$4.65 billion—will not be enough to fund the entire $8 billion required for November payments, McConnell suggested the administration could make the full payments by tapping into money from the Child Nutrition Program and other funds, but he left discretion up to the administration. Today the administration announced it would tap only the first reserve, funding just 50% of SNAP benefits. It added that those payments will be delayed for “a few weeks to up to several months.” The disbursement of the reserve, it continued, “means that no funds will remain for new SNAP applicants certified in November, disaster assistance, or as a cushion against the potential catastrophic consequences of shutting down SNAP entirely.” “Big ‘you can’t make me’ energy,” Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall noted. It’s also an astonishing act of cruelty, especially as grocery prices are going up—Trump lied that they are stable in the 60 Minutes interview—hiring has slowed, and the nation is about to celebrate Thanksgiving. The shutdown also threatens the $4.1 billion Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) that helps families cover the cost of utilities or heating oil. Susan Haigh and Marc Levy of the Associated Press note that this program started in 1981 and has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress ever since. Trump’s budget proposal for next year calls for cutting the program altogether, but states expected to have funding for this winter. Almost 6 million households use the program, and as cold weather sets in, the government has not funded it. When the Republicans shredded the nation’s social safety net in their budget reconciliation bill of July, the one they call the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” they timed most of the cuts to take effect after the 2026 midterm elections. But the shutdown is making clear now, rather than after the midterms, what the nation will look like without that safety net. In the 60 Minutes interview, O’Donnell noted an aspect of Trump’s America that is getting funded during the shutdown. She said, “Americans have been watching videos of ICE tackling a young mother, tear gas being used in a Chicago residential neighborhood, and the smashing of car windows. Have some of these raids gone too far?” “No,” Trump answered. “I think they haven’t gone far enough because we’ve been held back by the—by the judges, the liberal judges that were put in by Biden and by Obama.” (In fact, a review by Kyle Cheney of Politico on Friday showed that more than 100 federal judges have ruled at least 200 times against Trump administration immigration policies. Those judges were appointed by every president since Ronald Reagan, and 12 were appointed by Trump himself.) It appears that the administration did indeed ignore today’s deadline for congressional approval of the ongoing strikes against Venezuela, required under the 1973 War Powers Act. It is taking the position that no approval is necessary since, in its formulation, U.S. military personnel are not at risk in the strikes that have, so far, killed 65 people.

 

NEW INC. MAGAZINE COLUMN FROM HOWARD TULLMAN

 

4 Keys to Making a Deal That’s a Keeper

These simple steps to take early on in any negotiation will save time and money and increase the likelihood that the arrangement will be one you can live with.

EXPERT OPINION BY HOWARD TULLMAN, GENERAL MANAGING PARTNER, G2T3V AND CHICAGO HIGH TECH INVESTORS @HOWARDTULLMAN1

Nov 4, 2025

 

 

One of the first things they teach young corporate lawyers is to leave the ugly and difficult stuff to the very end of negotiations, when the parties are weak, tired and sick of the entire proceedings. In fact, the most experienced M&A attorneys will admit that an even better idea is to paper over the present and future problems, push the tough questions down the line, and leave the heartaches and the lawsuits to the next group of bloodsuckers. They tell you that your litigation partners will thank you in advance for their future fees.

This concept is also a critical part of the ground rules and gospel of all divorce lawyers, regardless of which side of the argument they happen to be on. No one who’s ever been there believes for a moment that these avaricious advocates can serve anyone’s interest but their own. The basic idea—after creating every delay possible in the proceedings and wringing all the fees possible out of their victims—is to get some closure so they can get on to their next case and never look back.

For the perspective of any poor entrepreneur sucked into one of these seemingly endless negotiation sessions, there really isn’t any simple or foolproof way to avoid the mess. There is, however, one rule to absolutely keep top of mind throughout the entire process. The easier the deal is to get done, the harder it will be to implement. This is why it’s your basic job to be difficult when it matters, regardless of what your own attorneys argue or caution and notwithstanding all the pressure from everyone else in the room to just get things done. This is a difficult position to put yourself in and it takes a while and a few different attempts and contexts to develop the thick skin, blank stare, and willingness to ask the same questions over and over until you get a solid and clear answer to them. You need to forsake peace for truth telling. The price you pay for momentary peace is always too high.

