Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

The Hunter Biden Saga Takes Another Hit

Published by digby on October 29, 2023

More Federal Prosecutors testify that the GOP is full of it

Oh:

The top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles confirmed to congressional investigators that he declined to bring tax charges against Hunter Biden last year, but insisted his decision did not hamper the probe into the president’s son.

Martin Estrada, the U.S. attorney for central California who made those remarks in closed-door testimony, told the investigators that the Delaware prosecutors running the Hunter Biden probe have long been able to file charges in California. In fact, Estrada said, at least two Delaware prosecutors were given special authority to operate in California long before their boss, David Weiss, was appointed a special counsel earlier this year.

The question of why Weiss’ office has not charged Hunter Biden with tax crimes has been a topic of considerable Republican scrutiny. An IRS whistleblower has testified that Weiss, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney for Delaware, faced roadblocks in charging the president’s son when Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys for central California and Washington, D.C., declined to formally partner with him.

The U.S. attorney for D.C. has pushed back against that claim. And on Tuesday, in a closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee, Estrada pushed back as well. POLITICO obtained a copy of the interview transcript, which is not public.

Estrada acknowledged in the interview that, in the fall of 2022, he declined to “co-counsel” with Weiss on filing potential tax charges in California. Estrada cited the “practical impact of limited resources” for making that decision. But he said he didn’t stiff-arm Weiss; instead, according to Estrada, he offered to help in other ways.

“I discussed our analysis of facts and law to explain to him why we would not be co-counseling on the case, but then I told him that we were happy to provide office space, administrative support for his attorneys,” Estrada told investigators, recounting a five-minute phone call with Weiss on Oct. 19, 2022. “He thanked me for that and the call ended.”

Estrada also revealed that, prior to his appointment as U.S. attorney in September 2022, his office authorized at least two prosecutors from Weiss’ Delaware office to work as “special U.S. attorneys” in the central California district. Estrada said he believed that authorization meant that Weiss could charge Hunter Biden in California without his permission.

The Hunter Biden probe spans multiple jurisdictions because the president’s son was living in California and Washington, D.C., during years when he allegedly failed to pay federal income taxes.

Weiss and Hunter Biden’s lawyers came close to reaching a plea deal this summer that would have resolved the tax issues. But after the deal collapsed, Attorney General Merrick Garland made Weiss a special counsel, formalizing his ability to bring criminal charges anywhere in the country.

Weiss charged Biden with gun crimes last month in Delaware, and he has indicated in court documents that he may soon file tax charges in California. But so far, no tax charges have been brought.

Lawyers for the president’s son have said he belatedly paid taxes he owed, along with penalties and interest, in October 2021.

And then there’s this which should be in the first paragraph:

Without naming Hunter Biden, Estrada discussed how his office decides when to charge people with tax crimes.

“My understanding is where an individual has not paid taxes in the first instance but later paid those taxes with penalties and interest before a prosecution is initiated or an investigation is initiated, we have never brought criminal charges,” he said in the House Judiciary interview.

None of this matters unfortunately. It’s quite clear that the facts mean absolutely nothing in this case. The Republicans are lying about everything and it doesn’t make much difference to the press that they’re doing that. But the truth, to the extent anyone cares about it, is that the so-called “tax case” against Hunter Biden doesn’t exist. He paid those taxes late and paid the penalties and interest. Tens of millions of people do that every year and they don’t have federal prosecutors breathing down their necks.

Very, Very, Very, Very Limited

Published by digby on October 29, 2023

Trump’s vocabulary, according to Bill Barr

Captain Obvious:

During an event at Harvard’s Institute of Politics on Thursday night, Barr spoke about his former boss in largely unfavorable terms. At one point, CBS Chief Correspondent Jan Crawford asked him if he thinks Trump is losing his mind. She cited the former president’s comments calling Hezbollah “very smart.”

“That was appalling,” Crawford said. “I mean, do you think he’s– is he losing it?”

“His verbal skills are limited,” Barr replied, prompting chuckles from the audience. “And so he, you know, if you get him away from ‘very, very, very,’ the adjectives sort of– they’re unfamiliar to him and they sort of spill out and he goes too far. You know, he’s not very disciplined when it comes to what he says.”

