Connect with us

Whitney: Sister Can’t Fly On One Wing

Published

on

Perhaps the drugs were Whitney Houston’s “black” scream, the expression of her rage at the dichotomy between the truth of her life and what we were watching onstage.

 I

“Did Whitney Houston die from drug addiction or from co-dependency?” There are some people who may feel that asking a question like this so close to Whitney Houston’s passing is disrespectful and an act of betrayal. I might agree with them. But celebrity is a curious thing. When people reach Whitney’s height of fame their lives become archetypal, like a prism that we turn in different directions; in the refracted light we see our own stories, our failures and triumphs. A celebrity who has lived a life of entitlement and privilege is suddenly supposed to be afforded the modesty of a private citizen after death. But the fact is that Whitney’s career, her glory, accolades, marriage, addiction, comebacks, not to mention reality show, played out in the public eye. So I’m writing about Whitney because I am shocked by her death, (and at the same time not surprised at all), and like so many others, I’m trying to make sense of what happened and what Whitney has meant to me. Which means I can’t write about Whitney without writing about my life, about myself, and my addiction.

Hours after the news had become public, the paper, news channels and Internet were flooded with tributes to one of the most famous singers of all time and how much she will be missed, even by fellow performers who competed ferociously with her. Whitney knew the business was a killer; she’d been exposed to it at a young age, and released her first album at 22, soon to become a superstar. There was no doubt in my mind that Whitney had genius; her control of her instrument and the beautiful sounds she made with it led to her many Grammy awards and record-breaking sales. Her greatness as a vocalist is unquestioned. What was sometimes in question for me was Whitney’s role as an artist; she was, at times, more a stylist, an interpreter. She could take someone else’s music, and, like an alchemist, turn dross into gold. With the exception of her debut album, I rarely felt the artist’s desire for self-revelation or discovery in her work. There was a ferocious privacy about Whitney, and when I look at her catalogue of music, I don’t know if I really know her, or her story. Whitney was music royalty; with her mother acclaimed gospel singer Cissy Houston, her cousin Dionne Warwick, and her godmother Aretha Franklin, she was deeply anchored in the industry by veterans, and she knew from the women who inspired her how to create the effects she wanted.  Still, for all the power in her voice, and her phenomenal success, something was missing.

I remember in the late 80s feeling especially exasperated at Whitney, or the people who were advising her. She often seemed like just another item on the shelf, like diet Coke, or Marlboro Reds. There was a force guiding her career, and making someone rich, but it was too controlling, too rehearsed. I remember watching the “How Will I Know” video, the paint splashed around on the canvases, the “curly-fries” red wig, and I thought, they have absolutely no idea what to do with her. I was furious when she later recorded the grotesque song “Miracle” and sang, “How could I throw away a miracle, how could I face another day, it’s all of my doing, I made a choice, and today I pay…” the last thing the pro-choice movement, or women contemplating abortion, needed. I thought, “they” are telling her what to sing, and how to sing it, and they are destroying any possibility of discovery – the true indication of art. There is no discovery in business; business is, in fact, the antithesis of discovery: if you go to McDonald’s in Dallas, Texas, or London, England, the fries are going to taste the same.   Someone was encouraging Whitney Houston to be a product, a brand. This amazing black voice was consistently singing bullshit; and not just lovely trifles that became classics like her cousin Dionne, but songs that felt willfully repressive; there was a story that was definitely not going to be told through her. I knew that Whitney wasn’t solely responsible for this, but it was her voice in the end on the record, so they had to have her consent. My question is, did she even know what was missing from her music, and did she care?