All of which is presently and painfully on display as the world watches Trump’s latest deluded lie about bringing peace to the Middle East fall apart in just days after it was touted and paraded everywhere. It was foolish, naïve and embarrassing for experienced negotiators and the public at large to think for a moment that an agreement with dozens of deferred terms and concessions including disarmament of Hamas and its expulsion from Gaza would ever come to pass in the absence of further military intervention. Once again, the Trump art of the deal turns out to be a fraud on us all. It appears that Putin’s not the only one to make a fool repeatedly of the Orange Monster. China’s leader, Xi Jinping, also just made Trump look like a clueless clown by giving back a small fraction of what China took away in exchange for major further concessions by Trump trying to save face as he backs away from a tariff battle that he stupidly started.

But even this miserable example provides simple negotiating lessons for entrepreneurs in their own business dealings. There are a few simple steps to take early on in any negotiation in order to save time and money and significantly increase the likelihood that the ultimate arrangement will be one that you can live with.

1. Start at the end, not the beginning.

Make it clear that certain basics are non-negotiable and that they are absolute requirements for getting any deal done. Don’t let these be deferred or glossed over.  You should never deny your firmest convictions for the sake of peace and quiet. There is zero chance that Hamas will ever give up its weapons and only a fool would believe otherwise. They’ve said it before the ceasefire and now they’ve said it after the ceasefire—even going so far on TV as admitting that it’s only a “hudna” which means a pause. On the other hand, Mamdani campaigned for Mayor in the NYC primary on some very risky propositions and made some over-the-top promises and, to his credit, he has maintained those stances, for better or worse, and even doubled down on some which has made his position abundantly clear to all.

2. Stick to your guns and stand alone if necessary.

Everyone in any meeting will have their own agenda, including the folks on your side and the professionals working for you. It’s rare that all these will be aligned. Open declarations and consistent clarity on your part will save everyone time. It’s far better to be an asshole in the moment and even risk the deal than to suffer years later with an agreement, terms, and conditions that you knew wouldn’t get the job done but settled for in order to keep the peace. Seeking consensus on aggressively contested points is more likely to lead to a mediocre outcome than to a happy ending.

3. Acknowledge that some deals just can never get done.

Wishing, hoping and beating a dead horse aren’t ways to get where you want to go. Sometimes, you just can’t get there from here and it’s smart and prudent to acknowledge that as soon as it’s clear. If you sit there long enough, all that happens is that you get subjected to a constant stream of asks for compromises, small concessions, deferments or flat out give-ups—all in the name of good faith, false hopes and sharing the pain. It’s like being slowly pecked to death by a flock of angry geese.

4. Remember the rule of the slippery slope.

Every negotiation contains a number of detours, rabbit holes, and slippery slopes which all need to be avoided. Detours and rabbit holes merely waste your time. Slippery slopes are outright dangerous because they’re inducements and invitations to settle various matters for everyone’s sake except your own. But even worse is the end result. You need to always remember the rule: the minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get even less than you settled for.

 

The Cruelty is the Point

The Cruelty Is the Point

President Trump and his supporters find community by rejoicing in the suffering of those they hate and fear.

By Adam Serwer

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

October 3, 2018

 

The Museum of African-American History and Culture is in part a catalog of cruelty. Amid all the stories of perseverance, tragedy, and unlikely triumph are the artifacts of inhumanity and barbarism: the child-size slave shackles, the bright red robes of the wizards of the Ku Klux Klan, the recordings of civil-rights protesters being brutalized by police.

The artifacts that persist in my memory, the way a bright flash does when you close your eyes, are the photographs of lynchings. But it’s not the burned, mutilated bodies that stick with me. It’s the faces of the white men in the crowd. There’s the photo of the lynching of Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith in Indiana in 1930, in which a white man can be seen grinning at the camera as he tenderly holds the hand of his wife or girlfriend. There’s the undated photo from Duluth, Minnesota, in which grinning white men stand next to the mutilated, half-naked bodies of two men lashed to a post in the street—one of the white men is straining to get into the picture, his smile cutting from ear to ear. There’s the photo of a crowd of white men huddled behind the smoldering corpse of a man burned to death; one of them is wearing a smart suit, a fedora hat, and a bright smile.

