Daily Kos: The Times Finally Get to the Bottom of Trump Supporters: It Turns Out They’re Garbage Human Beings

The following is an excellent article written by Hunter on the Daily Kos website on July 4, 2018 titled “The Times Finally Gets to the Bottom of Trump Supporters: It Turns Out They’re Garbage Human Beings” and I quote:

ELKHART, IN - MAY 10:  Supporters wait in line to attend a campaign rally with President Donald Trump on May 10, 2018 in Elkhart, Indiana. The line to enter the event, which has a 7,500-person capacity, circled the block.   (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Go team adultery / child detention / fake charities / money laundering / sexism / racism / actual genuine treason.
Sign This Petition

Add your name: I really DO care. Do you?

Not in the US?

  • By signing this form, you are agreeing to receive occasional emails on this and related campaigns from Daily Kos. You may of course unsubscribe at any time. Here’s our privacy policy.

In the New York Times’ quest to get to the bottom of what makes every last Trump supporter in America tick, we have been treated to endless interviews, loving tributes to downtrodden towns in which nary a non-white person is ever seen, and one particular day when the op-ed pages were turned over to Trump supporters to argue for Trump’s genius directly. But this is still not enough, and so Sunday’s paper included a zoological analysis from a journalist who grew up among them.

It is meant to be flattering, or at least neutral, but the short version is that the people who have been bleating about “family values” for the last half-century do not actually give a flying damn about family values and never did. It was all garbage from the get-go. While people from “college” or “in New York” or “religiously conservative” or “liberal” or take-your pick all had harsh words for the crooked, lying, adulterous, misogynist trash-heap of a human being, the salt-of-the-earth Trump supporters back in Nebraska could not possibly care less about the bullshit-laden values attributed to them in fawning tributes to the heartland’s common clay.

To hell with it all: Go team adulter-crook!

In contrast, almost all of the people I know in my hometown in Nebraska proudly supported him. They glossed over his infidelities and stressed that he seemed to be a good father. They were impressed by his “respectful” sons and admired the success of his daughters.

“Glossed over” is a fine phrase. “Good father” is quite the phrase itself. And this new notion of “respectful,” which apparently consists of “glossing over” his sons’ histories of charity fraud, public attacks on black politicians, and that whole ‘met Russian agents in Trump Tower’ thing, is doing quite the heavy lift.

Reading between the lines, what we have here is a group of people who practice what is known in the rest of the world as aggressive ignorance. You can’t say that Trump’s behavior bothers you if you drive wooden stakes into both ears and swear you didn’t hear about any of it.

The author goes through some trouble and many paragraphs to explain this phenomenon of Trump support despite Trump’s grotesque family-values-averse behaviors via a mix of sociology and class, because we are not allowed to point out that these people are simply dishonest bullshitters. When you grow up in Nebraska, you are apparently expected to bleat about family values and the corruption of the elites, to be surebut, socioeconomically speaking, it is apparently all a ruse meant for the children and whatever gullible reporters wander through town. In reality, when it comes to the churches and the voting booths, you can be as adulterous as you want, cheat your neighbor eagerly and gleefully, lie to everyone about everything and—if you are in the right tribe, and only if you are in the right tribe—it is expected.

We’re not supposed to say it, but that is what the sociological modal boils down to. I think all of us have ample experience with these sorts of human beings, and it is not necessarily political. I believe I have pointed out multiple times that in my own experiences, for example, if any business owner mentions Jesus within the first 10 minutes of meeting you you can be absolutely, 100 percent assured they are out to scam you, good and hard, which is an interesting metric of what so-called Christianity has been reduced to in many subsets of the American psyche. But in general, journalists and other neutral observers are not supposed to notice that wide swaths of society are, in fact, Not Good People. Even if there are entire churches or towns filled with them.

And so we instead get it explained to us in very neutral, analytical terms. Can’t very well take to the pages of the New York Times to explain that Trump voters are wife-beating fascists who admire Trump’s ability to build a golden tower for himself by cheating other people out of their money, but even in its most anodyne formulation the message is clear: Trump’s version of “family values” plays well to people who themselves have none.

Baffling as it may be to elites, Mr. Trump embodies a real if imperfect model of family values. People familiar with the purple family model tend to view his alienation from his children’s mother as normal and his closeness to his children as exceptional and admirable. I saw this among my acquaintances in Nebraska. Even those from red families were more likely than my acquaintances in New York to know someone who has had a child out of wedlock or is subject to a restraining order.

See there? By God, being a do-nothing father with no apparent love for his kids is the downright admirable way to raise a family. And who, among Trump’s base, has not had a restraining order slapped on them at some point in their lives? Oopsies have been made.

The only way Trump could connect with these fine upstanding voters any deeper than he has, I tell you, is to start a meth lab in his basement.

Yes, yes, this is all very rude—but strip the roundabout talk of religious denominations and average family incomes and the rest of the ancillary smoke tossed into the piece and you are left with the blunt notion that Trump’s supporters absolutely Do Not Care about his adultery, his misogyny, his lies, his crookedness, his racism, or the possibility that he committed treason against his nation in order to sit at the desk he now sits at. That is what they, themselves, will eagerly tell you.

And from a moral point of view, rather than a socioeconomic one, there’s no “but economic status” or “but particular sub-denomination of Jesus” that justifies that.

Plainly put: These are the hallmarks of terrible human beings. People who you would not trust with your children. People you would go out of your way to avoid, if you did care about honesty or family values. These are the people who press their mistresses for abortions but who also are not vexed by abortion-providing doctors being murdered in their Kansas churches; they are confederate flag-wavers in Union states, miffed that new civil rights laws a half century ago slighted their own ne’er-do-well families in some never-quite-describable way; these are people who are so obsessed with the thought that someone better is looking down on them that they are willing to punch whatever kittens need punching in order to prove they’re at least better at kitten-punching than the rest of you. The opioid epidemic is centered in Trump-supporting counties. The demand that brown-looking children be placed in detention camps for fear that a terrified 8-year-old might be a hardened gang leader is a phenomenon of Trump-Supporting counties. The insistence that Treason Might Be Good Now is peddled by Fox News celebrities to die-hard Trump supporters who will repeat and retweet it willing and eagerly; it was Trump supporters, Jesus-punchers every one, who gave Alabama crapsack Roy Moore their votes even after his exposure as a child molester—complete with Bible citations from “conservative” pastors arguing that Roy Moore trolling the malls for a child bride was, in fact, in fine Old Testament tradition.

