Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
babylonsister
babylonsister's Journal
babylonsister's Journal
May 10, 2019
Posted on Fri, May 10th, 2019 by Reuters
U.S. House could slap $25,000 per day contempt fines on Trump advisers
By Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A senior Democratic lawmaker has suggested fines of $25,000 a day for contempt on U.S. officials who stonewall congressional investigations of President Donald Trump and his administration.
Expanding on an idea floated days ago by Democrats as a way of putting some teeth into various inquiries of Trump, his turbulent presidency, his family and his business interests, Representative Adam Schiff spoke in two interviews about reviving the “inherent contempt” power of Congress.
Democrats who control the House have confronted the Republican president and his administration for refusing to cooperate with at least six separate investigations. Republicans have accused Democrats of grandstanding for progressive voters, but even the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr.
more...
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/10/u-s-house-could-slap-25000-per-day-contempt-fines-on-trump-advisers.html
Reuters: U.S. House could slap $25,000 per day contempt fines on Trump advisers
Posted on Fri, May 10th, 2019 by Reuters
U.S. House could slap $25,000 per day contempt fines on Trump advisers
By Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A senior Democratic lawmaker has suggested fines of $25,000 a day for contempt on U.S. officials who stonewall congressional investigations of President Donald Trump and his administration.
Expanding on an idea floated days ago by Democrats as a way of putting some teeth into various inquiries of Trump, his turbulent presidency, his family and his business interests, Representative Adam Schiff spoke in two interviews about reviving the “inherent contempt” power of Congress.
“We would levy fines on those who are not cooperating,” Schiff, the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee told Axios in an interview published on Friday.
“You could fine someone $25,000 a day until they comply. You can do that. We’re looking through the history and studying the law to make sure we’re on solid ground,” Schiff said.
“You could fine someone $25,000 a day until they comply. You can do that. We’re looking through the history and studying the law to make sure we’re on solid ground,” Schiff said.
Democrats who control the House have confronted the Republican president and his administration for refusing to cooperate with at least six separate investigations. Republicans have accused Democrats of grandstanding for progressive voters, but even the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr.
more...
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/10/u-s-house-could-slap-25000-per-day-contempt-fines-on-trump-advisers.html
May 10, 2019
Trump’s Plans for Protecting Polluters Have Been a Devastating Success
By Mekela Panditharatne
May 10, 2019
4:21 PM
In the first days of the Donald Trump presidency, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon famously described the administration’s plans for the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” Despite the constant apparent chaos in parts of the West Wing, Trump officials throughout the executive branch have lived up to this promise to use bureaucratic tools to throttle federal law enforcement of polluters and corporations with an almost zealous meticulousness.
Across the Trump administration, top agency officials have been busy building a bureaucratic scaffolding to stymie federal enforcement actions against the nation’s wealthiest and most powerful players. Officials in the Justice Department, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, among others, have been moving to muzzle agencies’ fact-finding powers, add layers of bureaucratic control, complicate chains of command, and strip power from regional officers and enforcement specialists. The result has been historic declines in enforcement actions against banks, corporations, and corporate executives—precisely as Bannon promised.
The Trump administration has more than lived up to that initial slashing tone. Through its tenure, the administration has ramped up immigration enforcement, while presiding over a precipitous drop in enforcement of environmental and civil rights laws, and of regulating corporate crime. For polluters and corporations, the administration has doled out a handful of meager reprisals, wielding bureaucratic tools such as memoranda and fortified top-down structures to chill agencies’ enforcement powers.
