Donald Trump said he would “drain the swamp” in Washington, yet his political appointments seem contrary to that goal.

The election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency did indeed divide America, or, more precisely, brought to the surface those latent tensions that are barely held together by the cash nexus and the ‘Great American Dream’. The Trump/Clinton campaign represented two dichotomies that are rarely brought into sharp focus, due to agreed limitations on what is debatable. As another renegade politician, George C. Wallace, said decades ago, “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans.” Trump’s success in becoming the Republican Party’s presidential candidate offered rare differences that were discernible between the contending candidates. The great mass of discontent among American workers who have borne the brunt of globalization was successfully tapped into because Trump had the independent wealth to conduct a campaign equal to that put up by the “Establishment.” Much of the American population was in an ornery mood to vote for a candidate that was seen as being objectionable to the “elite,” including those of the mass media.

Trump showed all the characteristics of being a genuine rebel. He was opposed not only by the financial elite, but by media and Hollywood, the cultural elite. The revolutionary nature of his campaign is indicated by the slogan that he would “drain the swamp.” The use of the slogan “America First,” by accident or design harking back to pre-War War II days, must have had certain interests very jittery.

Additional to the invective against him by the ‘Establishment’, the liberal and ultra-Left took to the streets following the agenda set by the ‘Establishment’, regardless of Trump’s opposition to globalization and American interventionism. As the ‘not my president’ movement, whose “spontaneous” (sic) emergence has the hallmarks of a George Soros “color revolution,” indicates the dupes of the Left are just as befuddled as ever. They remained histrionically committed to Hillary Clinton, the “Establishment” candidate par excellence; Russophobic, war-mongering, and well-funded.

Paradoxes and Contradictions

Already there are anomalies at work in the ‘transition’ process. Firstly the most promising element of the Trump agenda is for rapprochement with Russia, the eternal, seemingly inherent, antagonist of plutocratic one-worldism. The prospects of rapprochement are seen by the world power elite with such alarm that the word went out to call Trump an instrument of Russia; a tool of Putin.

Here’s where the first paradox occurs. Several of Trump’s key personnel are pro-Russia and have contacts in Russia. When Trump said that he had a “secret plan” to deal with ISIS he was laughed out of court. However, he was being briefed by retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, an eminent strategist, who has been appointed Trump’s National Security Adviser. This seems to bode well for Russo-U.S. relations.

Flynn is aware that the U.S. sponsored “militant Islam,” and would have briefed Trump about this. Trump’s statements that ISIS had been created by the USA, although ridiculed by the mass media, are in accord with history. Flynn as former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) was in the best position to know this. Flynn is at odds with Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr., who said at the confirmation hearing for his appointment to the chairmanship on July 9, 2015 that, “Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security.” Re-read: “the greatest threat…”[1] This reflects the Russophobia of Obama and his would-be successor Clinton, yet Trump is portrayed as the “war monger.”

Of Flynn’s Russian associations, and the way Trump has bypassed congressional objections to Flynn, ‘Republican lawmakers would also likely have grilled Flynn about his decision to do a paid series of events in Moscow that included a speech and an appearance at an anniversary party for RT, a Kremlin-funded TV station, where he was photographed sitting next to Putin’.[2]

In regards to Flynn, well and good so far. However, there is a major problem with his fundamental ideology. He is an advocate of “American exceptionalism,” which sees the USA as having a holy mission to deliver democracy to the world in its own image and under its hegemonic leadership. Flynn stated at a Trump rally: “My message to you is very clear: Wake up, America! There is no substitute for American leadership and exceptionalism.” [3]

Flynn also stated: “Our new American century does not risk its future on political correctness and senseless hyperbole. The time is now to recognize our obligation we have to the world — an obligation to lead the world with unwavering integrity, renewed strength and unapologetic resolve.”[4] The first troubling aspect of Gen. Flynn’s statement is his allusion to “our new American century.” The phrase is reminiscent of, if not directly taken from, the Project for a New American Century, an influential neocon think tank that was led by Israel First luminaries such as John Bolton, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Kagan. It was this outfit that established the foundation, under George Bush, of the USA’s policy in fomenting chaos in the Middle East in the service of Israel, and much of the present imbroglio emanates from there.[5] Certain of these neocons endorsed Mrs. Clinton. They re-established themselves as the Center for a New American Security (CNAS),[6] with the overt aim of “extending American power.”[7] This convergence of neocons and “liberal internationalists” is ably described by Dan Wright.[8]