There is an obsessive need, in our journalistic culture, to explain bad behavior away. Donald Trump is not an amoral cesspool of lies, he is merely engaging in a particular brand of political rhetoric that seeks to persuade via the creative denial of the world everyone else can see with their own two eyes—and it’s not for we keepers of the truth to judge. Donald Trump’s supporters are not themselves dismal human beings who have open contempt for anyone not in their own small tribe, people who are forever obsessed with harming every other tribe in every other way, regardless of how it is done or how many family values rules need to be broken to do it, but are waving their little rebel flags and demanding child internment camps because their economic anxiety has gotten their stomachs all a-knotted of late.

But the acts speak for themselves. Trump’s supporters do not care about his values, his lies, the means by which he achieves his ends, or whether or not he burns the Constitution in a barbecue pit so long as he can make them feel better about their own lot in life. This is not our construction, but their own; you need not look very far in any interview to find it. They are not good people. They are not good Americans, and their so-called morals are reptilian at best. We are allowed to say it.

You want to find good people, look for the people who are just as poor but care for others anyway, or who are under just as much economic stress but do not use it as excuse for cheating and stealing their way through it—or offering up eager praise for those that do. Good people don’t claim to have family values and then discard those values at the drop of a hat when a rich, shouting hatebag they saw on their television set tells them to ignore all that. Good people don’t soak themselves in transparent lies about immigrants or minorities, then declare everyone else to be “elites” arrayed against them in “elite”-minded conspiracy when some newspaper, somewhere, points out that those things were, in fact, cheap and tawdry lies.

The more we hear from Trump defenders, the more transparent it is that they are indeed, well, bad. It’s terribly rude to say, and the press cannot say it, but the rest of us can. If you still support Trump at this late date, you are a terrible human being. You should, in fact, feel bad about yourself.

Yes, the rest of us do indeed look down on these people. Those of us with actual family values do; those of us who care about honesty in government do; those of us who are not furious bulging-eyed racists do; those of us who believe thousands of years of scientific discoveries are worth more than the dribbling pronouncements of a street-corner charlatan do; those of us with actual religious convictions do; those of us who are actual patriots do.

And we’re not sorry. Get your act together, you losers. You voted for a two-bit conman you saw on a television show, and you did it because you either didn’t care, didn’t pay attention, or because you wanted to be conned good and hard. But that was then, this is now, and you are allowed to change your mind and remember all the things you supposedlybelieved in before this glowing orange lunatic arrived on the scene to Make Sleaze Great Again.

You want to be respected, then do something worthy of respect. It’s as simple as that.”

(REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY FOR MIGRANTS IS BLOWING UP IN THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED CONGRESS’S FACE.  NOW YOU ARE GETTING TO KNOW JUST HOW MUCH THEY LIED AGAIN TO THE AMERICAN VOTERS AND THE ONLY SOLUTION NOW IS TO GET OUT AND VOTE DEMOCRAT THIS FALL.

LaVern Isely, Progressive, Overtaxed, Independent Middle Class Taxpayer and Public Citizen Member and USAF Veteran

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New York Times: How the I.R.S. Could Punish Trump and His Foundation

The following is an excellent article written by Jesse Drucker on the New York Times website on June 14, 2018 titled “How the I.R.S. Could Punish Trump and His Foundation” and I quote:

How the I.R.S. Could Punish Trump and His Foundation

Image
Donald Trump at a 2016 fund-raising event in Des Moines, Iowa, that was at issue in the New York state lawsuit filed on Thursday.CreditAndrew Harnik/Associated Press

The New York attorney general sued President Trump and his foundationon Thursday. But his bigger problem might be with the Internal Revenue Service.

The lawsuit accused Mr. Trump and three of his children of using the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a nonprofit charity, for political and business purposes, even though he signed federal tax returns swearing that wasn’t happening. Attorney General Barbara D. Underwood referred her findings to the I.R.S. for further investigation.

Any involvement of the I.R.S. puts in play a range of possibilities. The agency has the power to bring civil penalties, and its investigation could lead to federal criminal charges.

Similar behavior has prompted federal prosecutions, according to lawyers who have worked on such cases.

ADVERTISEMENT

In 2007, Vincent Fumo, then a powerful Democratic state senator in Pennsylvania, was indicted by the Justice Department for misusing a charity run by a former member of his government staff. A federal jury convicted him. Mr. Fumo’s punishment: four years in prison.

The lawsuit by the state attorney general, filed in New York’s Supreme Court, claims that Mr. Trump’s charitable foundation was used to help his 2016 campaign and to pay legal settlements involving his businesses. The foundation was supposed to be solely for dispensing money to nonprofit organizations and other activity in the public interest.

You have 4 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times

The suit seeks to dissolve the foundation and have its funds disbursed to unnamed charities. The action did not seek criminal penalties against Mr. Trump or his three eldest children, Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric, who are among the foundation’s board members and are named as defendants in the suit.

The Trump Organization — the foundation itself has no employees — said that “virtually every dollar donated to the foundation went to worthy causes, and helped any number of the most vulnerable among our citizens.”

Mr. Trump on Twitter attacked “sleazy New York Democrats” for filing the lawsuit. “I won’t settle this case!” Mr. Trump wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

The investigation’s referral to the I.R.S. theoretically could expose Mr. Trump to a wide range of potential punishments.

For example, the I.R.S. could seek to revoke the foundation’s tax-exempt status. The agency could even do so retroactively, which would stick the foundation with a corporate tax bill going back years.

Ms. Underwood’s petition noted that Mr. Trump signed the foundation’s tax returns, in which he stated, under penalties of perjury, “that the foundation did not engage in transactions with interested parties, and that the foundation did not carry out political activity.”

That is the sort of information that investigators would weigh in determining whether he should be charged with filing a false tax return, according to attorneys who have worked on criminal cases that were investigated by the I.R.S. and brought by the Justice Department. They said that Mr. Trump could be especially vulnerable because of his repeated involvement with the foundation, directing it to spend money on specific activities.

