Here on the morning after the Vice Presidential debate, pundits' reaction are falling into two camps. Those who are judging it on the content of what was said think Kaine did the better job. He landed blow after blow against Trump, with Pence failing (or unable) to defend Trump. This group also focuses on number of lies and debunked distortions that Pence made -- which will be the subject of post-debate discussion.
On the other hand, those who judged it more on process and demeanor praised Pence's calm, presidential demeanor -- especially in what that conveyed to Republican party elites who are so uneasy voting for Trump. And those people were critical of Kaine's aggressively interrupting Pence and his seeming unease.
I empathize with Kaine, because what got him so animated and led to his interrupting was the need for a fact-checker on Pence. Kaine was trying to get in all that fact- checking as well as making the positive points about Clinton's policy positions. Bottom line for me: While the Pence-favoring ones have a point about demeanor, I will stick with the content-oriented truth-teller, Tim Kaine.
The bottom line, politically, is that Vice Presidential debates rarely make any difference in the course of the race. There is another Clinton-Trump debate coming up five days later, and this one will be forgotten by then.
Ralph
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Thoughts on the VP debate
Despite the RNC's posting a claim, more than an hour before the debate began, that Mike Pence had won the debate (and then quickly taking it down), there was no clear cut, big winner. Those who lean right will say that Mike Pence did; and those that lean left will say that Tim Kaine did. Put me in the latter group. Here are some particulars:
1. Tim Kaine was slightly, annoyingly too wound up and began right away interrupting Pence. I understood that he just couldn't sit there and wait while Pence repeatedly misstated facts, made wild, false accusations, and veered way off course. I was having trouble with that in Pence too. But Kaine seems to have put off even the anchors on MSNBC by his behavior.
2. That aside, Kaine gave crisp, concise answers that were fact based and accurate. He was obviously extremely well-prepared. He was challenging -- repeatedly calling on Pence to defend what Trump had said. And, if the debate were judged on points they made and on crispness of arguments, then Kaine won hands down.
3. Pence had the harder job of defending Donald Trump. He didn't even try, really. Mostly he tried to get by making generalized statements praising Trump but avoiding real commentary about anything substantive he has said. And he repeatedly denied that Trump has said what fact-checkers (plus everyone's memory) will easily prove.
4. Differences in policy were often highlighted, especially at the end when the topic turned to abortion. Each man was not just stating talking points, then, but was sharing his deeply held beliefs and his obvious, thoughtful consideration over time of the subject. Both men are personally opposed to it, both have deeply held religious beliefs that oppose it; but Kaine puts his own beliefs aside and doesn't think any one religious belief should be imposed as public policy. Pence, every bit as personally and religiously committed to opposing abortion, thinks that it should be public policy to "protect the vulnerable" and that "includes the unborn."
5. The moderator, Elaine Quijano of CBSN, did not, in my opinion, do a very good job. She was unable to keep them from talking over each other and even talking over her. At times, all three of them were talking at the same time. I also thought she tried to cover too much ground with her questions, with far too little time on each to allow them to get beyond talking points -- except at the end on abortion
6. In the post-debate days, Pence is not going to look as good as some think he does tonight; because much of the news will be about his denials of Trump's saying what he actually said -- and, in one notable case, even denying that he himself had said what he said. MSNBC anchors were extolling their view that Pence is playing the long game, that he established himself tonight as the leading conservative contender for the Republican nomination for president in 2020. Thus, as one said, Ted Cruz was the big loser.
7. In the end, I go with the policy positions and the clear, concise answers that Kaine gave. I though he ran circles around Pence and scored point after point by challenging Pence to defend Trump -- and he couldn't. Except for being overly aggressive and interrupting, I thought Kaine's performance was stellar. I just wish he had had twice as much time to rebut Pence's false claims about Clinton. I'm puzzled to find the MSNBC anchors in disagreement with that opinion.
