James
Hacker [played
by Paul Eddington]: “What do you know about Phillips Berenson?”
Sir
Desmond Glazebrook
[played by Richard Vernon]: “What do you know about Phillips
Berenson?”
Hacker: “Well, uh... only what I read in
the papers.”
Glazebrook: “Oh, good. Yes, well, they're in
a bit of trouble, that's all. They lent a bit of money to the wrong chaps.
Could happen to anyone.”
Dorothy
Wainwright [Hacker’s
political adviser] [[played by Deborah Norton]: “So you haven't
heard any rumors?”
Glazebrook: “Oh well, there are always
rumors.”
Dorothy: “Of bribery, embezzlement,
misappropriation, insider dealing?”
Glazebrook: “Oh, come, come, dear lady, those
are strong words.”
Dorothy: “So they're not true?”
Glazebrook: “Well, there's... there are
different uh, different ways of looking at things.”
Dorothy: “What's a different way of
looking at embezzlement?”
Glazebrook: “Oh, well, of course, if a chap
embezzles, you have to do something about it.”
Hacker: “Have a serious word with him?”
Glazebrook: “Absolutely. Usually it's just a
chap who's advanced himself a short-term, unauthorised, unsecured, temporary
loan from the company's account, and, uh, invested it unluckily. You know,
horse falls at the first fence, that sort of thing.”— Yes, Prime Minister,
Season 2, Episode 4, “A Conflict of Interest,” original air date Dec.
31, 1987, teleplay by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, directed by Sydney Lotterby
You can
keep your Benny Hills. When it comes to British TV humor, Yes, Minister,
and its equally waggish follow-up, Yes, Prime Minister, are the shows
for me. These UK political satires aired in the Eighties, and the closest we’ve
had stateside has been the more potty-mouthed Veep. I wish they would be
broadcast as often this side of the Atlantic as The Honeymooners.
The
government bailouts of risk-happy financial institutions at the heart of the
above dialogue is something that has rightly enraged American taxpayers, with
the Bush I-era savings and loan scandal and the Global Financial Crisis of the
“oughts.” But something else intrigued me about this episode: that title, “A
Conflict of Interest.”
That
concept has been a part of American life since the founding of the republic,
including the establishment of the First National Bank and, more starkly,
slaveowning lawmakers who passed legislation benefiting themselves at the
expense of other human beings.
But these
ethically questionable interactions of government and business have ramped up,
to an unprecedented degree, under the current administration.
President
Trump, his family, and his Cabinet have profited so abundantly and shamelessly
from such transactions—and following their trail has been so complex—that many,
if not most, Americans have given up trying to keep track of it all. It’s much
easier to follow the Epstein files (though, truth be told, financial interests
are an often-overlooked part of this still unresolved scandal).
The
outcome is what you might expect. None of the departments in the executive
branch make even a pretense now at the relatively gentle coaxing of the truth from
Sir Desmond employed by PM Hacker and his aide Dorothy. The regulatory agencies
that could have raised alarms were emasculated by Trump and Elon Musk’s
Orwellian-titled Department of Government Efficiency.
The path
was paved for this through three Supreme Court decisions that gave the Trump
Administration virtual carte blanche to transform the government into an
endless slot machine for themselves and their allies:
*In Trump
v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Trump v.
District of Columbia) (2021), the justice vacated lower courts’ rulings involving allegations
that, as president, Trump benefited from the hotels and restaurants that he
owns, violating two anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution known as the
emoluments clauses.
* In
Trump v. United States (2024), the GOP-appointed majority ruled that former
presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions
within their core constitutional powers, and at least presumptive immunity for
all other official acts—a decision opening the door to Trump lawlessness in his
return to power.
* In
Murphy V. NCAA (2018), the court invalidated a federal ban on states legalizing sports gambling—opening the way to, as Drew Hutchinson’s May Bloomberg Law article noted, is opening companies to “questions about insider
trading, reputational and legal risk, and whether internal policies address
this new environment.” And what do you know—Donald Trump Jr. is an adviser to
Kalshi, one of the two major prediction market platforms, and a major investor
in another, Polymarket.
As Financial
Times columnist Gillian Tett noted, “If Trump dictates how prediction
markets develop, while his family profits, it will make Washington look (even
more) like a corrupt casino. So, too, if insider trading goes unchecked.”
Over the
last 560 days, the Trump family has taken in an estimated $2.7 billion,
according to “Trump’s Take,” a real-time financial tracker documenting
the cash and gifts that the President and his family have received by selling
the presidency.
All the
money-making schemes—ventures that would have been certainly regarded as
undignified under all his predecessors, and even unconstitutional—have just
kept coming: Trump Bibles, fragrances, gold cell phones; the $TRUMP Meme Coin; "America's
250th Anniversary" hats; and a luxury resort proposal by son-in-law Jared
Kushner in Albania that has drawn more than a week’s worth of protest in that
nation over the potential environmental damage it may cause.
Then there
is the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) scheduled for the White House South
Lawn on June 14—not so coincidentally, Trump’s birthday.
Leave
aside whether this tacky $60 million spectacle would have been better staged in
the Roman Coliseum under an ancient emperor’s gaze, or even whether the event
offers Trump ally and UFC chief executive Dana White direct access to the White
House for a prime marketing opportunity.
Lost in
all of this is that Trump bought between $15,000 and $50,000 of stock in the parent company of UFC, TKO Holding Group—a little more than two weeks after
he began promoting the event.
Conflict
of interest, anyone? Well, as Sir Desmond might say, there are “different ways
of looking at things.”
Though
they will never be able to overtake their lord and master when it comes to
quantity and audacity, the Trump Cabinet is doing its best to do well
financially at the country’s expense. This online resource from the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) itemizes all the ways that each Trump Cabinet member has
engaged in conflicts of interest. They are worth exploring in depth, but I’ll
just highlight some of the more egregious ones:
*Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick
(who, after his evasive talk about his connection to Jeffrey Epstein, should
change his surname to “No-Good-Nick”) is now coming under scrutiny for his
relationship with Tether, the world’s largest stablecoin issuer.
* Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earned around $2.5
million in referral fees from 2022 through September 2025 from Wisner Baum, a
law firm suing Merck, the maker of the HPV vaccine Gardasil—putting RFK Jr.’s
vaccine skepticism in an ever worse light, if that’s possible.
* Education Secretary Linda McMahon was required to divest from
financial holdings that posed possible conflicts of interest, but does not
appear to have done so as of July of last year, according to a complaint filed with
the Office of Government Ethics by the CLC.
In keeping
with PM Hacker’s question—“Have a serious word with him?”—if the “him” in question is
Trump, I say “Yes.” And let that word, as soon as mathematically and
electorally possible, be “impeachment.”
No comments:
Post a Comment