“People have gone to prison for stuff like this, and if I were representing someone with facts like this, assuming the facts described in this petition are true, I would be very worried about an indictment,” said Jenny Johnson Ware, a criminal tax attorney in Chicago. Ms. Ware has represented clients investigated for filing false charitable tax returns as well as wealthy individuals in tax disputes with the I.R.S. and the Justice Department. “If I were representing someone who had committed these acts, who was not president of the United States,” she said, “I would be looking to negotiate a resolution.”

The attorney general’s suit said the Trump Foundation was used at least five times for “self-dealing” — making payments to settle Mr. Trump’s business disputes. That could violate a law prohibiting the use of nonprofit charities for private interests.

The suit also cites a campaign event in Iowa where $2.8 million was raised for the foundation. Senior campaign staff controlled how and when those funds were eventually spent, the suit said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Marcus Owens, who ran the I.R.S. division that oversees nonprofits during the administrations of Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, said there have been several cases where people were criminally prosecuted for filing false tax returns of charities they controlled. The difference in Mr. Trump’s case, he said, is that those cases were “less egregious.”

In the case of Mr. Fumo, the Pennsylvania state senator, the charges included filing a false tax return, using the charity to fund political activities and paying for a renovation of his office. A jury convicted him of all 137 counts he faced. He served four years in prison and was on probation until 2017.

In 2011, federal prosecutors brought a criminal indictment against an official at the nonprofit overseeing the Fiesta Bowl, one of college football’s major bowl games, for using money collected by the group to make political contributions to Arizona politicians, alleging she had directed the filing of false tax returns. The defendant pleaded guilty and received probation.

“The Fiesta Bowl was innocuous in comparison” to the activities of Mr. Trump’s foundation, Mr. Owens said, noting that the president’s charity was accused of repeated misconduct.

“It’s a pattern of behavior over years,” he said.

In addition to signing the foundation’s tax returns, Mr. Trump also “directly participated in the events that should have been accurately reported on the tax return,” Mr. Owens said. “This is not a good case to try to defend.”

Typically, agents at the I.R.S. would investigate a potential criminal matter like this. And, if the agency thought it warranted prosecution, it would refer the investigation to the Justice Department, which could then send the matter to a local United States attorney’s office to seek an indictment.

Mr. Trump’s nominee to head the I.R.S., Charles P. Rettig, has more than 35 years of expertise working on such matters as a tax attorney who specializes in criminal defense. He is still awaiting Senate confirmation.

ADVERTISEMENT

At a minimum, tax attorneys said, the I.R.S. could seek civil penalties totaling about 20 percent of the funds that were allegedly misused. In the case of the single Iowa event, such penalties would total about $560,000.

A more drastic option in the civil realm would be to impose what’s known as a “termination tax” on the foundation. Such a penalty is equal to the organization’s remaining assets — meaning it would entirely drain the foundation’s coffers.

Doris Burke contributed research.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: On Deck to Investigate President: I.R.S. Gets the Call. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Related Coverage

New York Attorney General Sues Trump Foundation After 2-Year Investigation

Image

New York Attorney General Sues Trump Foundation After 2-Year Investigation

The Donald J. Trump Foundation, Explained

Image

Trump Foundation May Have Used Money to Benefit One of Its Own

More in Business Day

Gilles Sabrie for The New York Times

Inside China’s Dystopian Dreams: A.I., Shame and Lots of Cameras

Bobby Yip/Reuters

Xiaomi, a Chinese Technology Darling, Slumps After I.P.O.

Mike Cohen for The New York Times

Sign Up for DealBook

Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

Government Work Done, Tax Policy Writers Decamp to Lobbying Jobs

Christinne Muschi/Bloomberg

Martin Sorrell Is Gone From WPP, but That Doesn’t Mean He’s Gone Quiet

Editors’ Picks

World Cup Messenger

What It Costs to Be Smuggled Across the U.S. Border

Greta Rybus for The New York Times

Climate Change Brought a Lobster Boom. Now It Could Cause a Bust.

The All-New DealBook

Our columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and his Times colleagues help you make sense of major business and policy headlines — and the power-brokers who shape them.

ADVERTISEMENT

Trending on NYTimes

  1. 4 More People Are Rescued From Flooded Thai Cave

  2. U.S. Tried to Block Resolution Endorsing Breast-Feeding

  3. Inside the Cave: The Obstacles the Rescuers Are Facing

Site Index

Get one month free for digital subscriptions.”

(WITH REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ALREADY HAVING GONE BANKRUPT SIX TIMES, WHY WOULDN’T HE USE ILLEGAL TACTICS TO PROTECT HIMSELF FROM PAYING MORE FEDERAL INCOME TAXES???   I HOPE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ROBERT MUELLER REALLY INVESTIGATES THIS.  IN THE PAST, EVEN MOB MEMBERS WERE PROSECUTED FOR NOT PAYING THEIR FEDERAL INCOME TAX.   SO WHY SHOULDN’T REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP GET THE SAME TREATMENT FOR EVADING FEDERAL INCOME TAXES???

LaVern  Isely, Progressive, Overtaxed, Independent Middle Class Taxpayer and Public Citizen Member and USAF Veteran

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Vanity Fair: Ranking Team Trump’s Wealth, From the Biggest Billionaires to the Poorest Millionaires

The following is an interesting article written by Bess Levin on the Vanity Fair website on December 9, 2016 titled “Ranking Team Trump’s Wealth, From the Biggest Billionaires to the Poorest Millionaires” and I quote:

“RANKING TEAM TRUMP’S WEALTH, FROM THE BIGGEST BILLIONAIRES TO THE POOREST MILLIONAIRES”

A handy pocket guide to your new plutocratic overlords.
From left, by Don Emmert/AFP, Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call, Albin Lohr-Jones/Pool/Bloomberg, all from Getty Images.

In the last 48 hours, Donald J. Trump has made three important cabinet selections: W.W.E. founder Linda McMahon for the Small Business Administration, fast-food kingpin Andy Puzder for Secretary of Labor, and, maybe, venture capitalist Jim O’Neill for the Food and Drug Administration. On the surface, these picks signal the president-elect’s desire to (1) keep his relationship with the wrestling community intact; (2) raise both of his middle fingers to advocates of a $15 an hour minimum wage; and (3) potentially put a person with no medical experience in charge of an agency where you really want someone with medical experience, respectively. Most important, though, they collectively add almost $2 billion to his circle of advisers’ already sizable net worth.