Across the agencies, enforcement actions against polluters, banks, and corporations have dwindled. The Environmental Protection Agency collected a mere $69 million in civil and administrative penalties from polluters in 2018, the lowest amount levied by the agency in more than a decade. Criminal fines collected by the EPA from polluters plunged to $88 million, the lowest total for such penalties assessed in a decade. In 2018, EPA referred the fewest new criminal cases to the Justice Department in any year since 1988.
snip//
All administrations shuffle enforcement priorities, and some observers have posed contextual quibbles over the data documenting the decline. But the overall scale at which the Trump administration is pulling back on enforcement actions against corporate actors, banks, and polluters would be shocking under any other administration. As fewer cases gestate within the agencies’ ranks, companies will be emboldened to violate with greater impunity laws meant to protect public health, safety, and financial well-being. That’s bad news for all of us.
Trump's Plans for Protecting Polluters Have Been a Devastating Success
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/trump-bannon-administrative-state-epa-rosenstein-polluters-win.htmlTrump’s Plans for Protecting Polluters Have Been a Devastating Success
By Mekela Panditharatne
May 10, 2019
4:21 PM
In the first days of the Donald Trump presidency, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon famously described the administration’s plans for the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” Despite the constant apparent chaos in parts of the West Wing, Trump officials throughout the executive branch have lived up to this promise to use bureaucratic tools to throttle federal law enforcement of polluters and corporations with an almost zealous meticulousness.
Across the Trump administration, top agency officials have been busy building a bureaucratic scaffolding to stymie federal enforcement actions against the nation’s wealthiest and most powerful players. Officials in the Justice Department, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, among others, have been moving to muzzle agencies’ fact-finding powers, add layers of bureaucratic control, complicate chains of command, and strip power from regional officers and enforcement specialists. The result has been historic declines in enforcement actions against banks, corporations, and corporate executives—precisely as Bannon promised.
The Trump administration has more than lived up to that initial slashing tone. Through its tenure, the administration has ramped up immigration enforcement, while presiding over a precipitous drop in enforcement of environmental and civil rights laws, and of regulating corporate crime. For polluters and corporations, the administration has doled out a handful of meager reprisals, wielding bureaucratic tools such as memoranda and fortified top-down structures to chill agencies’ enforcement powers.
Across the agencies, enforcement actions against polluters, banks, and corporations have dwindled. The Environmental Protection Agency collected a mere $69 million in civil and administrative penalties from polluters in 2018, the lowest amount levied by the agency in more than a decade. Criminal fines collected by the EPA from polluters plunged to $88 million, the lowest total for such penalties assessed in a decade. In 2018, EPA referred the fewest new criminal cases to the Justice Department in any year since 1988.
snip//
All administrations shuffle enforcement priorities, and some observers have posed contextual quibbles over the data documenting the decline. But the overall scale at which the Trump administration is pulling back on enforcement actions against corporate actors, banks, and polluters would be shocking under any other administration. As fewer cases gestate within the agencies’ ranks, companies will be emboldened to violate with greater impunity laws meant to protect public health, safety, and financial well-being. That’s bad news for all of us.
May 10, 2019
Trump threatened Republicans to oppose this disaster aid bill. 34 didn’t listen.
34 Republicans joined Democrats in backing the House relief package on Friday.
E.A. Crunden
May 10, 2019, 2:25 pm
Tensions over a disaster aid bill that would give badly-needed assistance to struggling areas across the country came to a head on Friday as the House voted to once again approve the bill despite threats from President Donald Trump calling on Republicans to oppose the effort.
On a 257 to 150 vote, with 34 Republicans breaking ranks, the $19 billion bill easily cleared the House and will now head to the upper chamber. The relief package’s future remains uncertain, however, with the White House still opposed to more funding for hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico.
In addition to funding for Puerto Rico, the package contains relief for farmers and communities across the country who are struggling to recover after hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, and other disasters. It is also a $5 billion increase over the $14 billion bill that the House passed in January.
But the vote flew in defiance of the president, who has repeatedly tried to stall the relief effort. Trump called for Republicans to oppose the bill in advance of the vote, arguing without explanation that it would harm the mainland United States.
more...
https://thinkprogress.org/disaster-aid-bill-trump-puerto-rico-flooding-midwest-florida-a263d3d7ca5e/
Trump threatened Republicans to oppose this disaster aid bill. 34 didn't listen.
