Mike Arnold writes from his Facebook page:
There is also corruption and cover-up in the United States.
TRUMP DUMPED ONE GUILFOYLE IN DAYS. WHY IS HE PROTECTING BOULOS?
The recent controversy surrounding Kimberly Guilfoyle has raised an uncomfortable question about accountability within the Trump administration: why are some officials swiftly removed when allegations become politically damaging, while others facing equally serious questions appear to remain protected?
Last week, President Donald Trump’s administration asked Kimberly Guilfoyle, the U.S. ambassador to Greece and former fiancée of Donald Trump Jr., to resign following a series of allegations concerning her conduct.
The most serious allegation involved claims that Guilfoyle asked Trump donor Eric Deters to pay a $100,000 American Express bill and offered access to senior administration officials in return. Reports also alleged that she requested the money be transferred in a manner that would leave no obvious paper trail. Deters did not make the payment. Guilfoyle has denied wrongdoing and disputed the authenticity of the messages cited in the reports.
The allegations did not stop there. Reports also raised questions about her dealings with Greek business interests, including the promotion of a Greek construction and energy company and the involvement of its lobbyist in diplomatic engagements. The State Department’s Office of Inspector General opened an investigation into the allegations.
Trump ultimately moved quickly. On October 13, the White House confirmed that Guilfoyle had been asked to resign.
That raises the question: if allegations of improper influence were enough to make Guilfoyle a liability, what standard is being applied to other members of Trump’s inner circle?
One name increasingly being placed under scrutiny is Massad Boulos, Trump’s Senior Adviser on Arab and African Affairs and the father of Michael Boulos, who is married to Trump’s daughter Tiffany.
Boulos became particularly controversial in Nigeria following comments he made in Rome in October 2025 after meeting President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the sidelines of the Aqaba Process meeting.
Nigeria’s State House confirmed that Tinubu held a bilateral meeting with Boulos in Rome.
Following that meeting, Boulos publicly rejected claims that the violence in Nigeria could simply be characterized as a targeted Christian genocide. He argued that terrorism affects Nigerians across religious and ethnic lines and stated that Boko Haram and ISIS had killed more Muslims than Christians. He also described farmer-herder violence in the Middle Belt as a conflict involving farmers and herders rather than something that could automatically be classified as religious persecution.
For critics such as Mike Arnold, those remarks amounted to repeating the Nigerian government’s preferred explanation for the violence and minimizing the persecution experienced by Christian communities.
Arnold’s argument goes further. He alleges that Boulos has potential conflicts of interest because of his family’s longstanding business connections in Nigeria and claims that his wider family business interests could benefit from contracts connected to the Tinubu administration.
Those claims, however, require documentary verification and should not be treated as established fact without evidence showing a direct financial benefit, contractual relationship or improper intervention by Boulos himself.
That distinction is important because the underlying questions remain legitimate: What business interests does Boulos have in Nigeria? What financial disclosures has he made? What meetings has he held with Nigerian officials and business interests? And are there safeguards preventing his family relationships and commercial interests from influencing his official responsibilities?
Arnold says he sought answers through America's Freedom of Information Act, requesting State Department records concerning Boulos's meetings with Nigerian officials, financial disclosures and other relevant documents. He claims that the requested records were not produced promptly and that the projected completion date was pushed to March 2028.
If accurate, such a delay would inevitably fuel further questions about transparency.
The comparison with Guilfoyle is therefore provocative but straightforward: if the Trump administration was prepared to act quickly when allegations surrounding one ambassador became politically toxic, why should questions surrounding another senior adviser remain unresolved for years?
The issue is not whether Boulos should be presumed guilty. He should not. Nor should allegations concerning Guilfoyle be treated as convictions; she has denied the accusations.
The issue is whether the same principle of transparency and accountability should apply to everyone close to power.
If there is nothing improper in Boulos’s activities, the strongest response would be simple: release the records, disclose the relevant interests and let the evidence speak for itself.
As Arnold puts it:
Release the Boulos Files.
#EarthShaker
0 Comments