Since wealth is obviously of utmost importance to the next president (he told supporters at an Iowa stop on his victory tour yesterday that he wants to be surrounded by “people that made a fortune”)—and because really rich people are better than just semi-rich people—we’ve compiled this wealth ranking for easy reference. Clearly, one of his top priorities in office will be making sure state dinner seating arrangements flow from richest (next to him) to poorest (as far away as humanly possible).

Todd Ricketts: Ricketts will be the deputy commerce secretary; his father founded TD Ameritrade and his family, which is worth about $5.3 billion, owns the Chicago Cubs. Trump would be fine with having Ricketts to his left or right.

Watch Now:

Today’s TV Moms & Dads on Parents of TV Past

Betsy DeVos: Trump’s pick for secretary of education is the daughter of a wealthy industrialist and the wife of Richard DeVos Jr., who is an heir to a $5.1 billion fortune. Her father-in-law founded AmWay and owns the Orlando Magic. She gets to sit across from The Don.

Wilbur Ross: The “King of Bankruptcy” is set to be the next secretary of commerce and has a net worth of approximately $2.9 billion. Qualifies to breathe the same air as DJT.

Linda McMahon: The first lady of wrestling, who Trump wants to run his Small Business Administration, founded W.W.E. with her husband, Vincent, whose head Trump once shaved after body-slamming him in the ring. The fake sport has helped McMahon amass a net worth of around $1.6 billion. Trump’s got to respect that and seat her accordingly.

Rex Tillerson: The longtime Exxon Mobile C.E.O., who is widely expected to be named this week as Trump’s pick for secretary of state, may not be a billionaire, but he’s comfortable. According to The Washington Post, the 64-year-old oil exec and longtime Putin ally is sitting on about $218 million in Exxon stock, plus a pension worth about $70 million. If he’s confirmed to lead State, Tillerson can expect the value of his stock holdings to soar on expectations that the U.S. will drop those pesky economic sanctions on Russia, where Exxon has a massive $300 billion deal with the state-controlled Russian oil giant Rosneft. Won’t be relegated to the kids’ table.

Steven Mnuchin: Recently Trump’s appointee for treasury secretary, Mnuchin compiled a nice pile of cash working at Goldman Sachs, founding a hedge fund, investing in movies, and running “a foreclosure machine” that reportedly kicked a 90-year-old woman out of her home over 27 cents. His exact worth is unknown but thought to be many millions. Nothing to write home about, but not so embarrassing that Trump will make him stand during meetings.

Andy Puzder: Trump’s pick for labor secretary, the fast-food executive appears to be a multi-millionaire, having made $4.4 million in 2012, according to filings. He also “like[s] beautiful women eating burgers in bikinis,” so he and Trump will have that to talk about, in addition to money, when they’re sitting next to each other during dinner with foreign dignitaries.

Ben Carson: Trump’s one-time opponent now gets to head Housing and Urban Development, in part, probably, because he’s worth around $26 million (and maybe also because he once likened fair housing to communism). Gets a seat at the table, but, like, several seats down from Trump.

Elaine Chao: The wife of Senator Mitch McConnell and Trump’s pick for secretary of transportation, Chao was the secretary of labor under George W. Bush and likely bringsaround $20 million in pocket change to Donald’s White House. She’s safe.

Stephen Bannon: Trump’s campaign C.E.O. turned senior advisor, Bannon was previously the chairman of Breitbart News and worked at Goldman Sachs. He also apparently made millions off of Seinfeld, which is ironic because, according to testimony by his ex-wife, Bannon didn’t want his daughters to go to schools with too many Jews. Millions + getting Trump elected = nothing to worry about.

Jim O’Neill: It looks likely that the venture capitalist and colleague of Peter Thiel will be named the next head of the Food and Drug Administration. No word on net worth, but he’s a managing director at Thiel’s Mithril Capital Management and previously worked at Thiel’s hedge fund. Probably got at least a few million in the bank. In other words, he’s got a lot of work to do.

Too poor to rank, these picks most likely have a barely $1 million in investible assets; $5 million at best:

John Kelly, Homeland Security; James Mattis, secretary of defense; Jeff Sessions, attorney general; Tom Price, secretary of Health and Human Services; Scott Pruitt, E.P.A. chief; Reince Priebus, chief of staff. These people have no idea what it’s like to live in a house made of gold and pink marble.

Billionaires who aren’t technically part of Trump’s cabinet but get to skip the line anyway:

Carl Icahn: A longtime Trump supporter, the investor is reportedly helping the president-elect destroy the E.P.A. and is worth approximately $17 billion.

Stephen Schwarzman: The Blackstone founder is heading Trump’s economic advisory panel and is worth $11.2 billion. No further questions.

Peter Thiel: The venture capitalist—who, like Trump, is a big fan of wrestlers!—is serving on the president-elect’s White House transition team and has an acceptable $2.7 billion in the bank.

Jamie Dimon: The J.P. Morgan C.E.O. is also on the economic advisory panel and is worth almost $1 billiondepending on how JPM’s shares are doing.”

(FORMER EPA ADMINISTRATOR SCOTT PRUITT WAS A MILLIONAIRE DESPERATELY TRYING TO WORK HIS WAY UP TO THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS AND HE WAS USING EVERY TRICK IN THE BOOK TO GET THERE AT THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE.  THIS IS NOT THE TYPE OF PEOPLE THAT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP SHOULD HAVE HIRED AND TO KEEP HIM AS LONG AS HE DID WHEN HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS UP TO WAS CRIMINAL.

LaVern Isely, Progressive, Overtaxed, Independent Middle Class Taxpayer and Public Citizen Member and USAF Veteran

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Vanity Fair: Ranking Team Trump’s Wealth, From the Biggest Billionaires to the Poorest Millionaires

The following is an interesting article written by Bess Levin on the Vanity Fair website on December 9, 2017 titled “Ranking Team Trump’s Wealth, From the Biggest Billionaires to the Poorest Millionaires” and I quote:

“RANKING TEAM TRUMP’S WEALTH, FROM THE BIGGEST BILLIONAIRES TO THE POOREST MILLIONAIRES”

A handy pocket guide to your new plutocratic overlords.
From left, by Don Emmert/AFP, Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call, Albin Lohr-Jones/Pool/Bloomberg, all from Getty Images.