Trump threatened Republicans to oppose this disaster aid bill. 34 didn’t listen.
34 Republicans joined Democrats in backing the House relief package on Friday.
E.A. Crunden
May 10, 2019, 2:25 pm
Tensions over a disaster aid bill that would give badly-needed assistance to struggling areas across the country came to a head on Friday as the House voted to once again approve the bill despite threats from President Donald Trump calling on Republicans to oppose the effort.
On a 257 to 150 vote, with 34 Republicans breaking ranks, the $19 billion bill easily cleared the House and will now head to the upper chamber. The relief package’s future remains uncertain, however, with the White House still opposed to more funding for hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico.
In addition to funding for Puerto Rico, the package contains relief for farmers and communities across the country who are struggling to recover after hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, and other disasters. It is also a $5 billion increase over the $14 billion bill that the House passed in January.
But the vote flew in defiance of the president, who has repeatedly tried to stall the relief effort. Trump called for Republicans to oppose the bill in advance of the vote, arguing without explanation that it would harm the mainland United States.
more...
https://thinkprogress.org/disaster-aid-bill-trump-puerto-rico-flooding-midwest-florida-a263d3d7ca5e/
May 10, 2019
Trump’s accounting firm emerges as the most unlikely hero of democracy
Time is no longer on Trump's side.
Ian Millhiser
May 10, 2019, 12:38 pm
snip//
To explain, various House committees seek documents that will reveal Trump’s finances, and potentially expose conflicts of interest that influence how Trump governs. One of these committees is the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, which subpoenaed Mazars — Trump’s accounting firm — seeking “documents and information relating to the firm’s preparation, review, and auditing of financial statements for Trump and his business entities.”
The purpose of this inquiry, according to the committee, is to examine “several specific instances where President Trump’s reporting of assets and liabilities materially differs from what was subsequently reported in his required financial disclosure filings submitted as a candidate for office and as a federal official,” and to determine whether new legislation is needed “to expand the scope, penalties, and periods covered by financial disclosure laws” and augment “criminal laws governing the reporting of financial information to financial institutions.”
Mazars, for its part, offered only token resistance to this subpoena. Before the subpoena was issued, the committee asked Mazars if it would voluntarily turn over Trump’s financial documents. Mazars responded with a very brief letter explaining that it could not do so because of various laws and regulations that prohibit “disclosure of confidential client information without client consent or receipt of a validly issued and enforceable subpoena.”
The committee took the hint, and issued such a subpoena.
Since then, Mazars has declared its neutrality in the dispute between Trump and Congress. In a document filed in the Trump litigation, the accounting firm explained that “the dispute in this action is between Plaintiffs and the Committee,” and that “Mazars USA takes no position on the legal issues raised by Plaintiffs, and requests no time for oral argument before the Court.”
Mazars’ neutrality is a big deal. If the documents Congress seeks were solely in Trump’s possession, then Trump could deploy every possible obstructive tactic to keep Congress from obtaining those documents — and he would succeed until Congress obtained a court order requiring him to comply. Even after Congress obtained such an order, it likely would not be able to enforce the order until Trump exhausts his appeals.
But Mazars appears to have no interest in joining Trump’s resistance to the subpoena. To the contrary, its stated neutrality suggests that it will comply with the subpoena unless a court affirmatively orders them not to do so. Mazars’ neutrality, in other words, reverses the balance of power between Trump and Congress. Instead of being able to run out the clock, Trump now has to obtain a court order preventing Mazars from complying.
more...
https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-mazars-usa-house-oversight-subpoena-844a0fe30423/
Trump's accounting firm emerges as the most unlikely hero of democracy
Trump’s accounting firm emerges as the most unlikely hero of democracy
Time is no longer on Trump's side.