Trump’s selection for defense has received the endorsement of CNAS, the think tank’s president, Richard Fontaine, stating: “Given the huge amount of uncertainty over the composition of Trump’s national security team, I do think the announcement of a top spot for a general like Jim Mattis has been greeted widely with sighs of relief.”[9] Mattis is Trump’s nomination for Secretary of Defense. With Mattis we have one of a number of troubling paradoxes. Despite Trump’s and Flynn’s pro-Russia outlook, Mattis is decidedly Russophobic. Like Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Dunford, Mattis regards Russia as the USA’s primary enemy, stating in May 2015 that among world threats ‘in the near term, I think the most dangerous might be Russia’. The Washington Times, quoting Mattis, further reported:

“‘I would just tell you that as you look at the Russia situation, I think it is much more severe and much more serious than we have acknowledged,’ the defense secretary-designate told a gathering at The Heritage Foundation, a hub of conservative thought in Washington.

“‘There is the potential, I believe, that Putin has unleashed forces that he will be personally unable to control,’ the former four-star general said. He raised the possibility that Mr. Putin is ‘delusional’ and ‘breaks all the rules’ by, in just one instance, sending heavy nuclear-capable bombers off the U.S. coast. He painted a bleak picture of Russia economically, demographically and socially under Mr. Putin’s long rule, only matched in modern times by Josef Stalin. ‘There is nothing Russia can do to reverse its demographic decline. It’s arithmetic at this point,’ Mr. Mattis said. ‘They do not see having democratic nations on their borders as a good thing. They want security through instability.’

“‘It is very, very hard to pull back from some of the statements he’s made about the West, and I think that right now there are people questioning. Has Putin gone crazy? Is he delusional? And I think that what we have to look at is that we have a Russia problem, not just a Putin problem,’ he said. ‘People say when Putin leaves, it’ll all get better. I think that’s a pipe dream. Russia has the longest borders in the world. It’s in a terrible strategic position.’ Calling Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine a ‘war,’ Mr. Mattis said: ‘Putin goes to bed at night knowing he can break all the rules and the West will try to follow the rules. That is a very dangerous dichotomy in the way the world is.”’[10]

Mattis has regurgitated the party-line of the Russophobes from the Obama administration and Clinton: He talks of Russo-U.S. relations in apocalyptic terms, with Russia as the epitome of evil in the modern democratic—American—era. He portrays the encirclement of Russia by lackey states erected by the subversive network of George Soros, National Endowment for Democracy, and many others, as Russia’s lack of regard for ‘democracy’. He projects the U.S. neocon/globalist policy of destabilising much of the world, as Russia’s desire for instability. He calls Putin ‘crazy’ and ‘delusional’ for wanting to ‘Russify’ Russia.

The USA unleashed the present world chaos because of its Russophobia, by backing the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, for example. But if utter devastation is unleashed for decades to come in the name of ‘democracy’ the world must be grateful to the USA as the paragon of virtue, and anyone who resists is ‘delusional’ and ‘crazy’.

Mattis condemns Putin for ‘breaking the rules’, but whose rules are these? He states that Russia is in a ‘terrible strategic position’, yet condemns Putin for attempting to address this. Mattis is right in describing not just a ‘Putin problem’, but a ‘Russian problem’. Russia is not the West, it is a civilization bloc in itself with a deeply religious foundation that has its own sense of mission that conflicts with Anglo-American-Puritan-money messianism and Israeli messianism.