In the last 48 hours, Donald J. Trump has made three important cabinet selections: W.W.E. founder Linda McMahon for the Small Business Administration, fast-food kingpin Andy Puzder for Secretary of Labor, and, maybe, venture capitalist Jim O’Neill for the Food and Drug Administration. On the surface, these picks signal the president-elect’s desire to (1) keep his relationship with the wrestling community intact; (2) raise both of his middle fingers to advocates of a $15 an hour minimum wage; and (3) potentially put a person with no medical experience in charge of an agency where you really want someone with medical experience, respectively. Most important, though, they collectively add almost $2 billion to his circle of advisers’ already sizable net worth.

Since wealth is obviously of utmost importance to the next president (he told supporters at an Iowa stop on his victory tour yesterday that he wants to be surrounded by “people that made a fortune”)—and because really rich people are better than just semi-rich people—we’ve compiled this wealth ranking for easy reference. Clearly, one of his top priorities in office will be making sure state dinner seating arrangements flow from richest (next to him) to poorest (as far away as humanly possible).

Todd Ricketts: Ricketts will be the deputy commerce secretary; his father founded TD Ameritrade and his family, which is worth about $5.3 billion, owns the Chicago Cubs. Trump would be fine with having Ricketts to his left or right.

Watch Now:

Pusha-T Explains His Instagram Photos

Betsy DeVos: Trump’s pick for secretary of education is the daughter of a wealthy industrialist and the wife of Richard DeVos Jr., who is an heir to a $5.1 billion fortune. Her father-in-law founded AmWay and owns the Orlando Magic. She gets to sit across from The Don.

Wilbur Ross: The “King of Bankruptcy” is set to be the next secretary of commerce and has a net worth of approximately $2.9 billion. Qualifies to breathe the same air as DJT.

Linda McMahon: The first lady of wrestling, who Trump wants to run his Small Business Administration, founded W.W.E. with her husband, Vincent, whose head Trump once shaved after body-slamming him in the ring. The fake sport has helped McMahon amass a net worth of around $1.6 billion. Trump’s got to respect that and seat her accordingly.

Rex Tillerson: The longtime Exxon Mobile C.E.O., who is widely expected to be named this week as Trump’s pick for secretary of state, may not be a billionaire, but he’s comfortable. According to The Washington Post, the 64-year-old oil exec and longtime Putin ally is sitting on about $218 million in Exxon stock, plus a pension worth about $70 million. If he’s confirmed to lead State, Tillerson can expect the value of his stock holdings to soar on expectations that the U.S. will drop those pesky economic sanctions on Russia, where Exxon has a massive $300 billion deal with the state-controlled Russian oil giant Rosneft. Won’t be relegated to the kids’ table.

Steven Mnuchin: Recently Trump’s appointee for treasury secretary, Mnuchin compiled a nice pile of cash working at Goldman Sachs, founding a hedge fund, investing in movies, and running “a foreclosure machine” that reportedly kicked a 90-year-old woman out of her home over 27 cents. His exact worth is unknown but thought to be many millions. Nothing to write home about, but not so embarrassing that Trump will make him stand during meetings.

Andy Puzder: Trump’s pick for labor secretary, the fast-food executive appears to be a multi-millionaire, having made $4.4 million in 2012, according to filings. He also “like[s] beautiful women eating burgers in bikinis,” so he and Trump will have that to talk about, in addition to money, when they’re sitting next to each other during dinner with foreign dignitaries.

Ben Carson: Trump’s one-time opponent now gets to head Housing and Urban Development, in part, probably, because he’s worth around $26 million (and maybe also because he once likened fair housing to communism). Gets a seat at the table, but, like, several seats down from Trump.

Elaine Chao: The wife of Senator Mitch McConnell and Trump’s pick for secretary of transportation, Chao was the secretary of labor under George W. Bush and likely bringsaround $20 million in pocket change to Donald’s White House. She’s safe.

Stephen Bannon: Trump’s campaign C.E.O. turned senior advisor, Bannon was previously the chairman of Breitbart News and worked at Goldman Sachs. He also apparently made millions off of Seinfeld, which is ironic because, according to testimony by his ex-wife, Bannon didn’t want his daughters to go to schools with too many Jews. Millions + getting Trump elected = nothing to worry about.

Jim O’Neill: It looks likely that the venture capitalist and colleague of Peter Thiel will be named the next head of the Food and Drug Administration. No word on net worth, but he’s a managing director at Thiel’s Mithril Capital Management and previously worked at Thiel’s hedge fund. Probably got at least a few million in the bank. In other words, he’s got a lot of work to do.

Too poor to rank, these picks most likely have a barely $1 million in investible assets; $5 million at best:

John Kelly, Homeland Security; James Mattis, secretary of defense; Jeff Sessions, attorney general; Tom Price, secretary of Health and Human Services; Scott Pruitt, E.P.A. chief; Reince Priebus, chief of staff. These people have no idea what it’s like to live in a house made of gold and pink marble.

Billionaires who aren’t technically part of Trump’s cabinet but get to skip the line anyway:

Carl Icahn: A longtime Trump supporter, the investor is reportedly helping the president-elect destroy the E.P.A. and is worth approximately $17 billion.

Stephen Schwarzman: The Blackstone founder is heading Trump’s economic advisory panel and is worth $11.2 billion. No further questions.

Peter Thiel: The venture capitalist—who, like Trump, is a big fan of wrestlers!—is serving on the president-elect’s White House transition team and has an acceptable $2.7 billion in the bank.

Jamie Dimon: The J.P. Morgan C.E.O. is also on the economic advisory panel and is worth almost $1 billiondepending on how JPM’s shares are doing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Quora: Did the Federal Government Borrow From Social Security?

The following is an excellent article written by Dan Perrin, publisher, The Seniors.Center on the Quora website on January 26, 2018 titled “Did the Federal Government Borrow From Social Security?” and I quote:

“Did the federal government borrow from social security?”

11 Answers

Dan Perrin

Yes. The Federal Government currently owes the Social Security Trust Fund $2.85 Trillion Dollars. That’s $2,850,000,000,000.

While the Federal Government has borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund since it began, in 1983, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill (a Democrat) came to an agreement to increase Payroll taxes allowing the Social Security Trust Fund to build a large surplus so they would have the funds to help pay the Social Security obligations to baby boomers when they retired.