Speaking in Florida earlier this month, Trump said Hezbollah – the Iran-linked militant group – is “very smart,” which prompted ridicule across the spectrum. His comments echoed past praise of other notorious figures around the world, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Elsewhere during the program, Barr called Trump “a very petty man” and said he is running for president again for “retribution.”

“Things would start moving toward chaos,” the former attorney general said.

Moving toward chaos??? Was he sleeping the last three weeks? The last six years???

Barr has not said he wouldn’t vote for Trump, by the way. He’s not a fan of that hippie Joe Biden so…

Mike Johnson Is A Mainstream Republican

Published by digby on October 29, 2023

They’re all like him now

CNN’s Harry Enten examines where Johnson is positioned within the GOP:

[There’s been] a bit of a debate about Johnson’s ideological record. Just how conservative is he? A look at the data reveals that Johnson is most certainly well to the right of the median American voter. But he is actually fairly close to the center of a Republican Party that has shifted further right in recent years.

Consider what most people have learned about Johnson: He is an ardent defender of former President Donald Trump and was a key figure in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Joe Biden, of course, was the legitimate winner of that election, and there is no real proof that he wasn’t. Most general election voters agree that Biden won the election legitimately. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that just 29% of registered voters feel he didn’t.

Among Republicans, however, 60% of them said Biden’s win wasn’t legitimate, according to that same poll. Only 23% disagreed.

Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Republicans (70%) in a recent CNN/SSRS survey indicated that the criminal charges Trump faces over his failed attempts to overturn the 2020 election are not relevant to his fitness to serve another term. Even among the general electorate, just 49% said it should be disqualifying.

Indeed, we can’t forget that a clear majority of House Republicans (139 of them, including Johnson) voted against certifying 2020 election results from at least one state. Their votes were outside the mainstream among all House members but not within the House Republican Conference.

The same is true for an amicus brief that Johnson led supporting an effort to get the Supreme Court to overturn the 2020 election results in four Biden-won states. Most House members didn’t sign. A majority of House Republican members (126) did.

The fact is, whether you like it or not, arguing that Biden was the rightful winner of the 2020 election is the minority point of view among Republicans today.

Johnson has also faced criticism for his position on abortion. He co-sponsored a bill to prohibit abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks.

A May Gallup poll found that 59% of Americans were opposed to such legislation, with 37% in favor. This lines up with the pro-abortion rights side winning every abortion-related ballot measure since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year, including in several red states.

But take a look at what that same poll found among Republicans: A majority (61%) wanted abortion banned after six weeks. Johnson, again, is within the mainstream of his party.

Legislatively, most Southern states have enacted bans on abortion at six weeks or even earlier.

I could go on and on about Johnson’s record on different issues that many object to, and we’ll find fairly consistently that while he may not be with the median general election voter, he is with the median Republican voter.

This is best seen through aggregate statistics compiled by the academics at Voteview. Since entering the House in 2017, Johnson has built a voting record that is more conservative than 81% of all members currently serving. He is, however, only more conservative than 63% of his GOP colleagues. In other words, 37% of House Republicans are more conservative than the new speaker. That puts Johnson right in the middle third of today’s House Republican Conference.

In fact, Johnson has voted with the Republican majority 94% of the time this Congress. That almost matches the median House Republican member (93%).

To put that in perspective, take a look at failed speaker hopeful Jim Jordan. The Ohio congressman’s voting record is more conservative than 91% of other House Republicans. Unlike Johnson, Jordan really is out of the mainstream not just within Congress overall but the House Republican Conference, as well.

This isn’t to say that Johnson isn’t more conservative than the Republicans of yesteryear. It’s just that Republicans, as a whole, have become more conservative.

For example, Kentucky Rep. Hal Rogers, who was first elected in 1980 and is the longest-serving House Republican incumbent, was more conservative than 59% of GOP members during his first term. He’s more moderate than over 80% of House Republicans today.