This, I suspect is what Mattis is referring to vaguely when he fears that Putin has “unleashed force,” the atavistic, reactionary forces of the “black hundreds” that lay dormant within the Russia collective unconscious,” the “shadow” of the Russian soul, as Carl Jung might have called it, that does not fit into Western dreams of “ending history” with a universal liberal-democratic order as the epitome of human progress, beyond which there is nothing more to achieve.[11]

Islam remains an anachronism in this situation also. In certain respects Trump’s rhetoric also sounded alarmingly like the resurgence of the repressed American “shadow,” that of the American gun-slinger in a show-down with the corporate and media snake-oil salesmen who try to define what it is to be an “American.”

The divergence of thinking about Russia was apparent during a vice presidential debate when Mike Pence said, ‘The provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength’,[12] in regard to the U.S.-backed destruction of Syria. The debate became a competition for vice presidential candidates to express the most vehement Russophobia, The L.A. Times report continuing:

“He [Pence] later suggested that the United States should deploy a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland, one that he noted President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opted against early in the president’s term (the U.S. and NATO have since moved to bolster its presence in Eastern Europe).

“‘We’ve just got to have American strength on the world stage, and when Donald Trump becomes president of the United States, the Russians and other countries in the world will know they’re dealing with a strong American president.”’[13]

Mrs. Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, replied that “Clinton would stand up to Russia in a way that Trump would not, noting that Trump has repeatedly praised President Vladimir Putin, raising ‘shadowy connections with pro-Putin forces’.”[14] Shortly after, when questioned by the media, Trump repudiated Pence’s comments on Russia.


Despite Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a key adviser, being an Orthodox Jew, Trump made the Zionist lobby histrionic early in the campaign. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL) has existed as a pervasive presence at all levels of U.S. society since 1913, for the purpose of ensuring that people such as Trump do not so much as get elected to a local school board. Predictably, the ADL tried to associate Trump with an upsurge of “anti-Semitism,” in reference to an alleged widespread reaction against Jewish journalism.[15]

In particular there remains much concern about the appointment of Stephen Bannon, former head of Breitbart News, as Trump’s senior counsellor, the ADL describing Bannan as a “white nationalist.”[16] However, while Breitbart is supposedly a mouthpiece for the “alt-right,” which few had heard of before Mrs. Clinton associated these supposed “neo-nazis” with Trump, it is fairly standard Republican fare, and was established specifically as a pro-Israel network by Andrew Breitbart and Larry Solov in 2007 when they were visiting Israel. Solov boasts of Breitbart News having been “conceived in Israel.” Solov, present CEO and president of Breitbart News, was commenting on the establishment of a Breitbart News bureau in Jerusalem as “returning to its roots.”[17] The senior-editor-at-large for Breitbart News is Joel Pollak, a practising Orthodox Jew and Zionist zealot.[18] One of Breitbart News’ featured sources in its frequent Islamophobia is neocon luminary Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy.[19]

Having been condemned in the usual manner by the ADL and other Zionist organizations, the allegations against Breitbart News seem to be of the type that often occurs between feuding sections of Jewry, in this case Islamophobia being a connecting link between the Israeli “right” and certain “populists” in the West, including Trump, “populism” always causing unease among large sections of Jewry, regardless of being a newfound ally for Israel.

For Jewish interests, this suspicious character of “populism” was apparent early on when Trump gave notice to Jewish funders that he did not need their money. Trump stated at the Republican Jewish Coalition, when still contending for the Republican nomination: “I know why you’re not going to support me. You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money …Look, I’m a negotiator like you folks, we’re negotiators.”[20] A campaign advertisement indicated that Trump is fully aware of the plutocracy that runs the USA. This of course was equated with “anti-Semitism” by the ADL and others. The advertisement featured a two minute speech by Trump, The Times of Israel stating,

“Illustrating Trump’s accusation of a conspiracy against the American people with images of prominent Jews with philanthropist investor George Soros, Federal Reserve head Janet Yellen and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, all of whom are Jewish, appearing onscreen as Trump inveighs against “levers of power in Washington” and “global special interests”—both considered anti-Semitic dog-whistles.”[21]

The dishonesty in equating opposition to plutocracy as “anti-Semitism” is stock in trade for the Zionist lobby, headed by the ADL. Our interest here is that Trump portrayed his candidacy as a revolt against the plutocrats. However, Trump has made some very odd choices for his administration in regard to plutocracy. Having won, the ADL congratulated Trump on his victory,[22] and soon had good reason for optimism. Trump’s first diplomatic act, even before assuming the presidency, was to try and stymie the resolution against Israel’s expansion of settlements introduced into the United Nations Security Council. This succeeded because Obama’s outgoing administration finally had the stamina to defy Israel and did not use the veto.