I have written before that there is an aspect of the black American experience that may only be communicated through song; as a writer I am humbled by this. And there is an aspect of our experience that can only be screamed. That scream is in Aretha’s music and it’s in Chaka’s, (I’m not talking about singing soulfully or hitting high notes: this “scream” isn’t in Mariah Carey’s music or Christina Aguilera’s.) Because racism in America has at its heart  “a black body swinging in the Southern breeze,” we look to our soul singers for catharsis and release – releasing this scream is often what the experience of the black church is about. Over the years, I scanned many of the pop songs that Whitney recorded for a deeper emotional subtext and sometimes felt ripped-off because there didn’t seem to be any – just a performance, albeit a smashing one. Whitney worked hard for her fans, but it was as if she was saying to someone, “If you’re going to treat me like meat, that’s what you’ll get. It may be filet mignon, but it’s still meat.” I felt her later cynicism towards the industry, that she was holding something back; but there was also a perverse dignity in this; perhaps she knew she couldn’t let them have everything. Someone was trying to make her into a Barbie doll, but they couldn’t force her to like it, to claim it as her identity. In a way, the wigs were an act of defiance as well, part of the costume and the inscrutable wall; her way of winking at us and saying that most of this shit, like the music I’m singing, is false.

A friend of mine from Detroit, whose mother played Whitney’s “Shoop, Shoop” song from Waiting to Exhale until the cassette was worn blank on both sides, would consider this opinion blasphemous.  Their loyalty to Whitney was absolute. “Whitney’s my girl” my friend would say, and, no matter what new rumor we’d heard, that was the end of the discussion. And I understand her devotion, because Whitney, right down to the wigs, the fur coats, the Bible, and the tension between the world famous pop queen and the girl from Newark, New Jersey, was a strong, American black woman. Which is why her death feels like the death of a family member, a sister, or close cousin.  It wasn’t Whitney Houston when you spoke about her, it was “Whitney” – we felt she belonged to us. And we understood her heartbreak on a psychic level, whether she revealed it to us or not.

There are the songs that drive you crazy, that you catch hell for and that change you forever if you sing them, (Billie’s “Strange Fruit”, Donny Hathaway’s “A Song For You”), and then there are songs that may drive you crazy if you don’t sing them, if they don’t find release. I found it curious that Whitney’s songs rarely evoked anger, or spoke of politics, or racism, or anything that might invoke “the black experience.” (Her “revenge” songs like “I Learned From the Best” and “It’s Not Right, But It’s Okay” were fun, and mock-angry, but not based on authentic pain.) Whitney’s voice was a revelation, but we never got her blues song, her protest. I argue that Whitney was an artist in the end, but I believe that she was an artist not because of the music industry, but despite it. And I’m not convinced that Whitney always believed in this direction for her career – perhaps the drugs were her “black” scream, the expression of her rage at the dichotomy between the truth of her life and what we were watching onstage.  As Billie Holiday wrote in her memoir, Lady Sings the Blues,“I had the white gowns and the white shoes. And every night they’d bring me the white gardenias and the white junk. When I was on, I was on and nobody gave me trouble. No cops, no treasury agents, nobody. I got into trouble when I tried to get off.”

 

II

Whitney, like Michael Jackson, had been so much a part of my life it’s hard to remember a time without her. My life is filled with “Whitney Moments”: like snapshots in a family album. I remember the first time I ever saw men dancing together at a gay bar in my town; they played Whitney’s “Love Will Save the Day” every Friday and the tiny floor was packed. Later that year, petrified about coming out, I spoke to one of the Resident Advisors in my college dormitory. He was a very out gay white man with a huge Whitney poster in his room. It was the blue cover from her second album; her hand pushed forward in a stance as sassy as the obvious wig on her head. I sat in his chair shaking with shame as he stretched and pliéd in front of me (a dancer) and said everything was going to be fine, girl, just calm down. Whitney’s bright, reassuring smile seemed to be agreeing with him.

 


As in the blues tradition, “Death come a-creepin’ in my room,” you eventually have to ask yourself at some point, why do I want to kill myself, what I am trying to kill inside me? As a gay man, I know when I’ve sometimes felt the need to kill something inside me, or what I am told – whether from childhood conditioning or Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign – should be dead. I don’t know what Whitney’s demons were, perhaps there were many, but I know there are addicts for whom there aren’t enough drugs in the world, who can’t get high enough to escape, and for whom “excessive partying” is really just a polite term for suicide attempts.