And Republican members of Congress remain representative of their voters. According to a 1982 CBS News poll, less than 50% of adults who self-identified as Republican called themselves conservative. This past year, Gallup has found that over 70% of Republicans say they are conservative.

Of course, polls also show that Democrats have become considerably more liberal over the same stretch. As a result, independents, who are about as likely to identify as moderate as they were 40 years ago, probably feel like neither party represents them.

But there are no independents in the House. There are Democrats and Republicans. And it’s in this political universe where someone like Johnson could have attained the House speakership. He’s simply emblematic of today’s GOP.

Enten isn’t being entirely honest with that last “both sides” comment.

Here’s the comparison:

Here it is from a global perspective:

Don’t blame the Democrats for the sharp rise in polarization. The wingnuts have gone full fascist. And a whole lot of Americans think it’s just great.

Now That He’s Out, Will Pence Endorse Trump?

Published by digby on October 29, 2023

It’s just a matter of when

“Weak,” “delusional,” “wimp,” “liddle,” and “gone to the Dark Side” are all insults that Donald Trump has flung at his former vice president, Mike Pence. But now that Pence has dropped out of the 2024 presidential race, Trump very much wants his endorsement.

Trump, who defended his supporters chanting “Hang Mike Pence” during the Jan. 6 insurrection, spoke about the former VP at a campaign event Saturday night shortly after Pence announced the suspension of his campaign.

“People are leaving [the race] now, and they’re all endorsing me,” Trump said at a campaign event in Las Vegas on Saturday night. “I don’t know about Mike Pence. He should endorse me. You know why? Because I had a great successful presidency, and he was the vice president, he should endorse me. I chose him, made him vice president. But… people in politics can be very disloyal. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

There is no limit to the amount of humiliation Mike Pence is willing to suffer at the hands of Donald Trump. I’m only surprised he didn’t announce his endorsement when he dropped out.

Protests Are Good

Published by digby on October 29, 2023

Protest votes are not. They only help the worst people.

To anyone contemplating not voting for Biden over the Israel war, it’s probably a good idea to also contemplate what will replace him if you do that:

To all those who say that it’s simply too painful for them personally to vote for the lesser of two evils, I’ll just quote that old establishment puppet Noam Chomsky who famously said, “of course you should vote for the lesser of two evils — you get less evil.”

A sermon from the in-box

Published by Tom Sullivan on October 29, 2023

What a healthy church needs, a healthy political party needs too

This message from a retired minister in Knox County, Tennessee has wider application than southern churches:

God may not be dead, but his church is headed for hospice if we don’t get our heads out of our ecclesiastical backsides. 

My wife and I visited a mainline church on a Main Street in a deep red southern town last month and found … the audience from a 1972 episode of Lawrence Welk.

Every hymn sounded like a dirge from the funeral I feared we had stumbled in on.  But, no, the only thing dying was this church.  We couldn’t count five people under the age of 50.

That is a problem Democrats have as well in many places. Political life in this country is dominated by a gerontocracy. That is one reason so many younger people are rejecting political parties and opting to register to vote unaffiliated. If they register. If they vote.

Churchgoing is on a steady decline. Buzz Thomas suggests that if churches don’t evolve, they will die.

That’s why things like the Southern Baptist Convention’s recent decision to oust churches that have women on their pastoral staff makes me think Charles Darwin may have the last laugh.  A church foolish enough to discriminate against the gender that does 90% of the work doesn’t deserve to survive.

Thomas offers some suggestions. First churches should stay in their lane and out of politics. That will be a hard sell to white evangelicals threatened by the shifting demographics eroding their cultural/political dominance. Rather than roll with it, they have convinced themselves that God wants them to rule the rest of us whether or not we like it. They are making concerted efforts to make it so.

People with no memory of Lawrence Welk or 9/11 have a deep focus on climate change. Climate denial doesn’t fill pews:

If you want your church to thrive in the 21st century, you’ll also need to brush up on climate change.  The number one issue for many young people is the environment. And who can blame them? They’re the ones who must live on this hot, stormy, drought-stricken hellhole we’ve created. 