As an aside, the One Nation Party in Australia, which has four seats in the Senate, condemned New Zealand for sponsoring the U.N. resolution on Israeli expansionist settlements, Sen. Malcolm Roberts stating that New Zealand should be “punished.”[23] The “populist” One Nation party has always been condemned as “white supremacist,” “xenophobic,” etc., and predictably Australian Zionist organizations have been in the forefront of these smears. Among the most despicable of these was the publishing in 1999 of 2,000 names of One Nation party members, and 200 donors, in the Australia/Israel Review from a membership list that had been illicitly acquired. The Zionist lobby’s “top priority” was to stop One Nation.[24]

This is something of the odd relationship that exists between Zionism and “populism,” including that of Trump, with elements of both seeking common ground against Islam, while others remain suspicious. It is similar to, and intersects with, the relationship that Zionism has with Evangelical Christianity, despite the ultimate antagonism between the antithetical world-views of the two.

The Zionist Organization of America issued a statement praising Trump’s efforts in trying to stop the resolution at the U.N.: “ZOA praises President-elect Donald Trump for condemning the anti-Israel UNSC resolution, and the President-elect’s nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman for working relentlessly to try to stop this anti-Israel resolution.”[25]

The above-mentioned David Friedman is particularly problematic in regard to a balanced U.S. role in the Middle East. Friedman had been Trump’s adviser on Israel during the presidential campaign. Trump in announcing the nomination stated:

“‘The bond between Israel and the United States runs deep, and I will ensure there is no daylight between us when I’m President. As the United States’ Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman will maintain the special relationship between our two countries. He has been a long-time friend and trusted advisor to me. His strong relationships in Israel will form the foundation of his diplomatic mission and be a tremendous asset to our country as we strengthen the ties with our allies and strive for peace in the Middle East. Nothing is more critical than protecting the security of our citizens at home and abroad.’”[26]

How this euphemistic rhetoric about protecting Americans “at home and abroad” and U.S. interests in the Middle East is anything other than the USA’s continuation of globalist and pro-Zionist intervention, how it has any association with “America First,” is not yet ascertainable. Trump’s antagonism towards Iran, using the same neocon rhetoric as Bush, Obama, and Clinton, is also problematic. The use of the bugbear of Iran leaves the path open for the continuation of U.S. interventionism, despite Trump’s election comments—“America First”—indicating that the USA will roll back its chaotic world-meddling.

Russia Today commented of Friedman that, “He has opposed the U.S. imposing terms on Israel and its borders.”[27] Israel’s Haaretz newspaper states that Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer, has represented Trump in his Atlantic City casino dealings. “He also serves as president of American Friends of Bet El Institutions, which financially supports the settlement enterprise;”[28] the vanguard of Israel’s expansion into what remains of Palestinian land. Haaretz continues:

“In a video address delivered to a gathering of Trump supporters in Jerusalem a few weeks ago, Friedman promised that ‘a Trump administration will never pressure Israel into a two-state solution or any other solution that is against the will of the Israeli people’ because ‘they know what’s best for themselves.’ He also said that should he be elected president, Trump would be different from all his predecessors in that he would stand by his promise to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem—and thereby formally recognize the city as Israel’s capital. Under Trump, Friedman pledged, there would be ‘no opportunity for mischief at the UN’ because Trump would ‘order’ his UN ambassador to veto every resolution hostile to Israel.”[29]


Trump promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington. So far his appointments and nominations are replenishing the swamp. He implied, as alluded to previously, that he would free America from plutocracy. His “America First” economic policies cannot be achieved without confronting plutocracy. Yet he has appointed Goldman Sachs bankers to the top posts of finance in his administration. Trump owed nothing to plutocrats. Mrs. Clinton was the chosen candidate of the plutocrats, having raised $1 billion for her campaign.[30]