Ian Millhiser
May 10, 2019, 12:38 pm
snip//
To explain, various House committees seek documents that will reveal Trump’s finances, and potentially expose conflicts of interest that influence how Trump governs. One of these committees is the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, which subpoenaed Mazars — Trump’s accounting firm — seeking “documents and information relating to the firm’s preparation, review, and auditing of financial statements for Trump and his business entities.”
The purpose of this inquiry, according to the committee, is to examine “several specific instances where President Trump’s reporting of assets and liabilities materially differs from what was subsequently reported in his required financial disclosure filings submitted as a candidate for office and as a federal official,” and to determine whether new legislation is needed “to expand the scope, penalties, and periods covered by financial disclosure laws” and augment “criminal laws governing the reporting of financial information to financial institutions.”
Mazars, for its part, offered only token resistance to this subpoena. Before the subpoena was issued, the committee asked Mazars if it would voluntarily turn over Trump’s financial documents. Mazars responded with a very brief letter explaining that it could not do so because of various laws and regulations that prohibit “disclosure of confidential client information without client consent or receipt of a validly issued and enforceable subpoena.”
The committee took the hint, and issued such a subpoena.
Since then, Mazars has declared its neutrality in the dispute between Trump and Congress. In a document filed in the Trump litigation, the accounting firm explained that “the dispute in this action is between Plaintiffs and the Committee,” and that “Mazars USA takes no position on the legal issues raised by Plaintiffs, and requests no time for oral argument before the Court.”
Mazars’ neutrality is a big deal. If the documents Congress seeks were solely in Trump’s possession, then Trump could deploy every possible obstructive tactic to keep Congress from obtaining those documents — and he would succeed until Congress obtained a court order requiring him to comply. Even after Congress obtained such an order, it likely would not be able to enforce the order until Trump exhausts his appeals.
But Mazars appears to have no interest in joining Trump’s resistance to the subpoena. To the contrary, its stated neutrality suggests that it will comply with the subpoena unless a court affirmatively orders them not to do so. Mazars’ neutrality, in other words, reverses the balance of power between Trump and Congress. Instead of being able to run out the clock, Trump now has to obtain a court order preventing Mazars from complying.
more...
https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-mazars-usa-house-oversight-subpoena-844a0fe30423/
May 10, 2019
From adorable to plausible to formidable? Pete Buttigieg on himself, and his candidacy: Brent Larkin
Posted May 9, 9:23 AM
snip//
With generational tensions roiling the Democratic Party, Buttigieg is careful not to suggest Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders are too old to be president.
Trump is obsessed by the past. Instead of building a nation for our grandchildren, he romanticizes for the America of our grandparents.
Buttigieg believes the way to run against Trump would be to ignore his grade-school bullying in favor of a conversation with voters about structural changes to democracy and ways to improve their lives with higher wages, better health care and building a skilled workforce.
“In 2016, we were so shocked about who the nominee was we found it hard to talk about anything else. And I think we allowed our message to be far too much about him.”
Already, Buttigieg’s lifestyle is being targeted with the vile and despicable language so often employed by some religious extremists. There are few bigger hypocrites than the intolerant fundamentalist leaders who support this amoral and immoral president. Imagine the venom they would spew across the battleground state map in a Buttigieg-Trump matchup.
Brent Larkin was The Plain Dealer’s editorial director from 1991 until his retirement in 2009.
From adorable to plausible to formidable? Pete Buttigieg on himself, and his candidacy
https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2019/05/from-adorable-to-plausible-to-formidable-pete-buttigieg-on-himself-and-his-candidacy-brent-larkin.htmlFrom adorable to plausible to formidable? Pete Buttigieg on himself, and his candidacy: Brent Larkin
Posted May 9, 9:23 AM
snip//
With generational tensions roiling the Democratic Party, Buttigieg is careful not to suggest Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders are too old to be president.
“I don’t think it’s my place to say whether any of my competitors should run. I do think there’s a strong appetite for generational change. And that’s not only true of young voters. I am finding it particularly true of voters who are my parents’ age.”