Read Adam Serwer on why the Supreme Court is headed back to the 19^th century

Their names have mostly been lost to time. But these grinning men were someone’s brother, son, husband, father. They were human beings, people who took immense pleasure in the utter cruelty of torturing others to death—and were so proud of doing so that they posed for photographs with their handiwork, jostling to ensure they caught the eye of the lens, so that the world would know they’d been there. Their cruelty made them feel good, it made them feel proud, it made them feel happy. And it made them feel closer to one another.

The Trump era is such a whirlwind of cruelty that it can be hard to keep track. This week alone, the news broke that the Trump administration was seeking to ethnically cleanse more than 193,000 American children of immigrants whose temporary protected status had been revoked by the administration, that the Department of Homeland Security had lied about creating a database of children that would make it possible to unite them with the families the Trump administration had arbitrarily destroyed, that the White House was considering a blanket ban on visas for Chinese students, and that it would deny visas to the same-sex partners of foreign officials. At a rally in Mississippi, a crowd of Trump supporters cheered as the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford, the psychology professor who has said that Brett Kavanaugh, whom Trump has nominated to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, attempted to rape her when she was a teenager. “Lock her up!” they shouted.

Ford testified to the Senate, utilizing her professional expertise to describe the encounter, that one of the parts of the incident she remembered most was Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge laughing at her as Kavanaugh fumbled at her clothing. “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter,” Ford said, referring to the part of the brain that processes emotion and memory, “the uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.” And then at Tuesday’s rally, the president made his supporters laugh at her.

Further reading: The most striking thing about Trump’s mockery of Christine Blasey Ford

Even those who believe that Ford fabricated her account, or was mistaken in its details, can see that the president’s mocking of her testimony renders all sexual-assault survivors collateral damage. Anyone afraid of coming forward, afraid that she would not be believed, can now look to the president to see her fears realized. Once malice is embraced as a virtue, it is impossible to contain.

The cruelty of the Trump administration’s policies, and the ritual rhetorical flaying of his targets before his supporters, are intimately connected. As Lili Loofbourow wrote of the Kavanaugh incident in Slate, adolescent male cruelty toward women is a bonding mechanism, a vehicle for intimacy through contempt. The white men in the lynching photos are smiling not merely because of what they have done, but because they have done it together.

We can hear the spectacle of cruel laughter throughout the Trump era. There were the border-patrol agents cracking up at the crying immigrant children separated from their families, and the Trump adviser who delighted white supremacists when he mocked a child with Down syndrome who was separated from her mother. There were the police who laughed uproariously when the president encouraged them to abuse suspects, and the Fox News hosts mocking a survivor of the Pulse Nightclub massacre (and in the process inundating him with threats), the survivors of sexual assault protesting to Senator Jeff Flake, the women who said the president had sexually assaulted them, and the teen survivors of the Parkland school shooting. There was the president mocking Puerto Rican accents shortly after thousands were killed and tens of thousands displaced by Hurricane Maria, the black athletes protesting unjustified killings by the police, the women of the #MeToo movement who have come forward with stories of sexual abuse, and the disabled reporter whose crime was reporting on Trump truthfully. It is not just that the perpetrators of this cruelty enjoy it; it is that they enjoy it with one another. Their shared laughter at the suffering of others is an adhesive that binds them to one another, and to Trump.

Read Adam Serwer on why the white nationalists are winning

Taking joy in that suffering is more human than most would like to admit. Somewhere on the wide spectrum between adolescent teasing and the smiling white men in the lynching photographs are the Trump supporters whose community is built by rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them, who have found in their shared cruelty an answer to the loneliness and atomization of modern life.

The laughter undergirds the daily spectacle of insincerity, as the president and his aides pledge fealty to bedrock democratic principles they have no intention of respecting. The president who demanded the execution of five black and Latino teenagers for a crime they didn’t commit decrying “false accusations,” when his Supreme Court nominee stands accused; his supporters who fancy themselves champions of free speech meet references to Hillary Clinton or a woman whose only crime was coming forward to offer her own story of abuse with screams of “Lock her up!” The political movement that elected a president who wanted to ban immigration by adherents of an entire religion, who encourages police to brutalize suspects, and who has destroyed thousands of immigrant families for violations of the law less serious than those of which he and his coterie stand accused, now laments the state of due process.

This isn’t incoherent. It reflects a clear principle: Only the president and his allies, his supporters, and their anointed are entitled to the rights and protections of the law, and if necessary, immunity from it. The rest of us are entitled only to cruelty, by their whim. This is how the powerful have ever kept the powerless divided and in their place, and enriched themselves in the process.