What was notable about the presidential race was the vitriol against Trump by the news media. Had anything like it been seen since the media’s pillorying of Senator Joseph McCarthy during the 1950s? That indicated the character of the political battle that Trump was fighting, and helped spur the backlash in Trump’s favor. While Fox News was seen as the only significant media outlet that gave Trump a fair deal, this was not the case. Fox is owned by arch-globalist plutocrat Rupert Murdoch. It seemed unlikely that Murdoch would be a Trump supporter. He wasn’t. What support was given by Fox News was the result of its boss Roger Ailes, who knew Trump. According to a report in New York Magazine by Gabriel Sherman, Murdoch blamed Ailes for preparing the groundwork for the entry of Trump into the Republican contest:

“Murdoch was not a fan of Trump’s and especially did not like his stance on immigration. (The antipathy was mutual: ‘Murdoch’s been very bad to me,’ Trump told me in March.) A few days before the first GOP debate on Fox in August 2015, Murdoch called Ailes at home. ‘This has gone on long enough,’ Murdoch said, according to a person briefed on the conversation. Murdoch told Ailes he wanted Fox’s debate moderators—Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace—to hammer Trump on a variety of issues. … On the night of August 6, in front of 24 million people, the Fox moderators peppered Trump with harder-hitting questions. But it was Kelly’s question regarding Trump’s history of crude comments about women that created a media sensation’….” [31]

Bannon, while chief strategist of the Trump campaign, had the dichotomy right when stating of Fox News and Murdoch: “They got it more wrong than anybody. Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump. To him, Trump is a radical.”[32]

However, when the Trump grassroots juggernaut proved unstoppable and Fox News viewers became antagonized by the anti-Trump campaign that had been demanded by Murdoch, he switched sides. Murdoch caught up with Trump in Scotland in June, and they played golf at a Trump-owned course. They had also spoken together a few months previously in several meetings brokered by Trump’s so-in-law Kushner.[33] Murdoch was also seen leaving Trump Tower accompanied by Trump’s daughter and aide, Ivanka.[34]

While Trump had been accused of running an “anti-Semitic” campaign by his references to Jewish plutocrats such as Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, alluding to them as the real power in Washington, his two senior finance nominations are drawn from Goldman Sachs. Bloomberg Businessweek refers to Trump having “restarted an age-old tradition of presidents naming Goldmanites to top spots in their administration.”

“Former Goldman Sachs partner Steven Mnuchin served as Trump’s national finance chairman and is now Trump’s nominee for U.S. Treasury secretary. Trump has also tapped Goldman Sachs President (and the bank’s de facto No. 2) Gary Cohn to be his top economic adviser in the White House. Other Goldman alums in Trump’s inner circle include Anthony Scaramucci, a former Goldman banker and a member of the Trump transition team’s executive committee, as well as Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign manager… After eight years as the face of Wall Street greed and the target of public scorn, the bankers at Goldman Sachs can be cheerful again. Not only has Trump’s election stoked hopes for looser regulatory policies that will make it easier for banks to take bigger risks and book fatter profits, but Goldman also appears to have regained its place at the nexus between Wall Street and Washington…”[35]

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, a featured target of Trump’s supposedly “anti-Semitic” campaign advertisement, commented that Trump “may turn out to be a much better president” than expected. The Bloomberg article concludes: “The bottom line: Goldman Sachs stands to be among Wall Street’s biggest beneficiaries of a Trump administration.”[36]

What is odd is the so-called “alt-right” luminary, Steve Bannon, depicted by the capitalists, Communists, and Zionists as something akin to a “nazi,” was also a Goldman Sachs employee. While rejecting the label of “white nationalist,” he states he is an “economic nationalist.” That is the platform on which Trump ran, to reverse globalization. It seems another paradox within the Trump team that the “economic nationalist” Bannon will be hobnobbing with archetypal globalist plutocrats Mnuchin and Cohn. It will be interesting to see how Goldman Sachs association with “economic nationalism” plays out.