Trump is obsessed by the past. Instead of building a nation for our grandchildren, he romanticizes for the America of our grandparents.
“They’ve (Republicans) set up an impossible promise – that we can meet our challenges by turning back the clock,” said Buttigieg. “One of the things that’s most inspiring about those who came before us is that they were focused on the future. That’s the thing we ought to emulate. Not their particular economic arrangements. And certainly not their racial and social attitudes.”
Buttigieg believes the way to run against Trump would be to ignore his grade-school bullying in favor of a conversation with voters about structural changes to democracy and ways to improve their lives with higher wages, better health care and building a skilled workforce.
“In 2016, we were so shocked about who the nominee was we found it hard to talk about anything else. And I think we allowed our message to be far too much about him.”
Already, Buttigieg’s lifestyle is being targeted with the vile and despicable language so often employed by some religious extremists. There are few bigger hypocrites than the intolerant fundamentalist leaders who support this amoral and immoral president. Imagine the venom they would spew across the battleground state map in a Buttigieg-Trump matchup.
“Of course it’s unpleasant,” he said of the gay bashing. “And it’s strange when people protest not over your ideas, but over your existence. My type of mental equipment for dealing with that is the same that keeps me humble when people say absurdly nice or inflated things about my intellect.
"The most important thing to remember is this campaign is not about me. It’s about everyday life in America and how I might be able to make it better if I get elected instead of the other guy.”
"The most important thing to remember is this campaign is not about me. It’s about everyday life in America and how I might be able to make it better if I get elected instead of the other guy.”
Brent Larkin was The Plain Dealer’s editorial director from 1991 until his retirement in 2009.
May 10, 2019
Posted on Fri, May 10th, 2019 by Jason Easley
Republican Congressman Will Hurd Calls On Mueller To Testify
snip//
https://twitter.com/JohnBerman/status/1126824820119867398
Hurd made it sound simple because it is simple. It’s common sense that since there is a dispute about what is in the report between Mueller and Barr, Congress had heard from Barr, so they should also hear from Mueller.
The White House doesn’t want Mueller talking or answering questions from Congress, because he will stomp their false narrative that the report cleared Trump into the ground.
Rep. Hurd’s comments demonstrate that Trump has painted the Republicans into a corner on Mueller. Every time that Mitch McConnell says case closed, the pressure grows to have Mueller testify.
At some point. Mueller is going to speak, and when it does it will turn our simmering national crisis into a blazing inferno that will consume Trump and all of his enablers in the Republican Party.
Republican Congressman Will Hurd Calls On Mueller To Testify
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/05/10/republican-congressman-will-hurd-calls-on-mueller-to-testify.htmlPosted on Fri, May 10th, 2019 by Jason Easley
Republican Congressman Will Hurd Calls On Mueller To Testify
snip//
https://twitter.com/JohnBerman/status/1126824820119867398
Hurd made it sound simple because it is simple. It’s common sense that since there is a dispute about what is in the report between Mueller and Barr, Congress had heard from Barr, so they should also hear from Mueller.
The White House doesn’t want Mueller talking or answering questions from Congress, because he will stomp their false narrative that the report cleared Trump into the ground.
Rep. Hurd’s comments demonstrate that Trump has painted the Republicans into a corner on Mueller. Every time that Mitch McConnell says case closed, the pressure grows to have Mueller testify.
At some point. Mueller is going to speak, and when it does it will turn our simmering national crisis into a blazing inferno that will consume Trump and all of his enablers in the Republican Party.
May 10, 2019
The Trump administration previously tried to take up this issue before the Supreme Court when appealing an injunction against its travel ban. But the high court never ruled on the underlying issue because they upheld the ban in its entirety, the Associated Press reported.
Courts will often issue injunctions while a case plays out. Nationwide injunctions apply to everyone as opposed to injunctions that only apply to people who brought the lawsuit.