Further reading: I know Brett Kavanaugh, but I wouldn’t confirm him

A blockbuster New York Times investigation on Tuesday reported that President Trump’s wealth was largely inherited through fraudulent schemes, that he became a millionaire while still a child, and that his fortune persists in spite of his fumbling entrepreneurship, not because of it. The stories are not unconnected. The president and his advisers have sought to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense; they have attempted to corrupt federal law-enforcement agencies to protect themselves and their cohorts, and they have exploited the nation’s darkest impulses in the pursuit of profit. But their ability to get away with this fraud is tied to cruelty.

Trump’s only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright. The president’s ability to execute that cruelty through word and deed makes them euphoric. It makes them feel good, it makes them feel proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel united. And as long as he makes them feel that way, they will let him get away with anything, no matter what it costs them.

About the Author

 

Adam Serwer

Adam Serwer is a staff writer at The Atlantic.

 

The Big Smirk

 

The Big Smirk The cruelty is the point, party edition Paul Krugman Nov 4     There’s been plenty of scathing commentary about the lavish, Great Gatsby-themed Halloween party Donald Trump threw at Mar a Lago — a party complete with sequined, feathered dancers and, yes, a scantily-clad woman in a giant martini glass. The party, held just hours before 42 million Americans were about to lose federal food assistance, as 1.4 million federal workers are going without pay, was grotesque. It was also, like everything Trump, unspeakably vulgar. But many commenters described the festivities as “tone deaf,” as if Trump didn’t realize how it would look to be holding such a party as tens of millions of Americans are facing severe hardship. C’mon. Of course he realized how it would look. He understood perfectly well that he was partying while ordinary Americans were suffering. And that understanding — combined with the belief that he can get away with it — was a big reason he enjoyed the event. During Trump’s first term Adam Serwer wrote a justly celebrated article for The Atlantic titled “The cruelty is the point.” He argued that cruelty, and the joy some people take from inflicting cruelty, are what bind Trump’s most loyal supporters to him: Trump’s only true skill is the con; his only fundamental belief is that the United States is the birthright of straight, white, Christian men, and his only real, authentic pleasure is in cruelty. It is that cruelty, and the delight it brings them, that binds his most ardent supporters to him, in shared scorn for those they hate and fear: immigrants, black voters, feminists, and treasonous white men who empathize with any of those who would steal their birthright. The president’s ability to execute that cruelty through word and deed makes them euphoric. It makes them feel good, it makes them feel proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel united. Serwer was thinking of working-class and middle-class Trump supporters, many of whom are voting against their own economic interests. But you can see the same joy in cruelty, not just in Trump, but in most of his top minions, from Stephen Miller and JD Vance to Tom Homans, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi and Pete Hegseth. All of them clearly take a smirking satisfaction in their ability to stick it to the poor and powerless. What about the guests at the party? What about the oligarchs abasing themselves at Trump’s feet? Some of them may share in the cruelty of Trump’s inner circle. Most probably just don’t care about other people’s suffering, certainly not enough to risk Trump’s wrath by protesting or even failing to show up. So, to repeat, the party at Mar a Lago wasn’t a case of tone deafness, living it up despite others’ suffering. It was in large part a party held to celebrate others’ suffering. As it happens, the obscenity in Florida took place at a time when a number of centrist pundits were engaging in their favorite sport, berating Democrats for being out of touch with ordinary Americans. As usual, their critique seems to be aimed at a right-wing caricature of the party rather than actually existing Democrats. But in any case, has any important Democrat ever done anything as remotely out of touch as Trump’s Halloween bash? Will Trump and his friends pay any political price for this gross exercise in arrogance? They may believe that soon they won’t have to care what voters think. MAGA probably won’t be able to rig today’s vote, but it may believe that it will have thoroughly undermined democracy by the time the midterms roll around. In any case, what’s remarkable and depressing is how successful so-called “populists” have been despite their obvious contempt for the little people.

 

What’s a Scandal When Everything Is Outrageous

 

What’s a Scandal When Everything Is Outrageous

Trump’s ballroom blitz is blatantly corrupt. The fact that no one seems to care shows just how low the standards of behavior have fallen in Washington.