 

She was one of the few black performers on MTV in its early days. I remember when the criticism came that Whitney wasn’t “black enough.”  I don’t know if she took this to heart; but around that time she suddenly changed her look, her sound, and her producers. And she had a very “black” boyfriend, a bad boy which gave her street cred, and who soon became her husband. What everyone was calling love, felt more like a Valentine from the marketing department, but Whitney was ferocious about her love for him, and her loyalty to her man. What’s sad is that she didn’t need to be made “blacker “ (unless by blacker one means she should have been given better, more honest material). People remember Dr. King for his civil-rights accomplishments, and rightly so, but forget sometimes, as they did with the backlash against Sidney Poitier and Diahann Carroll in the late sixties, and even Diana Ross and Michael, that sometimes it’s the crossover black performers, the ones in everyone’s homes, who make a great difference in terms of race; the power of blacks and whites agreeing, if they can’t on politics, at least on art and music, (which was the essential magic of Motown): “They’re singing my song.”  And whether or not Whitney told a story that was obviously “black,” the textures in her voice alone were familiar and recalled a black woman’s experience in America. Whether she was telling her own story in the music or someone else’s, there was authenticity in the rendering.  She was telling a story, and exquisitely, and the world was listening.

When the drugs came, and Whitney’s life seemed like a Cinderella story gone bad, I watched her give interviews, and marveled at the denial in her answers.  And I worried for her; I heard the words, but I wasn’t hearing the humility that comes with real recovery. Perhaps Whitney associated humility with humiliation and refused to let us see her bowed. But she may have had a triumph if she had truly acknowledged what addiction was costing her. One of the reasons why she was such easy fodder for comedians like Debra Wilson and Kathy Griffin was the fact that after a while the denial was ludicrous, and it seemed that Whitney was the only one who wasn’t in on the joke – the nadir came when she asked Diane Sawyer to “show (her) the receipts” for the sums the media reported she was spending on crack cocaine.

I do not know what drugs Whitney used other than the ones she admitted, but I understand her defensiveness. I am an ex crack-addict, a term I am absolutely not comfortable with, and which I submit with various caveats; I only “partied” with others, I only used it to enhance sex, I used for the first time after my mother died because I was depressed, etc. But crack works fast: after only two occasions, I found myself on the floor sifting through the carpet, trying to decipher the paint chips from the crack cocaine chips. (Some of you know exactly what I’m talking about.) I only used for the better part of a year, perhaps a dozen times, and it is my shame that makes me reveal all these things here, because the last thing I want anyone to call me, and I’m sure Whitney felt the same way, is a crackhead. I went to college, my parents “raised me right,” so, please do not compare me to the five a.m., ATM emptying, pawn-shop selling, standing-on-the–corner-begging-for-change crackhead – thank you very much. The only problem with this distinction is that if you believe it, it can kill you.

My message is that you don’t have to reach absolute bottom to get help. I recently told a man I met my story: he laughed and said he used more crack in a weekend binge that I did in my whole “drug career,” but I can’t afford to laugh with him, because it’s this thinking that could send me back out, thinking, “It wasn’t that bad.” Part of me will always crave crack for the rest of my life, period, and crack doesn’t give a fuck how old you are, or how educated, or whether you are one of the greatest singers of all time, or unemployed and living with your mother. I’d much rather tell you I’m in recovery from “cocaine” addiction – there is still a”Bright Lights, Big City” mystique to cocaine, cocaine is sexy to some people. But crack is associated with wretchedness, like combing the carpet for drugs when you’re broke, or being on a reality show and humiliating yourself for attention to help your husband’s career. In a way, I’m grateful for crack, because while you can play games with other drugs — weed, Ecstasy, perhaps even LSD, with crack, and crystal meth you have to face the truth– you will go to the Upper Room and deal with yourself, or else.