According to Pence, the Trump administration apparently wants the Supreme Court to bar lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — even if the administration's policies violate the law.
A White House official told AP that the administration would look for cases that could press the Supreme Court to take up the issue.
more...
https://www.salon.com/2019/05/10/pence-claims-trump-will-ask-supreme-court-to-ban-judges-from-blocking-his-policies/?fbclid=IwAR2keeMv1sqmHKwrPOYcwcnWxSwSXBnF8onuOcG9vVUnrqVpwRzIWBmX-iE
Pence claims Trump will ask Supreme Court to bar judges from blocking his policies
Nothing is too low for him/them to go; absolutely no shame.
Pence claims Trump will ask Supreme Court to bar judges from blocking his policies
Vice president says administration hopes high court will end "nationwide injunctions" that shut down policy
Igor Derysh
May 10, 2019 10:00AM (UTC)
In a speech before the right-wing Federalist Society, Vice President Mike Pence complained about federal courts blocking the Trump administration’s policies from taking effect. He said President Trump would take the issue to the Supreme Court.
Pence told the crowd that federal judges who issue nationwide injunctions against Trump’s policies “prevent the executive branch from acting, compromising our national security by obstructing the lawful ability of the president to stop threats to the homeland where he sees them.”
“The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them,” Pence said. “A Supreme Court justice has to convince four of his colleagues to uphold a nationwide injunction — but a single district court judge can issue one, effectively preventing the duly-elected president of the United States from fulfilling his constitutional duties. This judicial obstruction is unprecedented. In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court.”
The Trump administration previously tried to take up this issue before the Supreme Court when appealing an injunction against its travel ban. But the high court never ruled on the underlying issue because they upheld the ban in its entirety, the Associated Press reported.
Courts will often issue injunctions while a case plays out. Nationwide injunctions apply to everyone as opposed to injunctions that only apply to people who brought the lawsuit.
According to Pence, the Trump administration apparently wants the Supreme Court to bar lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — even if the administration's policies violate the law.
A White House official told AP that the administration would look for cases that could press the Supreme Court to take up the issue.
more...
https://www.salon.com/2019/05/10/pence-claims-trump-will-ask-supreme-court-to-ban-judges-from-blocking-his-policies/?fbclid=IwAR2keeMv1sqmHKwrPOYcwcnWxSwSXBnF8onuOcG9vVUnrqVpwRzIWBmX-iE
May 10, 2019
A real story of fake news: Trump’s wealth
By Karen Tumulty
Columnist
May 9 at 6:17 PM
President Trump has finally proved, beyond any doubt, that there is such a thing as #FakeNews.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the media conspired to perpetrate a vast fraud on the American people. So-called journalists and their complicit editors colluded — yes, that’s the word — to convince an unwitting public that Trump was a spectacularly successful businessman.
The scale of the ink-fueled myth has been exposed at last, thanks to 10 years’ worth of his tax information obtained by the New York Times, which revealed Trump’s enterprises were flopping on an epic scale.
snip//
Even now, Trump would rather be thought of as a tax cheat than a loser. “You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes .?.?. almost all real estate developers did — and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport,” he tweeted in response to the recent Times report.
His backup singers at “Fox & Friends” chimed in, noting that piling up 10 digits’ worth of losses was a testament to Trump’s financial genius. “If anything, you read this and you’re like ‘Wow, it’s pretty impressive, all the things that he’s done in his life,’?” co-host Ainsley Earhardt said in wonder. “It’s beyond what most of us could ever achieve.”
During the final debate of the 2016 campaign, Trump vowed to “run our country the way I’ve run my company.” As we are learning, that is one campaign promise he’s on track to keep.