What a healthy church needs, and a healthy political party too, is to let the air in and the stuffiness out:

And perhaps the most important lesson of all. If we want to reach young people, not only must we accept them – be they rich, poor, gay, straight, black, white or anything in between.  We must help them. With their careers and their marriages. With child rearing, addiction, loneliness, depression, you name it. The church should be a place where all people can find hope, a sense of purpose and a place to serve. 

Church should also be fun.  Joyful even. 

My pastor says the church should be like an Irish pub.  The thing about a good pub is you don’t have to believe in anything or behave in a particular way to go.  The first thing is community. Acceptance. Belonging. 

A woman here organizes a monthly Dem Happy Hour Social unconnected to the local party committee. People talk politics, sure, but there is no program, no pressure, no volunteer signup sheets. For newcomers, it’s far more welcoming. If they want to get more connected, well, I offer one of my cards.

Younger people will feel more welcome in local Democratic orgainzations if they have paths available to leadership not blocked by sclerotic bureaucrats. They won’t be handed the keys on day one, but they need to see that they’re not being hoarded either.

“If [churches] don’t make some serious adjustments,” Thomas warns, “20 years from now a whole lot of church buildings are going to be restaurants.”

One my favorites here is a converted church.

At what price?

Published by Tom Sullivan on October 29, 2023

The whole world is watching

BBC this morning offers drone footage of the destruction in Gaza.

Geopolitically, Israel could no more not retaliate for the Hamas butchery and hostage-taking than the U.S. could brush off the 9/11 attacks. The question in each case was always how.

“While you feel that rage, don’t be consumed by it,” President Joe Biden cautioned on his 7 1/2-hour visit to Israel after seemingly ISIS-inspired Hamas attacks. “After 9/11, we were enraged in the United States. And while we sought justice and got justice, we also made mistakes.”

Some of us still remember the mistakes. The PATRIOT Act, the Office of Special Plans, “Curveball,” aluminum tubes, yellowcake uranium, Colin Powell’s U.N. address, the Iraq invasion, Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 2, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation techniques, Guantanamo. Plus, “We’re an empire now.“

Speaking of ISIS, ISIS was the product of our mistakes too.

Did Israel listen to Biden? This is from the Times of Israel on Friday (which I’ve not seen reported elsewhere): Cabinet said slated to okay police use of live fire against protesters blocking roads during multi-front war.

The Guardian cited that report and followed up, reporting:

The war has sparked a crackdown by the Israeli government against perceived dissent, with hundreds of people arrested or disciplined for speech sympathetic to Gazans. Police have been given wide new powers to determine what applies as “support for terrorism”, and have declared they will not allow solidarity demonstrations in support of Gaza.

If you’ve got a sinking feeling that you picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue, join the club.

Biden has pledged America’s unwavering support for Israel. Does the United States of America support Israel shooting domestic protesters? How far does that unwavering support extend?

What Israel has done is launch its own version of Shock and Awe against Gazans. The BBC this morning offers drone footage of the results to date:

The streets of the city are covered in large piles of rubble from collapsed buildings, and homes can be seen filled with debris, having lost their roofs.

Israel has been bombing Gaza since Hamas militants crossed the border into Israel on October 7 and killed 1,400 people.

This would all play better for Israel on the world stage if we saw the bodies of Hamas fighters on TV, not just Palestinian civilians weeping over their dead and wounded. With Hamas invisible, even if buried in their tunnels beneath hundreds of tons of collapsed apartment blocks, what the world sees is Israel slaughtering civilians and starving the survivors.

Nicholas Kristof writes in the New York Times:

One well-educated young woman inside Gaza, Amal, told me over WhatsApp that the victims she knew of were mostly civilians, and she sounded full of despair.

“Constant bombardment has me feeling as if I am not human anymore, as if our souls mean nothing at all,” she told me. “We are being massacred.”

A 16-year-old girl in Gaza offered this message, conveyed through Save the Children: “It’s like we are overpaying the price for a sin we didn’t commit. We were always with peace and will always be.”

As Israel launches ground operations, even if necessary for its security, is eradicating Hamas even possible? And when, not if, Israel withdraws, then what? Who will step in to fill the power vacuum? No regional player wants to.