As in the blues tradition, “Death come a-creepin’ in my room,” you eventually have to ask yourself at some point, why do I want to kill myself, what I am trying to kill inside me?  As a gay man, I know when I’ve sometimes felt the need to kill something inside me, or what I am told – whether from childhood conditioning or Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign – should be dead.  I don’t know what Whitney’s demons were, perhaps there were many, but I know there are addicts for whom there aren’t enough drugs in the world, who can’t get high enough to escape, and for whom “excessive partying” is really just a polite term for suicide attempts.  The reasons are manifold. We may feel we have to stay high in order to cope with the pressure to succeed, or to make a destructive relationship work.

When I got sober, I met a man who entered my program the same time as me whom I’ll call Mario.  We were around the same age, both men of color, and I considered us to be in recovery kindergarten; we even counted days together. But when I got to 30 days, he picked up a drink. Mario was dating a woman who was extremely toxic and who kept going back to her ex; every time she broke Mario’s heart, he would pick up a drink. Fortunately, a woman in my program who helped me, heard me talk about my past family issues and said, “You’d better go into recovery for co-dependency now. If you don’t, with your history, you’ll never get sober. You’re drinking to numb old pain.” I finally told my friend, when he called me crying, having picked up a drink for the third time, “Your problem isn’t only alcohol, it’s your relationships.” I don’t know what happened to him, but he refused to stop seeing her, and I never saw him again. I thought about Mario, eight years later, when I saw Whitney tell Oprah in 2009 that “Bobby was my drug.”

Prior to that relationship, Whitney was also pursued by rumors that she was gay; that the love of her life may have been a woman. I never knew Whitney, and I can’t confirm this. What I do know is that Whitney didn’t have to be gay for homophobia to affect her choices; in an effort to dispel those rumors and “prove everyone wrong” she may have stayed in an unhealthy relationship long past its sell-by date. Perhaps her pain came from not being able to reveal an aspect of herself to the public, in the way her image was created for her; or perhaps the heterosexism, the religious pressure and the need to prove to everyone “I’m straight” leads to the kind of self-righteous, “stand-by-your man” postures that keep some women stuck with men who hurt them. Whether she was gay or not, Whitney had to deal with the force of our speculation, and the need, for whatever reason, to prove us wrong.

I recognized Whitney in these moments, and I marvel at the contradictions. In interviews, Whitney would talk about singing in church and realizing for the first time as a girl how powerful her voice was; she would close her eyes and sing, and when she opened them people would be shouting and getting the spirit; the Holy Ghost experience as we know it in the black church. When Whitney raised her hand to praise “my Lord,” I know the faith she was speaking of; I recall my great-grandmother who, with her Bible, prayed all kinds of intolerable experiences into shape; who knew and evoked the power of the Holy Ghost in her life.   But I also saw the shadow side of the black church in Whitney; the evocation of Jesus as the ultimate “get-out-of-jail-free card,” or rather, using your Bible as a shield to keep someone from getting too close, from helping you, or encouraging further discussion.  “Leave me alone. I’m going to be fine. Jesus is taking care of everything.” Yes, He is: but he’ll also need you to tear up the drug dealer’s phone number.

Years ago, I was at work and someone said they heard on the news that Whitney Houston was dead.  It turned out to be a hoax. At first, I thought, How cruel, then I imagined that someone close to her wanted her to hear that news story as a premonition; so when I saw the news this time I thought, Whitney’s detractors (or true friends) are at it again, trying to humiliate her into the shaping up because she’s picked up drugs. I waited for the follow-up story, like the teacher saying, “Go back inside now, class, this was just a drill, in the event of a real emergency…” assuming Whitney was still with us.