A similar dichotomy was at work in the Reagan administration where neocons and palaeocons such as Patrick Buchanan vied for influence, and unsurprisingly the latter were outgunned and outnumbered.

Does Trump believe he can harness American’s oligarchs for America’s interests, as Putin has done in Russia? Or is Trump simply selling out double-quick, in a revolt against plutocracy that might be the biggest con job since Trotsky returned to Russia courtesy of the U.S. State Department and British Secret Service? How will conflicting views among the White House team be reconciled? Can there be any coherence in the Trump administration? Is Trump out of his depth, blinded by hubris, or does he have a Machiavellian plan?


[1] Yochi Dreazen, “Michael Flynn, Trump’s new national security adviser, loves Russia as much as his boss does,” November 21, 2016;

[2] Ibid.

[3] Donald S. Cloud, “Retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn delivers fiery speech to emptying convention hall,” Los Angeles Times, July 20, 2016;


[5] “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” Project for a New American Century, September 2000;


[7] Robert Kagan et al., “Extending American Power,” May 16, 2016;

[8] Dan Wright, “Hillary Clinton’s Project For A New American Century,” Offguardian, June 14, 2016;

[9] James Fontaine, “Trump’s Generals: How Wartime Service Shaped Mattis, Kelly, & Flynn,” December 19, 2016;

[10] Rowan Scarborough, “Trump’s Pentagon pick says Russia ‘dangerous,’ Putin possibly ‘delusional”’, Washington Times, December 6, 2016;

[11] Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (Free Press, 1992).

[12] Micahel Memoil, “Pence talks tough on Russia and backs away from praise for Putin — but did he call him a ‘better’ leader than Obama?,” Los Angeles Times, October 4, 2016;

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Brendan Gauthier, “Anti-Semites love Donald Trump: Anti-Defamation League confirms what journalist already knew,” Salon, October 20, 2016;

[16] “Anti-Defamation League Slams Donald Trump’s Appointment of Stephen Bannon,” Hollywood Reporter, November 13, 2016;

[17] Larry Solov, “Breitbart New Network: Born in the U.S., conceived in Israel,” November 17, 2015;

[18] Carol Felsenthal, “So what’s a nice Jewish boy form Skokie doing with Tea Partiers?,” Chicago Magazine, April 12, 2010;

[19] Breitbart News, “National Security,”

[20] John A. Oswald, ‘5 Cringeworthy things Trump has said about the Jews’, Forward, December 3, 2015;

[21] Eric Cortellessa, ‘Trump campaign fires back at ADL over ad criticized for anti-Semitic tones’, Times of Israel, November 7, 2016;

[22] ‘ADL statement on the election of Donald Trump’, November 9, 2016,

[23] “ ‘Appalled’ One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts seeks punitive stance against Kiwi ‘settlements’ in Australia,” January 5, 2017;

[24] Amercian Jewish Year Book 1999, National Affairs: Australia,” 399-400;

[25] “ZOA urges veto of disgraceful anti-Israel UN resolution on Jewish communities,” December 22, 2016;

[26] ‘Trump names David Friedman as US ambassador to Israel,” Russian Times, December 16,  2016;

[27] Ibid.

[28] Judy Maltz, “What Do We Know About David Friedman, Trump’s Pick for Ambassador to Israel?,” Haaretz, December, 16, 2016;

[29] Ibid.

[30] Matea Gold and Anu Narayanswamy, “How mega-donors helped raise $1 billion for Hillary Clinton,” Washington Post, October 24, 2016;

[31] Gabriel Sherman, “The revenge of Roger’s angels,” New York Magazine, September 2, 2016;

[32] Michael Wolff, “Ringside with Steve Bannon at Trump Tower,” The Hollywood Reporter, November 18, 2016;

[33] Brian Stelter, “Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch sit down for post-Brexit dinner,” CNN, June 25, 2016;

[34] Jordan Fabian, “Murdoch pays visit to Trump Tower,” The Hill, November 18, 2016,

[35] Dakin Campbell, “Goldman is back on top in the Trump administration,” Bloomberg Businessweek, December 22, 2016;

[36] Ibid.