I’m skeptical, and when I hear backers of an invasion speak of removing Hamas I have the same sinking feeling as when I heard hawks in 2002 and 2003 cheerily promising to liberate Iraq. Just because it would be good to eliminate a brutal regime doesn’t mean it is readily achievable; the Taliban can confirm that.

Then there is the moral cost Israel (and the U.S.) will pay for managing this response badly:

The second prism through which to consider the Gaza war is a moral one, for we have values as well as interests. Decades from now when we look back at this moment, I suspect it’s the moral failures that we may most regret — the inability of some on the left (and many in the Arab world) to condemn the barbaric Oct. 7 attacks on Israelis, and the acceptance by so many Americans and Israelis that countless children and civilians must pay with their lives in what Netanyahu described as Israel’s “mighty vengeance.”

When Israeli Jews were asked in a poll whether the suffering of Palestinian civilians should be taken into account in planning the war on Gaza, 83 percent said “not at all” or “not so much.” I can’t help feeling that while we say that all lives have equal value, President Biden has likewise greatly prioritized Israeli children over Gazan children.

[…]

Every account I’ve heard from Gaza this past week, including directly from people there who despise Hamas, suggests that the civilian toll there has been horrendous. One gauge is that at least 53 United Nations staff members have been killed so far, including teachers, an engineer, a psychologist and a gynecologist. More than 20 journalists have been killed, too, and an Al Jazeera correspondent lost his wife, son, daughter and grandson to an airstrike.

It will get worse before it gets better, and maybe not in what remains of our lifetimes.

Kristof concludes:

Israel faces an agonizing challenge: A neighboring territory is ruled by well-armed terrorists who have committed unimaginable atrocities, aim to commit more and now shelter in tunnels beneath a population of more than two million people. It’s a nightmare. But the sober question must be: What policies will reduce the risk, not inflame it, while honoring the intrinsic value of Palestinian life as well as Israeli life?

People will answer that question in different ways, and I don’t claim to have all the answers. But I think some day we will look back in horror at both the Hamas butchery in Israel and at the worsening tableau of suffering in Gaza in which we are complicit.

And should the war widen into a regional one?

Daddy’s Here

Published by digby on October 28, 2023

That’s all he said about Ivanka. As you can see, it’s really all about him.

It is perfectly justified to bring Ivanka to testify. She wasn’t made part of the case because of the statue of limitations. A technicality. She was one of the main conduits between the Trump org and its major lender, Deutsche Bank so she is certainly an important witness.

“It doesn’t get better than this,” Ivanka Trump boasted in 2011, in an email celebrating the low interest rate she’d just won on a $125 million loan her father needed for his Miami golf course.

Lawyers for the New York attorney general’s office, who plan to call Ivanka Trump to the witness stand on Friday at their ongoing, $250 million Trump fraud trial, agree it was quite the deal.

As Donald Trump’s top loan negotiator, Ivanka Trump indeed excelled at securing rock-bottom interest rates, they say, saving her father as much as $150 million on $400 million in Deutsche Bank loans used to develop Trump’s palm-studded Florida golf course, his luxury hotel in Washington, DC, and the Chicago tower that is his tallest skyscraper.

The terms on the golf course loan were so good, “She didn’t even want to negotiate on it,” Kevin Wallace, James’ senior enforcement counsel, noted four weeks ago, during opening statements.

But the interest-rate savings, which ranged as high as 8 percent, were won through fraud, Attorney General Letitia James argues, and the trial judge has already found. And when she takes the stand, Ivanka Trump will be asked to describe how she turned this underlying fraud – in the form of Trump’s annual, widely exaggerated net worth statements – into easy cash for the family business.

Her testimony at the non-jury trial could prove highly damaging to her father and two eldest brothers, Donald Trump, Jr., and Eric Trump – Trump Organization vice presidents who, like their father, are defendants in James’ lawsuit. Through this lawsuit, James seeks to permanently ban them and the company from doing business in New York.

Someone Ivanka Trump’s testimony won’t damage — other than, perhaps, reputationally — is herself. She was originally a defendant for her alleged complicity in using the fraudulent statements to win loans. But she was cut from the case on statute of limitation grounds in an appellate decision over the summer.