Sadly, politicians in Washington couldn’t keep their hands off the money in the Social Security Trust Fund. While both parties have been quick to blame the other one for the raid of the Social Security Trust Fund, both parties have been equally to blame. Every year, the total balance in the Social Security Trust Fund has been transferred to the Federal Treasury and replaced with non negotiable bonds which are stored in a filing cabinet at the Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, West Virginia. The interest on these bonds is “paid” by the issue of even more bonds.

The Federal Government will only have money to repay its obligations by raising taxes or radically cutting spending. In the words of Senator Mike Enzi “If the revenues are not there (and they will not be as long as the government continues to run budget deficits), then the federal government will have to raise taxes or cut other spending to finance promised Social Security benefits. This is gross financial mismanagement. We don’t have enough trust funds with money in them to satisfy the demands put on our government.”

Please visit my Social Security Blog for more information about this issue.

Promoted by TruthFinder
Have you ever googled yourself? Do a “deep search” instead.
This new site shows so much more. Enter a name and state to begin.

John Allen Shaw

Despite what self-proclaimed Fiscal Hawks and Keyboard Economists think, the Federal Government does Not Borrow Money Outright from the Social Security Trust Fund. Whoever is telling you otherwise doesn’t understand how budgetary accounting & finance works nor do they understand just how to properly interpret the Trust’s funding mechanisms thru an economic lens.

Fundmentals: Social Security is formally known as the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Program put into existence by the Social Security Act signed by Pres. Roosevelt in 1935. Comprised of two Funds – Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund & the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund – the Social Security Program is primarily funded via payroll taxes based on the Federal Insurance and Contributions Act (FICA) at a current rate of 6.2%. In 2011 & 2012, Obama had temporarily reduced the required payroll contribution to 4.2% for obvious reasons in the wake of the Great Recession.

How It Works: The Trust Funds Inflows via Payroll Tax Receipts are held in reserves while the Fund’s Outflows are earmarked for disbursement via Entitlements and Benefits obligated by law at Age 62 1/2 at a reduced rate, or 65 in full. Future Outflows are calculated based on actuarial tables that estimate life expectancy. All Future Outflows are discounted back to the present value dollar of the Inflows in the Current Year. And while Social Security has ‘Trust’ in it’s name, the money used to fund the Program isn’t actually safeguarded in a legal trust, but has been regularly used to plug the Government’s Annual Deficit, as an Accounting Figure only(more about that later)

  1. When discounted Future Outflows are Greater than Total projected Inflows (Current Funds + Future Tax Receipts + Interest + (Un)Realized Gains) all at Present Value, then this is known as an UnFunded Obligation.
  2. When all expected Future Inflows are Greater than the projected Outflows, then the Fund is at a Surplus. This is apart of the Trust Funds Means Testing mandated Annually and Audited by either a Big 4 Firm or a 2nd Tier Accounting Firm. As of last year, the Fund is able to meet all future obligations thru 2034, given the current state of the Economy, since increased employment leads to higher contribution rates.
  3. Monies contributed to Social Security can, by law circa 1939, be used to purchase (non)marketable securities at par – or – be used to support special issuances of debt obligations like WWII Bonds.

Social Security had been running a generous surplus from 1983 up until the Great Recession (2009); however, the U.S. Government, as a whole, had been running huge deficits starting at the time of George W. Bush. As an accounting method, Social Security has always been included on the Government’s Ledger as Revenue to offset it’s runaway Deficit Spending; however, in 1983, the Congress had made several changes to how Surpluses can be accounted for and just how to invest the Funds.

In times of Surplus, by law, the U.S. Treasury is actually required to take the surplus and, in exchange, issue interest-accruing bonds to the Social Security trust funds. The Treasury, meanwhile, uses the cash to fund current government expenses, though it has to repay the bonds whenever the Social Security commissioner wants to redeem them. This means that the Social Security Commissioner works with the U.S. Treasury to invest it’s Surplus Money to purchase non-marketable U.S. Bonds in exchange; hence, a Dollar for Dollar ‘borrowing’ between the Government via the U.S. Treasury and the Social Security Trust Fund; otherwise, known as ‘investing’.

In this broad sense, the U.S. Government technically does “borrow” Social Security surplus to pay for deficit spending, but even this is a stretch when considering a loose definition of the word, as it still doesn’t quite fit because the money, if never invested, would have lost purchasing power over the years at an opportunity cost of accruing interest otherwise. It boils down to semantics: If you were to purchase a U.S. Gov Bond or the Teacher’s Association Retirement Fund were to purchase a Muni-Bond, would you characterize such an exchange as an “investment” or a “borrowing”? I’m sure many of you would choose the former over the latter. Moreover, there are limits as to what the U.S. Treasury can do with Fund Surplus, as It only has access to the cash revenue collected each year, not the interest accrued on the entire Surplus.

At the time of this writing, the U.S. Government has ‘borrowed’ nearly 18% of it’s Total Outstanding Debt via this method of investment. In 2015, Social Security owned 2.79 Trillion in non-marketable U.S. Bonds[1]. As a result, Social Security is one of the largest holders of Government Bonds to date, second only to Private Investment Firms and Wealth Managers (No, it’s not China, as the Country ranks approx 8th in total US Bond Holdings) It is this issue where the economic interpretations between seasoned Budget Analysts and notable Economists Differ.

  • If a U.S. Bond is guaranteed public debt owed by the Government, then whatever interest is owed to the Fund is paid for with taxpayer money; thus, whatever economic growth the Country undergoes is already deducted by the Interest Owed and Paid back into the Fund ex-ante.
  • Other Economists take an opposing position in that Public Debt, paid with Interest back into the Fund until the Bond matures, is the result of economic inflation, as these interest payments wouldn’t have occurred otherwise.