A real story of fake news: Trump's wealth
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/it-turns-out-trumps-business-success-was-a-media-made-myth/2019/05/09/eb22825e-71dc-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html?utm_term=.c33aba0cf6c2A real story of fake news: Trump’s wealth
By Karen Tumulty
Columnist
May 9 at 6:17 PM
President Trump has finally proved, beyond any doubt, that there is such a thing as #FakeNews.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the media conspired to perpetrate a vast fraud on the American people. So-called journalists and their complicit editors colluded — yes, that’s the word — to convince an unwitting public that Trump was a spectacularly successful businessman.
The scale of the ink-fueled myth has been exposed at last, thanks to 10 years’ worth of his tax information obtained by the New York Times, which revealed Trump’s enterprises were flopping on an epic scale.
snip//
Even now, Trump would rather be thought of as a tax cheat than a loser. “You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes .?.?. almost all real estate developers did — and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport,” he tweeted in response to the recent Times report.
His backup singers at “Fox & Friends” chimed in, noting that piling up 10 digits’ worth of losses was a testament to Trump’s financial genius. “If anything, you read this and you’re like ‘Wow, it’s pretty impressive, all the things that he’s done in his life,’?” co-host Ainsley Earhardt said in wonder. “It’s beyond what most of us could ever achieve.”
During the final debate of the 2016 campaign, Trump vowed to “run our country the way I’ve run my company.” As we are learning, that is one campaign promise he’s on track to keep.
May 10, 2019
The Rude Pundit
Proudly lowering the level of political discourse
5/08/2019
Practical Impeachment Politics: Your Objections Are Bullshit
Too many Democrats are tying themselves in knots in order to avoid committing to impeachment hearings for President Donald Trump, a man who, in his best days, betrays the public trust ten times before finishing his first Sausage McMuffin of the morning. But the arguments Democrats make are utter bullshit, and they're belied by history, circumstance, and the Democrats' own actions.
For example:
"Why bother impeaching Trump when we know the Senate won't vote to convict?" is something you hear over and over and over. Yet, a few days ago, the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, where impeachment hearings and votes would occur, passed a bill that forces the United States to stay in the Paris accord on climate change. In the past couple of months, the House has passed an election reform bill, a gun control bill, a gender pay gap bill, a bill rejecting Trump's emergency declaration on the border, a net neutrality bill, and a bill that funds converting unicorn farts into renewable energy. Well, not that last one, but they may as well have.
You know what all the real bills have in common? There's not a flea fuck in Hell's chance that the Republican-controlled Senate will pass them. The bills are, for all practical purposes, being voted on for show - show what we believe, show what they oppose. But Nancy Pelosi has no problem lining up bill after bill, just begging the Senate to shoot them down so that Democrats can campaign on how Republicans want us all to die, take away our rights, and force us to have babies. Almost no one talks about how this is a waste of time because it really isn't. Rallying the faithful is as good a cause as any.
snip//
We also hear that impeachment is so serious because it might mean a lawfully-elected president is removed from office, undoing the will of the (not majority of the) people. But those people also elected a Congress, and those members of Congress have impeachment as one of their duties. It would be just as wrong to say that they shouldn't do one of the things they were entrusted with if necessary.
Elections have consequences. We fucking know that. It's time that Donald Trump learns that lesson, too.
The Rude Pundit: Practical Impeachment Politics: Your Objections Are Bullshit
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2019/05/practical-impeachment-politics-your.htmlThe Rude Pundit
Proudly lowering the level of political discourse
5/08/2019
Practical Impeachment Politics: Your Objections Are Bullshit
Too many Democrats are tying themselves in knots in order to avoid committing to impeachment hearings for President Donald Trump, a man who, in his best days, betrays the public trust ten times before finishing his first Sausage McMuffin of the morning. But the arguments Democrats make are utter bullshit, and they're belied by history, circumstance, and the Democrats' own actions.
