I saw this going viral, Why the Media Is Pro-Trump (yes, you read that right).
Richard outdoes himself with this door-stopper of a rant. He’s not even trying to hide his loathing for Trump anymore. The article got 300 ‘likes’, and his brand has grown greatly over the past year as a ‘anti-woke Trump critic’. He went from posting one or two articles a week to an article daily to capitalize on his newfound success. So while you cannot argue with success, I will take it upon myself to do so anyway.
There is so much wrong with the article it’s hard to know where to start. The author tries contrast Hunter’s alleged corruption, which turned up nothing, with Trump’s alleged very-real corruption, writing:
Meanwhile, Donald Trump personally profits off his position, and does so straightforwardly through his social media account and events he attends. The brazenness and extent of the sums involved are without precedent. Trump netted over $600 million in 2024 by, among other ventures, selling “Bibles, watches, perfumes, shoes, and NFTs”. His stake in Truth Social, a company that exists for no other reason than to host Trump’s posts, was worth $2.1 billion as of June, though to be fair that number would collapse if he ever sold his shares. As The New Yorker has written,
Trump’s crypto projects exploit the overlap between gamblers and his base, but there is nothing illegal about this per se. It’s not a crime to capitalize on one’s brand/likeness and a gullible public. It’s like Michael Jordan earning a billion dollars to endorse a type of shoe. One can argue Air Jordans are overpriced and that the public is dumb or gullible to overpay for shoes, but that is his right. The fact the author ignores this distinction betrays any pretensions of intellectual honesty or goodwill.
The author’s examples of scandals involving far smaller sums are for things like interference of an investigation, influence peddling /bribery, or where taxpayer dollars are involved. But Trump making billions from scammy crypto projects is the equivalent of Gore and Clinton cashing in on their legacies to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, such as consulting, speeches, books or various business interests. At least in the case of Trump it is more transparent. Crypto ‘money flows’ can at least be traced on a blockchain, compared to NGOs.
As for the media ignoring Republican corruption or Republican corruption going unanswered, also false. Many Republicans have been embroiled in scandals for trifling amounts; e.g. Bush staffer Claude Allen, who in 2006 received a felony for shoplifting, or in 1991 White House Chief of Staff John Sonunu’s private jet expenses, which eventually contributed to his resignation, due to outrage.
Continuing:
Putting the numbers together, the author calculates that Trump and his family have made $3.4 billion off his time in politics. As many of the projects involve foreign investors and crypto, there are direct conflicts of interest involved. After a Chinese businessman pumped $75 million into crypto tokens backed by the Trump family, for example, the SEC stopped pursuing civil fraud charges against him.
Yeah except it’s a civil matter. It’s customary to pay a fine to resolve a civil case, as that is what civil implies, as it is a monetary dispute instead of a criminal one. It does imply he bribed Trump. This would be like accusing someone of ‘buying their way out of a speeding ticket’ by paying the fine. It’s not uncommon for the SEC to drop cases. In fact, in December 2024, it was reported “Significant Drop in SEC Enforcement Actions, Financial Remedies Reach Historic High.” Who was in the White House from 2021-2024? Yeah.
The evidence, to the contrary, suggests Trump may be among the least corruptible presidents ever. His pardon rate during his first and second terms are among the lowest ever (excluding the Jan 6th ‘blanket pardon’) of any president, indicating not being easily persuaded.
Because Trump is so wealthy, you will never see him using taxpayer dollars to fund his own personal extravagances. Moreover, he has proven to be much more incorruptible in terms of not being beholden to financial interests, even by his own supporters and donors. He’s like, “You will get nothing, and you will like it,” to his crypto donors, “but you can buy my shitcoin.”
When Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced on August 14th that “Bitcoin purchases were of off the table” to fund the reserve, Trump could have rebuked him by saying that he had misspoken. But he didn’t, indicating they were in agreement. In fact, Trump hardly even talks about Bitcoin.
In Summer 2024, the biggest names in the crypto industry rolled out the red carpet for Trump with the implicit promise of a ‘Bitcoin reserve’. Now a year into his term, and pretty much nothing, save for an an unfunded ‘crypto stockpile’. Conversely, those who donated nothing, or opposed Trump–or censored Trump supporters on social media–were given the ‘all-star MVP’ treatment, being invited to dinners and getting massive taxpayer-funded initiatives, like for AI or semiconductors.
So it goes to show how Trump is not for sale in that sense. Richard is right insofar that Trump is a ‘scammer’, but only to those who give him money or buy his coins in the expectation of getting something in return, but this is also makes him less corruptible as well, so his argument that Trump is exceptionally corrupt falls apart.
It bears repeating Trump is the most vetted man in America. In the past decade he has been in the public eye, if the media had anything that they could pin on him, they would have done so, and so far everything has bounced. The bombshells about scandals or election fraud were either lies (russiagate), or ignored by voters. Or quasi-legal, like using various loopholes to minimize his tax burden, which everyone who is wealthy, including the left, does.
Some of these accusations against Trump were at state level, not federal, and the legal system moves slowly. But in those situations, they tended to involve Trump’s personal affairs, like the various hush money scandals, not the inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars, in which all bets are off if, as voters have zero tolerance for such indiscretion on the public’s dime.
Indeed, in 2017, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price resigned “in the face of multiple investigations into his use of private charter and military jets,” similar to Mr. Sununu. This explains how those stories were such a big deal that led to tangible consequences despite the relatively small amounts of money at stake, compared to Trump’s billions. On October 22nd, 2025, Paul Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination for a Trump-led watchdog group after offensive text messages came to light. This got widespread media coverage, to the contrary of the media ‘covering for Trump’ as the author claims.
The fact Hanania doesn’t make a distinction between the public voluntarily giving money to Trump, albeit stupidly but 100% legal, vs. Trump dipping into the public coffers for personal expenses or overt criminality, is intellectually dishonest of him. Movrever, he ignores the many scandals involving Republicans that got widespread media coverage.