“Until 2017,” when she left New York to work in the Trump White House, “Ms. Trump was the primary contact for the Trump Organization’s largest lender, Deutsche Bank,” James said in first laying out a detailed case against the Trumps in a court filing nearly two years ago.

“In connection with this work,” the AG wrote then, “Ms. Trump caused misleading financial statements to be submitted to Deutsche Bank and the federal government.”

Ivanka Trump will certainly be asked about using the net worth statements to win and maintain the three Deutsche Bank loans, and about what representations she may have made to the bank’s private wealth management group, which underwrote them.

She’ll also likely be asked about one number she did negotiate with Deutsche Bank. The private wealth management group demanded Trump maintain a net worth of $3 billion.

“Ivanka Trump tried to negotiate the number down to 2 billion,” Wallace said in openings, “before agreeing to 2.5 billion.”

She’ll also likely be asked to describe the far higher interest she would have been stuck with had the Trump Organization continued to use Deutsche Bank’s commercial real estate loan division, which did not rely on net worth statements.

Ivanka Trump didn’t just negotiate loans, however.

She played a key role in the Trump Organization’s effort to win a ground lease from the US government for the Old Post Office property in Washington, the historic building Trump converted into a luxury hotel.

When the federal General Services Administration began seeking requests for proposals for the property’s development, Ivanka Trump was the one who presented the Trump Organization’s bid, the AG alleges.

She cited “Donald J. Trump’s significant net worth” in her bid, which included his most recent net worth statement, and instructed, “Please find Trump’s Statement of Financial Condition in an envelope submitted with each copy of this proposal.”

Ivanka Trump can also expect to be asked about the apartment she and her husband, Jared Kushner, rented more than a decade ago in her father’s Trump Park Avenue property in Manhattan.

The couple paid a rent that was a mere fraction of that of other penthouses in the building, the AG alleges.

In 2011 and 2012, the couple had an option to purchase the unit for $8.5 million, documents already in evidence show. But during the same period, Donald Trump’s net worth statements valued the exact same unit at $20.8 million.

Ivanka Trump is scheduled to testify Friday, though it’s possible a last-minute appeal could delay or cancel that timing.

Her brothers are scheduled to take the stand earlier in the week, with Donald Trump, Jr. slated for Wednesday, and Eric Trump slated for Thursday.

Donald Trump himself is scheduled to be the last of the Trumps to testify, on Monday, November 6.

Nuts And Money

Published by digby on October 28, 2023

Lately, it seems like all the very richest, most successful people (men, mostly) are batshit crazy. Here’s a primary example:

The Adidas team was huddled with Kanye West, pitching ideas for the first shoe they would create together. It was 2013, and the rapper and the sportswear brand had just agreed to become partners. The Adidas employees, thrilled to get started, had arrayed sneakers and fabric swatches on a long table near a mood board pinned with images.

But nothing they showed that day at the company’s German headquarters captured the vision Mr. West had shared. To convey how offensive he considered the designs, he grabbed a sketch of a shoe and took a marker to the toe, according to two participants. Then he drew a swastika.

It was shocking, especially to the Germans in the group. Most displays of the symbol are banned in their country. The image was acutely sensitive for a company whose founder belonged to the Nazi Party. And they were meeting just miles from Nuremberg, where leaders of the Third Reich were tried for crimes against humanity.

That encounter was a sign of what was to come during a collaboration that would break the boundaries of celebrity endorsement deals. Sales of the shoes, Yeezys, would surpass $1 billion a year, lifting Adidas’s bottom line and recapturing its cool. Mr. West, who now goes by Ye, would become a billionaire.

When the company ended the relationship last October, it appeared to be the culmination of weeks of Mr. West’s inflammatory public remarks — targeting Jews and disparaging Black Lives Matter — and outside pressure on the brand to cut ties. But it was also the culmination of a decade of Adidas’s tolerance behind the scenes.

Inside their partnership, the artist made antisemitic and sexually offensive comments, displayed erratic behavior, and issued ever escalating demands, a New York Times examination found. Adidas’s leaders, eager for the profits, time and again abided his misconduct.