For example:
"Why bother impeaching Trump when we know the Senate won't vote to convict?" is something you hear over and over and over. Yet, a few days ago, the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, where impeachment hearings and votes would occur, passed a bill that forces the United States to stay in the Paris accord on climate change. In the past couple of months, the House has passed an election reform bill, a gun control bill, a gender pay gap bill, a bill rejecting Trump's emergency declaration on the border, a net neutrality bill, and a bill that funds converting unicorn farts into renewable energy. Well, not that last one, but they may as well have.
You know what all the real bills have in common? There's not a flea fuck in Hell's chance that the Republican-controlled Senate will pass them. The bills are, for all practical purposes, being voted on for show - show what we believe, show what they oppose. But Nancy Pelosi has no problem lining up bill after bill, just begging the Senate to shoot them down so that Democrats can campaign on how Republicans want us all to die, take away our rights, and force us to have babies. Almost no one talks about how this is a waste of time because it really isn't. Rallying the faithful is as good a cause as any.
snip//
We also hear that impeachment is so serious because it might mean a lawfully-elected president is removed from office, undoing the will of the (not majority of the) people. But those people also elected a Congress, and those members of Congress have impeachment as one of their duties. It would be just as wrong to say that they shouldn't do one of the things they were entrusted with if necessary.
Elections have consequences. We fucking know that. It's time that Donald Trump learns that lesson, too.
May 10, 2019
YA DON'T SAY!
Shocker! The GoFundMe Campaign to Build the Wall Is a Bust
And now, the donors to the effort are demanding answers.
Will Sommer
05.10.19 5:09 AM ET
Back in December, Washington state Trump supporter Joshua Greene donated a small amount of money to the crowdfunding effort to build a wall along the southern border. He wasn’t alone. The GoFundMe page to build the wall, to which he’d donated, was a sensation on the right in late 2018 and raised more than $20 million.
Organized by triple-amputee veteran Brian Kolfage, the campaign eventually morphed into a nonprofit called We Build the Wall, which promised to build portions of the wall on private land using the money it raised.
Months later, there’s no evidence that any construction has started, despite claims from Kolfage and his allies that construction would start in April. And now Greene is wondering what ever happened to that wall he was promised his dollars would fund?
“The lack of updates is very concerning,” Greene wrote in an email to Right Richter.
He’s not the only GoFundMe donor curious about what happened to the wall money. Since We Build the Wall blew their April deadline, Twitter replies to Kolfage and the group’s Facebook page have filled up with angry donors. Greene started tweeting his displeasure, too.
more...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/shocker-the-gofundme-campaign-to-build-the-wall-is-a-bust?ref=home
Shocker! The GoFundMe Campaign to Build the Wall Is a Bust
YA DON'T SAY!
Shocker! The GoFundMe Campaign to Build the Wall Is a Bust
And now, the donors to the effort are demanding answers.
Will Sommer
05.10.19 5:09 AM ET
Back in December, Washington state Trump supporter Joshua Greene donated a small amount of money to the crowdfunding effort to build a wall along the southern border. He wasn’t alone. The GoFundMe page to build the wall, to which he’d donated, was a sensation on the right in late 2018 and raised more than $20 million.
Organized by triple-amputee veteran Brian Kolfage, the campaign eventually morphed into a nonprofit called We Build the Wall, which promised to build portions of the wall on private land using the money it raised.
Months later, there’s no evidence that any construction has started, despite claims from Kolfage and his allies that construction would start in April. And now Greene is wondering what ever happened to that wall he was promised his dollars would fund?
“The lack of updates is very concerning,” Greene wrote in an email to Right Richter.
He’s not the only GoFundMe donor curious about what happened to the wall money. Since We Build the Wall blew their April deadline, Twitter replies to Kolfage and the group’s Facebook page have filled up with angry donors. Greene started tweeting his displeasure, too.
more...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/shocker-the-gofundme-campaign-to-build-the-wall-is-a-bust?ref=home
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: NY
Home country: US
Current location: Florida
Member since: Mon Sep 6, 2004, 09:54 PM
Number of posts: 171,105