The follow-up never came. Whitney is gone, and one of the reasons her death is so painful is clear: as an archetype of black womanhood, of American success, of addiction, she was on a hero journey, a journey to overcome her pain, and we were there with her.  We wanted her out of those woods, and into the clearing and sunlight. And despite the schadenfreude that comes with iconic success, the gossip, whispers and laughter, I believe we wanted her to thrive – because if she could, then maybe we could get off drugs too, leave abusive partners, apologize to our children for abandoning them while we were sick, and come back with another success after horror and pain. Despite the fact that we laughed at her pride, I think most of us could feel that even as an icon, she was dealing with what a lot of us deal with: the pain of being more successful than a parent who shared her dream, “coming out” from the image created for her and saying to the “fathers” in her life, that she wasn’t going to be their good little girl anymore. And she almost made it. Last week, I read an article about her role in the remake of the movie about a girl group in the sixties, Sparkle. I imagined the irony of Whitney playing the mother of the lead singer Sister, and envisioned the climactic scene where she realizes that Satin, Sister’s boyfriend, has beaten her again, and gotten her hooked on coke. “Sister, Baby, he’s just gonna drag you to the gutter with him. I’ve lived in Harlem all my life. I do know a rat, when I see one.”  Later in the film, Sister says about her addiction, her abusive relationship, and the pressure to perform, “Sister can’t fly on one wing.” There is no way these scenes, if kept in the new film, wouldn’t resonate with truth, pain, and recognition with Whitney in the role.

Pauline Kael, reviewer for the New Yorker, wrote about Sparkle in 1976,

“If the women who are ‘too much’ for men fall for…rough guys who brutalize them, it probably has to do with…the woman’s insecurity about being too much. The stronger a woman’s need to use her energy, her brains, and her talent, the more confusedly she may feel that she has a beating coming…Movies now seem to be almost begging for this theme to come out. It is highly unlikely that a woman can become a major screen star at this time unless she has a strong personality…In Sparkle, we can believe in Sister, but not in the rise to rock stardom of the docile, unassertive Sparkle, because given the social and biological circumstances of women’s lives, a woman who isn’t called a hard-driving bitch along the way is not likely to reach any top. A movie can show us the good girls winning the fellas, mothering the kids, succoring those who have met with adversity, but a good-girl artist is a contradiction in terms.”

 

III

I was in a restaurant several months ago, going through a difficult time, and Whitney’s “Greatest Love of All” came on. At first I rolled my eyes with impatience; as much as I am into genuine spiritual uplift, sometimes pop anthems, and the way they are orchestrated for high-level manipulation, get on my nerves. But this time I listened to what Whitney was telling me, through the schmaltz. I know I’ve heard that song a zillion times, but at the end I got it, I really heard her, maybe for the first time:  “And if, by chance, that special place, that you’ve been dreaming of, leads to you to a lonely place, find your strength in love.” I capitulated totally to Whitney at that moment, and discovered something new. That the defensiveness I saw in her masked something that also came out in her performance of “I Will Always Love You” – Whitney, in fact, was vulnerable, tender, could easily be hurt, and was, in the end, a healer. The fact that she could reach us so deeply, through so much artifice around her, is a deeper testament to her gift. Our collective heartbreak is that she felt she had to destroy herself, to define herself.

 Image by asterix611

 

Max Gordon is a writer and activist. He has been published in the anthologies Inside Separate Worlds: Life Stories of Young Blacks, Jews and Latinos (University of Michigan Press, 1991), Go the Way Your Blood Beats: An Anthology of African-American Lesbian and Gay Fiction (Henry Holt, 1996) and Mixed Messages: An Anthology of Literature to Benefit Hospice and Cancer Causes. His work has also appeared on openDemocracy, Democratic Underground and Truthout, in Z Magazine, Gay Times, Sapience, and other progressive on-line and print magazines in the U.S. and internationally.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Slashing Welfare’: GOP Eyes Chopping $5 Trillion to Pay for Trump Priorities—Like Tax Cuts

Published

on

House Republicans are circulating a “menu” of options that Speaker Mike Johnson’s conference could chose from—reportedly a massive $5 trillion worth of federal government programs to put on the chopping block to pay for the President-elect’s promised priorities, including tax cuts and border security.