When he exploded in bitter outbursts at Adidas managers, the company typically sought not to rein him in but to appease him. In negotiations over the years, Adidas kept sweetening the deal, doubling down on its investment and tethering its fortunes more closely to him.

Even as Mr. West voiced increasingly toxic beliefs, privately and publicly, Adidas stepped up production and released Yeezys more frequently. And executives disregarded employee concerns that his troubling conduct risked tainting the brand’s reputation.

As companies increasingly turn to deals with celebrities, the Yeezy collaboration shows the precarious balance of risk and reward. Adidas entered the partnership in hopes of catching up to Nike, which had long dominated the hypercompetitive global sneaker market. But working with Mr. West, one of the most influential artists in the world — a “master of spectacle,” as one former executive put it — meant being tied to a provocative, polarizing and sometimes unstable personality.

While some other brands have been quick to end deals over offensive or embarrassing behavior, Adidas held on for years.

This article is the fullest accounting yet of their relationship. While some details have been reported earlier, The Times interviewed current and former employees of Adidas and of Mr. West, and obtained hundreds of previously undisclosed internal records — contracts, text messages, memos and financial documents — that reveal episodes throughout a partnership that was fraught from the start.

Just weeks before the 2013 swastika incident, The Times found, Mr. West made Adidas executives watch pornography during a meeting at his Manhattan apartment, ostensibly to spark creativity. In February 2015, preparing to show the first Yeezy collection at New York Fashion Week, staff members complained that he had upset them with angry, sexually crude comments.

He later advised a Jewish Adidas manager to kiss a picture of Hitler every day, and he told a member of the company’s executive board that he had paid a seven-figure settlement to one of his own senior employees who accused him of repeatedly praising the architect of the Holocaust.

Again and again, Mr. West contended that Adidas was exploiting him. “I feel super disrespected in this ‘partnership,’” he said in one text message. “I’ve never felt understood,” he wrote in another. He routinely sought more money and power, even suggesting that he should become Adidas’s chief executive.

His complaints were often delivered amid mood swings, creating whiplash for the Adidas team working with him. Diagnosed with bipolar disorder, he at times rejected the assessment and resisted treatment. Tears were common; so was fury.

Meeting with Adidas’s leaders in November 2019 to discuss his demands, he hurled shoes around the room. The month before, an internal text message described him becoming “fully, fully ramped up” and charging, “‘This is slavery’” — an accusation he leveled multiple times during the partnership.

As Adidas grew more reliant on Yeezy sales, so did Mr. West. In addition to royalties and upfront cash, the company eventually agreed to another enticement: $100 million annually, officially for Yeezy marketing but, in practice, a fund that he could spend with little oversight.

At the same time, he scaled his goals, opening an unaccredited Christian school, taking on a disastrous 2020 presidential campaign that reflected his rightward political drift, and promising to create flying cars, build futuristic communities and otherwise solve the world’s problems.

In a statement to The Times, Adidas said it “has no tolerance for hate speech and offensive behavior, which is why the company terminated the Adidas Yeezy partnership.” The brand turned down interview requests and, citing confidentiality rules, declined to comment on financial aspects of the collaboration and Adidas’s relationship with Mr. West.

Mr. West declined interview requests and did not respond to written questions or provide comments.

After the relationship ruptured and Yeezy sales came to a halt, both Adidas and the musician were hit hard. The company projected its first annual loss in decades. Mr. West’s net worth plummeted.

But they had at least one more chance to keep making money together.

The company announced in May that it would begin releasing the remaining $1.3 billion worth of Yeezys from warehouses around the world. As the shoes have reappeared, so has Mr. West. He performed onstage for the first time in over a year. Music from what is rumored to be his comeback album has leaked online.

And he trademarked a new Yeezy creation, a sock shoe, suggesting he intends to keep making footwear — with or without Adidas.

There’s a lot more at the link. The man is very seriously mentally ill with an extremely ugly character — and Adidas didn’t care at all. I guess there have always been grotesquely immoral wealthy entrepreneurs but it sure seems like we’ve had an unusual spate of them lately.