scott jennings: cnn laughs at his trump pardon excuse

Trump's Pardons: A Numbers Game of Favors and Falsehoods

Scott Jennings' recent CNN appearances offer a fascinating case study in political spin, but more importantly, they highlight a disturbing trend: the monetization of presidential pardons. Let's break down the numbers, shall we?

The Curious Case of Changpeng Zhao

Jennings' defense of Trump's pardon of Changpeng Zhao, the Binance founder convicted of money laundering, hinges on the idea that Trump "personally" didn't know Zhao. Okay, let's unpack that. Trump claimed on 60 Minutes he didn't know Zhao. But here's where the story gets interesting. Binance invested $2 billion—yes, billion—in World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s cryptocurrency business. Does that constitute a personal connection? Maybe not in the strictest legal sense. But in the world of high finance (and, let's be honest, Trump's world), that's a pretty significant transaction.

And then there's the lobbying effort. Zhao hired lobbyists to persuade Trump to grant him a pardon. We don't know exactly how much was spent on lobbying (details on that are conveniently scarce), but it's safe to assume it wasn't chump change. Now, I've looked at hundreds of these filings, and this particular sequence of events is unusual. A massive investment followed by a pardon, despite a guilty plea and a $50 million personal settlement from Zhao. The optics aren't great, to put it mildly. The discrepancy between Trump's claim of ignorance and the financial realities paints a very different picture. Is it proof of quid pro quo? Hard to say definitively. But it certainly raises eyebrows.

The Mamdani Misdirection

Then there's Jennings' commentary on Zohran Mamdani's NYC mayoral race win. Jennings framed it as Mamdani becoming "the leader" of the Democratic Party, a statement that was met with laughter from the CNN panel. David Axelrod even joked that Mamdani was "a life raft for Republicans." Van Jones chimed in, saying he was "a lot happier" than Jennings was sad. The whole exchange felt…performative. CNN Team Straight Up Laughs At Scott Jennings’s Take On Dem Victory - mediaite.com

David Hogg then pointed out the irony of Jennings lecturing about affordability while sporting a Rolex. Now, I generally avoid getting caught up in the emotional fray of online arguments. But Hogg's comment struck a nerve, and it speaks to a broader issue. It's easy to dismiss these exchanges as mere political theater. But the underlying numbers tell a story of a widening disconnect between the political class and the realities faced by average Americans. The median income in NYC is around $70,000. A Rolex, depending on the model, can easily cost more than that. The visual juxtaposition is hard to ignore.

The Underlying Trend: Monetizing Influence

What are we really talking about here? It's not just about one pardon or one mayoral race. It's about the increasing monetization of influence, the blurring lines between political favors and financial transactions. The Zhao pardon, the Mamdani misdirection, it all points to a system where access and influence are increasingly determined by wealth.

Is this a new phenomenon? Of course not. But the scale and brazenness of it seem to be accelerating. We need to ask ourselves: what is the long-term cost of this trend? How do we ensure that political decisions are driven by the public interest, not by private gain? And perhaps most importantly, how do we cut through the spin and get to the underlying data that reveals the true nature of these transactions?

Follow the Money

The real story isn't about personal connections or political victories. It's about the flow of capital and the increasingly transactional nature of our political system. The numbers don't lie.