According to Politico, there is an “early list” of proposed cuts (below) that “includes changes to Medicare and ending Biden administration climate programs, along with slashing welfare and ‘reimagining’ the Affordable Care Act.” Also, in addition to suggesting cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), “the document floats clawing back bipartisan infrastructure and Inflation Reduction Act funding.”

Politico also reports that Republicans appear to be considering cuts to “the country’s largest anti-hunger program”—or, SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program formerly known as food stamps.  This would “spark massive opposition from Democrats and would also face some GOP resistance.”

There is far more, including siphoning about $2.3 trillion from Medicaid, a federal government program that has been providing critical health insurance for low-income adults and children for six decades.

READ MORE: Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports

The early list, published by Politico, has positive-sounding categories like “Making Medicaid Work for the Most Vulnerable,” but within that are proposals like “Medicaid Work Requirements.”

Republicans have for years been trying to institute work requirements for Medicaid recipients, despite the fact that about two-thirds of recipients who are able to work are already employed.

“An analysis from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that a national Medicaid work requirement would result in 2.2 million adults losing Medicaid coverage per year (and subsequently experiencing increases in medical expenses), and lead to only a very small increase in employment,” KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) reported in 2023.

The list also proposes “Ending Cradle-to-Grave Dependence,” which, among other items, suggests “Reduce TANF by 10 Percent.”

According to the federal government, “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a federally funded, state-run program. Also known as welfare, TANF helps families pay for” items including food, housing, home energy, and child care.

Republicans also suggest they can save $152 billion in the section titled, “Reimagining the Affordable Care Act.”

Politico got a hold of a leaked list of GOP plans to cut federal spending on Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act
www.politico.com/news/2025/01…

[image or embed]

— Cynthia Cox (@cynthiaccox.bsky.social) January 10, 2025 at 2:01 PM

Politico adds that Republicans are “also eyeing repealing significant Biden administration health care rules, which could include ending a rule requiring minimum staffing levels at nursing homes.” It is unclear how that would provide cost savings to the federal government.

READ MORE: ‘45, 47, Felon’: Trump Sentenced But Expert Warns ‘Now the Gloves Could Come Off’

They also suggest they can pull $468 billion in savings by putting President Joe Biden’s climate policies “on the chopping block.”

Politico’s Meredith Lee Hill on social media noted: “Huge cuts to SNAP – the country’s largest anti-hunger program – proposed in here…would quickly hit +40 million low-income Americans…it’s already triggering immense backlash among some GOP centrists + even more conservative Rs.”

“Speaker Johnson can’t afford any GOP defections,” she added.

Vanity Fair’s Molly Jong-Fast characterized the proposals as “Taking food stamps away from hungry children to pay for tax cuts for wealthy people.

Salaam Bhatti, the director of the Food Research and Action Center, remarked: “Cutting & gutting SNAP and kicking millions of poor people off the program at a time when people voted because they can’t afford to put food on the table is the most out of touch thing I’ve ever seen.”

“Trump voters in red states who rely on those programs are going to love this,” quipped Alex Gonzalez, a political analyst and editor-in-chief for Latino Public Policy Foundation. “Trump wants to cut $5.6 trillion from federal programs to fund $10 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Ironically, red states depend more on these programs than blue states.”

READ MORE: ‘Bananas’: Congressman Asks How Trump’s ‘Insane’ Threats Benefit Americans Economically

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

Trump Trying to Buy Back His DC Hotel Seen as ‘Magnet’ for Conflicts of Interest: Reports

Published

on

President-elect Donald Trump, set to move back to Washington in ten days after he is sworn in as the nation’s 47th President, is reportedly in talks to buy back his former D.C. hotel, a source of constitutional concern during his first term, where foreign governments and dignitaries could spend lavishly. Some legal experts warned of possible violations of the Emoluments Clause.