No matter your point of view as to the economic effect that the U.S. Bond has in terms of growth, the Narrative that the Government is just borrowing money from Social Security risk free isn’t the case, as the Fund Commissioner would be compelled to invest in marketable securities anyway just to maintain the Fund’s purchasing Power otherwise. (edited for grammar and syntax)”

[WITH OUR U.S. GOVERNMENT GOING IN DEBT AT A RECORD PACE, (EVEN FASTER) UNDER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP AND THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED CONGRESS THAN UNDER THE DEMOCRATS, DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY ARE EVER GOING TO REPAY THE DEBT???  SOCIAL SECURITY IS A PROGRAM THAT WE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR WHEN WE WERE WORKING.  IT’S AN [EARNED BENEFIT].   AND MEDICARE WE PAY A PREMIUM EVERY MONTH FOR OUR HEALTHCARE COVERAGE.   GO INTO THE COUNTY OFFICES OF BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AND ASK THEM WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO TO BRING THIS (THIEVERY UNDER CONTROL).

LaVern Isely, Progressive, Overtaxed, Independent Middle Class Taxpayer and Public Citizen Member and USAF Veteran

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Nation: Maxine Waters Connects the Dots on Trump, Deutsche Bank, and Russia

The following is an excellent article written by Bob Dreyfuss on The Nation website on December 19, 2017 titled “Maxine Waters Connects the Dots on Trump, Deutsche Bank, and Russia” and I quote:

“Maxine Waters Connects the Dots on Trump, Deutsche Bank, and Russia”

Special counsel Mueller’s bank subpoenas could shed light on Trump associates’ ties to Russian money laundering.

Representative Maxine Waters, the California Democrat who is the ranking member on the House Committee on Financial Services, has been pushing since March to connect dots that could link Donald Trump, his associates, Germany’s Deutsche Bank, and Russian oligarchs. Now it appears she’s getting some help from Robert Mueller, the Russiagate special counsel, whose office has issued a subpoena to Deutsche Bank over accounts linked to various associates of the president.

The twin efforts could determine whether or not various members of Trump’s inner circle benefited from the flow of money-laundered funds from Russian oligarchs, through Germany and Cyprus, to Trump-linked businesses and people in Trump’s inner circle, including Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law.

To understand why this might be important, consider two facts: First, Deutsche Bank was caught red-handed in a money-laundering scheme that involved $10 billion in dirty money from Russian oligarchs, and in 2017 it was forced to pay fines totaling $671 million to New York’s Department of Financial Services, Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority, and the US Federal Reserve. Second, since the 1990s the German financial colossus has been Donald Trump’s personal go-to piggybank, which has supplied Trump and his companies with a staggering $3.5 billion in loans and loan-guarantee agreements since 1998.

ADVERTISING

For Waters, and perhaps for Mueller, too, the question is: Are these two things related? Did Trump, Kushner, and their partners—along with others in Trump World, including Paul Manafort, Gen. Michael Flynn, and Wilbur Ross, the billionaire who serves as Trump’s commerce secretary—benefit from illegal Russian money that flowed through Deutsche Bank? If so, does President Trump have a hidden obligation to Russia or to Russian oligarchs? And why did the official US investigation of Deutsche Bank’s illegal transactions, conducted under the auspices of Jeff Sessions’s Justice Department, go “dormant” earlier this year?

Those questions are especially relevant because of two major recent transactions between Deutsche Bank, Trump, and Kushner. In the first, the bank loaned Donald Trump $300 million—money that the president still owes the bank—to get him out of a sticky debt situation. And, second, Jared Kushner secured a $285 million loan from Deutsche Bank on the eve of last year’s election, in a transaction that, The Nation reported in August, involved a cast of characters tied to the infamous June 6, 2016, Trump Tower meeting between Kushner, Manafort, Donald Trump Jr., and an assortment of Russians who’d promised to supply the campaign with “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.

Since March, Waters has been relentless is demanding that both DOJ and the Republican-controlled committee investigate ties between Deutsche Bank and Trump. In her March 10 letter to Representative Jeb Hensarling, the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, she and four other Democrats wrote:

The potential magnitude of Deutsche Bank’s Russian money-laundering scheme should not be downplayed in the same manner in which this Administration has attempted to downplay its Kremlin connections. The threat to our democracy that could result from the seemingly endless, complex web of business dealings woven among Trump, his advisors, and Russia should not be ignored. It is incumbent upon this Committee to conduct a thorough, objective investigation into the Deutsche Bank money-laundering scheme given the Bank’s atrocious history of lax compliance and, more importantly, the mounting evidence surrounding the new Administration’s ties to Russia.

Getting no response, Waters dispatched a series of follow-up letters. In an August 11 letter, she demanded a wide range of documents relevant to the issue, adding: “These concerns are not merely theoretical. Rather, they are supported by the fact that the President’s campaign is under a criminal investigation related to its potential collusion with the Russian government to influence the outcome of last year’s presidential election.… these facts underscore the need for a bipartisan investigation into the Bank’s Russian money laundering activity and its review of its unusual loans to the President, his family and his associates.”

Finally, exasperated, and concerned over reports that the Justice Department had let the Deutsche Bank inquiry go cold, in a December 1 letter Waters wrote to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy US attorney general, asking Rosenstein why DOJ had not moved forward with the investigation. “Not only is the President a client of Deutsche Bank, but so too are his daughter, Ivanka Trump, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Kushner’s mother, Seryl Kushner. In fact, the Bank lent Jared Kushner’s real estate company more than $280 million only one month prior to the 2016 election, which was not properly disclosed,” she wrote. And Waters asked a series of very pointed questions about Deutsche Bank’s “mirror trading” scheme, the laundering mechanism it used in turning the oligarchs’ rubles into dollars—indeed, the very same questions that Mueller’s office might itself be asking right now:

(1) Is the investigation into Deutsche Bank’s role in a $10 billion Russian mirror trading scheme still ongoing? If not, what is its present status? (2) What has Attorney General Sessions’ involvement been with the investigation since his appointment? (3) Has President Trump, or his immediate family or any other campaign or White House official inquired about or sought to influence the investigation of Deutsche Bank in any way, including any other potential investigations into the Bank? (4) Is the Department committed to determining who participated in and who may have benefited from the Deutsche Bank Russian mirror trading scheme? (5) Should there be any nexus between Deutsche Bank, the Russian mirror trading scheme and the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, will the information be provided to Special Counsel Robert Mueller?

Mueller, who’s methodically examining the question of Trump-Russia collusion, has now entered the Deutsche Bank picture, and he—unlike Waters, who’s been unable to get her committee chairman to demand documents—has subpoena power. According to reporting by Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal, Mueller has demanded that Deutsche Bank hand over information about transactions involving “people or entities affiliated with President Donald Trump.” Two subsequent reports from the Journal added that among the records sought by Mueller are those linked to Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort. (Manafort, who served as Trump’s 2016 campaign manager, has already been indicted by Mueller over charges tied to money-laundering, and Flynn, Trump’s former national-security adviser, signed a plea agreement with Mueller and is cooperating with the Russiagate investigation.)

