Was Donald Trump's inauguration fraught with fraud?: Today's talker

President Donald Trump's inaugural committee received a subpoena from federal prosecutors in New York as part of an investigation into the group's fundraising activities.

Follow the money in Trump's inauguration

By Chris Lu

Presidential inaugural celebrations are splashy, multiday affairs that usually fade quickly into history. As with so many things involving Donald Trump, his January 2017 inauguration hasn't followed the usual pattern.

On Monday, federal prosecutors in New York issued a subpoena to Trump's inaugural committee for documents related to possible fraud, money laundering and false statements.

Almost from the moment Trump took office, his inauguration was engulfed in controversy. On the president's first full day in office, then-spokesman Sean Spicer was dispatched to announce (despite clear evidence to the contrary) that the crowd was "the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe."

Since that surreal moment, questions continued to be asked about the inauguration.

The Trump inaugural committee raised an eye-popping $106.7 million — double the previous record set by Barack Obama's first inauguration — yet organized far fewer events than Obama did. Two years later, there has been little transparency about how all that money was spent and what became of any surplus funds.

Talker: Why Gov. Ralph Northam should not resign

Ask your friends and family to sign-up for the Today's Talker newsletter

When some spending details were finally revealed, eyebrows were raised about: a $1.6 million "supervisory fee" to a close friend of Melania Trump; $2.7 million to a performance group working for one of the president's friends; and $1.5 million to the Trump International Hotel. The head of George W. Bush's second inauguration said Trump's inaugural spending "blows me away."

Beyond questions about how the money was spent, investigators are apparently probing whether foreigners, including from Russia and Middle East countries, violated federal law by donating to the Trump inaugural committee, possibly in return from policy favors. Already, a Republican lobbyist has pleaded guilty to arranging for a Ukrainian oligarch to buy $50,000 worth of tickets to an inaugural event using an American "straw" purchaser.

This new inquiry is the latest legal headache for a president already grappling with criminal probes into his campaign, foundation and businesses, as well as vigorous oversight from the new House Democratic majority.

Responding to reports of this new investigation, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders dismissed the probe, saying it "has nothing to do with the White House." In the months ahead, federal prosecutors might come to a different conclusion. Suffice to say, the 2017 inauguration is not quite ready to fade into history.

Chris Lu served as the executive director of Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential transition and is now a senior fellow at the University of Virginia Miller Center. You can follow him on Twitter: @ChrisLu44.

What others are saying

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, CNN: "What I do know at this point, this has nothing to do with the White House. And for anything specific or further, I’d refer you back to the Trump inaugural committee. ... I think the common thread is a hysteria over the fact that this president became president. The common thread is that there is so much hatred out there that they will look for anything to try to create and tie problems to this president."

Ana Navarro, Twitter: "Seriously, is there anything these Trump folks can run — a campaign, golf clubs and hotels, a 'charitable' foundation, an inaugural committee, the government — were they are not, at best, investigated for illegal activity, at worst, it was found they committed illegal activity?"

Elliot Hannon, Slate: "No one in the Trump administration is currently under investigation for the inaugural committee’s operation, but the escalation of the inquiry shows that there may have been other avenues for Trump-themed graft that will prompt investigations beyond Robert Mueller’s Russia probe."

What our readers are saying

Golly, who would have thought that electing a narcissistic, foul-mouthed reality TV personality with multiple bankruptcies, no governing experience and potentially criminal relationships as president would lead to so many inquiries and investigations?

— David Hoeltje

Once again, it is the Southern District of New York in Manhattan that is bringing up these charges. Can anyone spell "politically motivated"?

— Frank Wilson Harding

Yet another example of just how broken and wounded this administration is. You can't just make this stuff up. And we're only 24 months in. Imagine what's coming.

— Michael Anthony Shea

Another week, yet another attempt to keep President Donald Trump from doing his job. Why don't we just ask him to move aside so we can put Hillary Clinton in his place? You have to wonder, if Clinton were in office, would they be investigating her as much as they have been Trump?

— Randy Weaks

To join the conversations about topics on USA TODAY or provide feedback to this newsletter, email jrivera@usatoday.com, comment on Facebook, or use #tellusatoday on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Was Donald Trump's inauguration fraught with fraud?: Today's talker