“Donald Trump’s real-estate company is in talks to reclaim its former Washington, D.C., hotel, a move that could offer an early test of how the president-elect will handle potential conflicts of interest,” The Wall Street Journal reports. “Eric Trump this week met at his family’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida with an executive from merchant bank BDT & MSD Partners, which controls the long-term lease on the hotel, according to people familiar with the matter.”

“An executive vice president at the company, Eric Trump discussed purchasing the lease, though the talks are still preliminary and may not lead to any sale, these people said,” The Journal added. “The Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., is now a Waldorf Astoria and operates in the Old Post Office building, which is owned by the federal government and was leased to the Trumps. Trump opened the hotel in 2016, but sold the lease rights in 2022 for $375 million.”

READ MORE: ‘45, 47, Felon’: Trump Sentenced But Expert Warns ‘Now the Gloves Could Come Off’

Bloomberg News, also reporting on what it calls “early talks to reacquire its former Washington hotel,” notes that critics “said the mixing of business and political activities was a conflict of interest. The hotel was at the center of at least two lawsuits accusing the president of violating the emoluments clause of the US Constitution, which bars presidents from receiving gifts or payments from foreign governments.”

According to a report in The Independent, the Trump International Hotel Washington D.C. took in more than $3.7 million from foreign governments during Trump’s tenure as President. “This raises concerns about possible violations of the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause, which says that Congress should approve any gifts to officeholders from foreign governments.”

The U.S. Secret Service spent at least $1.4 million at his D.C. hotel as well, according to an ABC News report citing congressional documents.

“The Trump Organization on some occasions charged the Secret Service more than five times the government rate to stay at Donald Trump-owned properties while the agency was protecting him and his family,” ABC News also reported.

READ MORE: ‘Bananas’: Congressman Asks How Trump’s ‘Insane’ Threats Benefit Americans Economically

Legal experts and a watchdog group are once again expressing concern.

“Instead of mitigating conflicts of interest ahead of his inauguration, looks like Trump is doubling down on corruption by trying to get the lease on the DC hotel back,” warned CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

CQ Roll Call White House Correspondent and editor-at-large John T. Bennett responded to CREW by saying, “Not sure why anyone would expect him to, after all these years.”

New York Times’ business investigations reporter David Enrich notes: “The Trumps are looking to reclaim their DC hotel, which is down the street from the White House and was a magnet for conflicts of interest in his first administration.”

READ MORE: ‘Mexican America’: President of Mexico Trolls Trump With Vintage Map

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘45, 47, Felon’: Trump Sentenced But Expert Warns ‘Now the Gloves Could Come Off’

Published

on

President-elect Donald Trump, at 10:07 AM ET on Friday, was sentenced by Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan after a jury of his peers found him guilty on 34 criminal felony counts of business fraud for what Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg described as “falsifying New York business records in order to conceal his illegal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election.”

He received no punishment. In 10 days, Donald Trump will become the first person to enter the White House as President of the United States as a convicted felon, barring any extraordinary efforts.

Trump’s “conviction, a Class E felony offense, is eligible for a penalty of up to four years in prison and several thousands of dollars in fines per count,” Politico reports. But Judge Merchan “instead issued a so-called ‘unconditional discharge,’ a decision that will spare the incoming president any jail time, fines or probation.”

Merchan told Trump, “This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of judgement of conviction, without encroaching on the highest office of the land is unconditional discharge,” The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports.

READ MORE: ‘MAGA Friendly’ Fetterman Blasted for Accepting Trump Mar-a-Lago Invite

Trump said Thursday night he will appeal the conviction.

The President-elect was allowed to appear virtually and was accompanied by his attorney, Todd Blanche. Trump has indicated he will nominate Blanche to be the United States Deputy Attorney General.