So far—and contrary to some initial reports, which claimed that Mueller’s Deutsche Bank subpoenas were aimed at Trump directly—the subpoena from Mueller apparently involves only people in Trump’s orbit, but not the president himself. That could change, however, as Mueller’s inquiry moves forward. As Reuters reportedearlier this month:

A U.S. official with knowledge of Mueller’s probe said one reason for the subpoenas was to find out whether Deutsche Bank may have sold some of Trump’s mortgage or other loans to Russian state development bank VEB or other Russian banks that now are under U.S. and European Union sanctions.… Holding Trump debt, particularly if some of it was or is coming due, could potentially give Russian banks some leverage over Trump, especially if they are state-owned, said a second U.S. official familiar with Russian intelligence methods.

Mueller is well aware that since last summer Trump has been warning that any effort to investigate his or his family’s finances would cross a “red line,” as Trump told The New York Times in an interview in July, and that crossing that line could lead the president to fire Mueller. Indeed, there is growing concern that Trump is actively considering ousting the special prosecutor, despite the fact that doing so could trigger a political Armageddon. Over the weekend, Representative Jackie Speier, who serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, echoed worries that Trump will fire Mueller just before Christmas. Trump himself has denied that he intends to do so.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Daily Kos: Presidents Under Active Criminal Investigation Do Not Get to Make Lifetime Court Picks

The following is an excellent article written by Hunter on the Daily Kos website on June 27, 2018 titled “Presidents Under Active Criminal Investigation Do Not Get to Make Lifetime Court Picks” and I quote:

US President Donald Trump listens questions from reporters during a press conference at the G7 Summit on June 9, 2018, in La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP)        (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Currently under federal investigation for conspiracy to obstruct justice after evidence surfaced linking his campaign team to collusion in Russia hacking efforts, money laundering, and lying to federal investigators. And, if the rumors are true, more.

While the entire nation hems and haws and Republicans pretend suddenly to have Great Patriotic Convictions again that just happen to demand everybody else do exactly what they say, let’s not forget the elephant in the room: The current United States president is being investigated for conspiring with a foreign power to undermine a U.S. election. And that investigation is not only ongoing, but has ensnared, in one way or another, nearly every major figure in his presidential campaign.

His son and son-in-law have been identified as key figures in a 2016 meeting with figures sent from the Russian government—and who were identified as being sent by the Russian government in the emails to the campaign setting up the meeting—during a major espionage effort by that government against the United States. They are being investigated because those that sought the meeting promised materials that would assist Trump in his election bid, and because none of the top campaign figures informed U.S. authorities of the Russian proposal. Others in his campaign are under indictment for lying to federal investigators about their contacts with Russian officials and for efforts to launder money gained from efforts to assist Russian interests.

Donald Trump is currently under investigation for attempting to cover up that fateful campaign meeting by issuing false statements about it—on Air Force One, after a one-on-one meeting with the Russian president, no less. He is under investigation for multiple other acts which appear to investigators to be evidence of an attempt to undermine the investigation into Russian acts. We are currently awaiting word from a special team of prosecutors as to whether the sitting president, either in office or while campaigning for that office, has committed acts of treason.

That’s where the evidence is as of this moment. It may, and almost certainly will, given other evidence that has continued to come to light, get worse.

There may be some debate over how punctual the Senate needs to be in presidential advice and consent. There may be furious debate over the newly-invented rule that presidents may not make certain appointments during election years because reasons. But it should be a fairly standard-issue bit of bipartisan common sense that, say, presidents who are under active investigation for acts of potential treason should not be granted unilateral power to make lifetime federal appointments—not until they are cleared of wrongdoing.

Surely, even the most partisan hacks should be able to agree to that one. It is true that we are in, we hope, a unique situation. It has been some time since any president was investigated for conspiring with a foreign power to manipulate a U.S. election. It has been a while since an administration has been charged with a widespread attempt to obstruct justice. And so we are in a hell of a place right now, and nearly every one of this era’s past conservative stalwarts of punditry have been pointing out that we are in a uniquely crooked place, and an intolerable one.

Surely, anyone and everyone should be able to agree on the rather bland notion, now made urgent by the raving insanity of the times, that presidents under investigation for treason against their nation should maybe have their ability to make lifetime appointments to the federal bench be delayed until they are cleared of wrongdoing? It would be a hell of a thing for a criminal figure to use the power of his office to appoint the judges responsible for determining the standards by which those around them will face, or evade, justice. A mob boss turned officeholder should not be able to stack the courts with allies even if he wins an election, right?

Right?

This seems a rather uncontroversial notion. It would be, if you asked anyone this question during any year prior to Trump’s arrival (with the possible exception of certain Nixon diehards and those that gave them their own talk shows afterward), absolutely uncontroversial. No, a president under investigation for conspiracy against the nation doesn’t get to appoint judges interpreting the very laws he sought to undermine until and unless he is cleared; far better that than a battle to impeach all those judges alongside him, if he is not cleared.

This feels like a Bill Kristol or Jennifer Rubin moment. Anyone truly concerned about the web of corruption surrounding Trump and his staffers ought to be able to sign onto the notion of temporarily curtailing a suspected criminal’s power to immunize himself against those crimes, even (or especially) if that person is a president.

There’s nothing partisan about that one. One would think.”

(REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IS DEFINITELY UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ROBERT MUELLER CONCERNING THE TRUMP-RUSSIA CONNECTION BUT HE STILL THINKS HE HAS THE RIGHT TO PICK HIS FAVORITE SUPREME COURT NOMINEE.  HIS EXCUSE IS THAT HE IS THINKING OF PARDONING HIMSELF AND THEN HE WON’T BE A CRIMINAL ANYMORE AND ALL WILL BE FORGIVEN.  I DON’T BELIEVE THE VOTERS WILL APPROVE OF HIS WAY OF THINKING.

LaVern Isely, Progressive, Overtaxed, Independent Middle Class Taxpayer and Public Citizen Member and USAF Veteran

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment