Jamie Raskin Demands Investigation Of Trump Businesses’ Foreign Cash Flows


In a prepared statement released on Tuesday, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) — the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee — called attention to details showing millions of dollars in income from foreign government sources at Trump business entities while the former president was in office.

Raskin pointed readers that direction in the context of Republicans desperately trying (but failing) to implicate President Joe Biden in ostensible financial corruption involving family members of his, particularly his son Hunter Biden. Republicans even heard recently from an art gallery owner who runs an operation that’s sold art originating with Hunter. The gallery owner indicated there was neither knowledge of nor involvement in the art sales by the president, again effectively distancing the current commander-in-chief from imagined ties to either income or some kind of benefit supposedly doled out.

“Just like every other witness in this embarrassing slapstick investigation, George Bergès stated he had no evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden. Hunter Biden made art that Bergès sold in his gallery, and President Biden had no knowledge of, or role in, these art sales,” Raskin said, adding: “If Chairman Comer seriously wants to stop corrupt foreign influence and violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, I encourage him to check out the millions of dollars Donald Trump raked in from foreign states and murderous monarchs. Alas, Chairman Comer blocked us from getting all the discovery to which we are entitled but we got enough to know that Trump was on the take big-time from foreign states, raking in huge spoils from the royals.”

On Wednesday, the House Oversight Committee and the House Judiciary Committee both met to go over Republicans’ ambitions of targeting Hunter for allegedly falling short of subpoena compliance, though he’s expressed openness to answering committee members’ questions publicly, which would skirt the possibility of anyone setting a narrative around whatever Hunter said without the accompanying facts made public. A resolution holding Hunter in contempt was eventually approved, which will not necessarily amount to anything substantive outside the House.