A billionaire real estate magnate who entered politics with no experience in 2015 by showcasing his wealth and attacking Mexican immigrants, Trump found his 2016 presidential campaign in jeopardy after the “Access Hollywood” tape was released. It showed a grown man making lewd comments about women, including what many perceived as him joking about, and appearing to brag and admit to, sexual assault. Originally recorded in 2005, it was released just one month before the 2016 election to widespread and bipartisan condemnation. Denying his comments were admitting to sexual assault, Trump called it “locker room talk.”

Trump was found to have paid “hush money” to adult film actress Stormy Daniels—with whom he reportedly had a sexual encounter—in what prosecutors said was an effort to protect his presidential campaign.

A Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump in March of 2023. He was arraigned days later. The jury trial was held in April of 2024. Trump was convicted on all 34 felony counts.

Trump had made desperate attempts to delay sentencing, which originally had been scheduled for July 11, and had already been postponed twice. But Thursday night, after three New York courts refused his requests, the U.S. Supreme Court also refused to stay Friday’s sentencing.

“Over the past week, Trump’s lawyers filed hundreds of pages of high-pitched arguments in four courts, at every level of the NY judiciary and SCOTUS, in a failed bid to stop these proceedings,” reported Just Security’s Adam Klasfeld.

During Friday’s sentencing, New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass berated Trump and his actions.

“This defendant has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm’s way,” he told Judge Merchan, according to Courthouse News reporter Erik Uebelacker.

Steinglass added that Trump “engaged in a coordinated campaign to undermine its legitimacy. Far from expressing any kind of remorse for his criminal conduct, the defendant has purposely bred disdain … for the rule of law,” Uebelacker also reported.

Klasfeld reported that Steinglass also told the court: “Today’s sentence ‘cements’ Trump’s ‘status as a convicted felon’ and ‘gives full respect to the jury’s verdict.'”

“After confirming that prosecutors recommend a sentence of unconditional discharge,” Klasfeld added, “Assistant DA Joshua Steinglass tears into [Trump] and his ‘threats’ to ‘retaliate against prosecutors.'”

READ MORE: Alito’s ‘Unmistakable Breach’ Warrants Recusal in Trump Case: Judicial Policy Expert

Politico’s Kyle Cheney observed, “The reality of Trump’s long-delayed sentence means he will have to fight the appeal while in office, a dynamic his lawyers argued would be a distraction on the presidency. But an appeal is also his only chance to erase the ‘felon’ label, and he seems eager to begin that process.”

“NOW you can call him a convicted felon,” remarked NBC News Justice and Intelligence Correspondent Ken Dilanian.

Some critics, including legal experts, are expressing disappointment and frustration.

“Donald Trump sentenced to a complete and total victory over the justice system,” civil rights lawyer Matthew Segal, the co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, wrote from his personal social media account.

“Trump, escaping all punishment for dozens of felonies, says he’s been treated ‘very unfairly,'” observed Talking Points Memo founder Josh Marshall.

“45, 47, Felon,” remarked former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade, an MSNBC/NBC News legal analyst.

SiriusXM host Dean Obeidallah, a lawyer, lamented the outcome: “No where can you find a person convicted of 34 felonies who is sentenced to no penalties. Period,” he wrote.

“Trump should not be heading to the White House. He should be reporting to prison,” he added.

Obeidallah also predicted that “Trump will 100% commit more crimes in the next few years. How do I know that? Simple, because Trump knows he will never be held accountable.”

Former TIME magazine managing editor Richard Stengel, who served as an Under Secretary of State for President Barack Obama, commented: “I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to live in a country where no person—not a president-elect, not a president—is above the law.”

MSNBC/NBC News legal correspondent Lisa Rubin notes that “now that the sentencing is over, the gloves could come off. Why? Merchan has no more leverage over Trump. The sentencing is over, and so, according to a June 2024 order, is the gag order Trump constantly complains about and frequently distorts. That order expressly expires with ‘the imposition of sentence.'”

READ MORE: ‘Mexican America’: President of Mexico Trolls Trump With Vintage Map

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.