By Jonathan Chait

Salwan Georges / The Washington Post / Getty

November 3, 2025, 9:50 AM ET

 

The revelation that Donald Trump has demolished the East Wing, with plans to rebuild it at jumbo size with private funds, provoked an initial wave of outrage—followed by a predictable counter-wave of pseudo-sophisticated qualified defenses.

“In classic Trump fashion, the president is pursuing a reasonable idea in the most jarring manner possible,” editorializes The Washington Post. The New York Times’ Ross Douthat and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board have similar assessments: We should all calm down, put aside our feelings about the president and the admittedly flawed process by which he arrived at this project, and appreciate the practical value of the new facility.

Let’s forget questions of proportion and aesthetics (I could not be less qualified to judge either) and consider the matter solely on the issue of corruption. Trump has funded the project by soliciting donors who have potential or actual business before the government. By traditional standards, this would constitute a massive scandal.

We know this because a very similar scandal occurred about a decade ago. Remember the Clinton Foundation? After the 43rd president left office, he established a charitable foundation to undertake good works: disaster relief, public health, and other largely uncontroversial endeavors.

But the Clinton Foundation became a political liability after reports suggested that it created a potential conflict of interest. Bill Clinton may have retired from elected office, but Hillary Clinton harbored widely known ambitions to run in the future. So the wealthy people and companies that donated to the foundation might have been hoping for access to and gratitude from a potential future president.

Conor Friedersdorf: Donald Trump thinks America needs a better ballroom

Conservatives were not alone in denouncing this arrangement. In August 2016, the Post editorialized that “some donors to the Clinton Foundation may have seen their gifts as means to buy access—and it points to much bigger potential problems. Should Ms. Clinton win in November, she will bring to the Oval Office a web of connections and potential conflicts of interest, developed over decades in private, public and, in the case of her family’s philanthropic work, quasi-public activities.” Similar criticism appeared from the likes of NPR (“I think it contributes to all of the concern about her honesty and trustworthiness,” observed the now-late Cokie Roberts), the Times’ editorial board, me, and others.

Like pretty much any other pre-Trump complaint, all of this sounds quaint today. But the actual facts of the case are at least as damning. The solicitations for the $300 million ballroom (as of press time—the cost keeps rising) are being made not by a candidate but by a sitting president. The money is going not to charity but to a public project that will, in part, underwrite Trump’s luxurious lifestyle. (Imagine if the Clinton Foundation had been building gold-embossed ballrooms for Bill and Hillary to entertain guests in!) While the Clinton Foundation disclosed all its donors, Trump has kept many of his ballroom donors secret.

The greatest difference is that Trump’s moves to benefit his friends and hurt his enemies are out in the open, which makes the quid pro quo element far cruder. If donating to a Clinton charity was like buying your date a nice dinner in the hopes of getting lucky, donating to a Trump charity is more like bringing a fistful of cash to a brothel.

The Clintons’ conflict of interest drove waves of skeptical coverage and hostile commentary. This concern has yielded barely a footnote in the Trump-ballroom story. The Post brushes off the problem in a clause (“Though the fundraising for the ballroom creates problematic conflicts of interest, two examples validate Trump’s aggressive approach”), later noting, almost in passing, that the donors include the Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos. Douthat and the Journal’s editorial page likewise dispense with the conflict issue in a sentence.

It may well be true that concerns about the corrupting effect of these donations are just too slight against the backdrop of a presidency that has obliterated the wall between public policy and personal gain. I will concede that the East Wing demolition is not the worst thing Trump has done. It may not even rank among the top 1,000 worst things he’s done.

David A. Graham: It’s already different

But the fact that one of the biggest scandals of the Clintons’ careers hardly warrants a harrumph now shows how low the standards of behavior have fallen in Trump’s Washington.

I sympathize with the mainstream media’s inability to properly capture the breadth of Trump’s misconduct. The dilemma is that holding Trump to the standards of a normal politician is impossible. The Times would have to run half a dozen banner-style Watergate-style headlines every day, and the news networks would have to break into regular programming with breathless updates every minute or so. Maxing out the scale of outrage has the paradoxical benefit of allowing Trump to enjoy more generous standards than any other politician has.

Still, although holding Trump accountable to normal expectations of political decorum may be impossible, surely we don’t need to praise him for merely committing normal-size scandals. The people losing perspective here are not the ballroom’s critics, but its defenders.

About the Author

Jonathan Chait is a staff writer at The Atlantic.