Ralph
PS: A quote from Josh Marshall's TPM discussion of the debate:
"Kaine landed lots of punches on Donald Trump, while Pence left Trump largely undefended. Pence got in very few hits on Clinton, but not many. Whether Pence made a tacit decision to abandon his boss or simply wasn't up to the challenge I don't know. But the net effect was that he let Kaine land punch after punch on Trump, largely undefended. That's really all that matters."
1. Tim Kaine was slightly, annoyingly too wound up and began right away interrupting Pence. I understood that he just couldn't sit there and wait while Pence repeatedly misstated facts, made wild, false accusations, and veered way off course. I was having trouble with that in Pence too. But Kaine seems to have put off even the anchors on MSNBC by his behavior.
2. That aside, Kaine gave crisp, concise answers that were fact based and accurate. He was obviously extremely well-prepared. He was challenging -- repeatedly calling on Pence to defend what Trump had said. And, if the debate were judged on points they made and on crispness of arguments, then Kaine won hands down.
3. Pence had the harder job of defending Donald Trump. He didn't even try, really. Mostly he tried to get by making generalized statements praising Trump but avoiding real commentary about anything substantive he has said. And he repeatedly denied that Trump has said what fact-checkers (plus everyone's memory) will easily prove.
4. Differences in policy were often highlighted, especially at the end when the topic turned to abortion. Each man was not just stating talking points, then, but was sharing his deeply held beliefs and his obvious, thoughtful consideration over time of the subject. Both men are personally opposed to it, both have deeply held religious beliefs that oppose it; but Kaine puts his own beliefs aside and doesn't think any one religious belief should be imposed as public policy. Pence, every bit as personally and religiously committed to opposing abortion, thinks that it should be public policy to "protect the vulnerable" and that "includes the unborn."
5. The moderator, Elaine Quijano of CBSN, did not, in my opinion, do a very good job. She was unable to keep them from talking over each other and even talking over her. At times, all three of them were talking at the same time. I also thought she tried to cover too much ground with her questions, with far too little time on each to allow them to get beyond talking points -- except at the end on abortion
6. In the post-debate days, Pence is not going to look as good as some think he does tonight; because much of the news will be about his denials of Trump's saying what he actually said -- and, in one notable case, even denying that he himself had said what he said. MSNBC anchors were extolling their view that Pence is playing the long game, that he established himself tonight as the leading conservative contender for the Republican nomination for president in 2020. Thus, as one said, Ted Cruz was the big loser.
7. In the end, I go with the policy positions and the clear, concise answers that Kaine gave. I though he ran circles around Pence and scored point after point by challenging Pence to defend Trump -- and he couldn't. Except for being overly aggressive and interrupting, I thought Kaine's performance was stellar. I just wish he had had twice as much time to rebut Pence's false claims about Clinton. I'm puzzled to find the MSNBC anchors in disagreement with that opinion.
Ralph
PS: A quote from Josh Marshall's TPM discussion of the debate:
"Kaine landed lots of punches on Donald Trump, while Pence left Trump largely undefended. Pence got in very few hits on Clinton, but not many. Whether Pence made a tacit decision to abandon his boss or simply wasn't up to the challenge I don't know. But the net effect was that he let Kaine land punch after punch on Trump, largely undefended. That's really all that matters."
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
New info about the 3 pages of Trump's tax return
On her MSNBC news show last night, Rachel Maddow had the two New York Times reporters who broke the story of receiving those three pages of Donald Trump's 1995 tax return that showed an operating loss of almost a billion dollars. The pages were mailed anonymously to one of the reporters, Susanne Craig, from an address at Trump Tower.
Fellow Times reporter David Barstow flew to Florida to get the authenticity of the pages verified by Trump's former accountant who had prepared the tax return. He was able to authenticate these pages, including an explanation for why the numbers did not quite line up: the computer software he used to fill out the forms did not make room for a 9 digit number in the loss column, so he had to enter that line using his old typewriter.
Barstow also explained that this $915,729,293 loss did not necessarily all occur in one year, since this kind of loss is allowed to be carried forward to subsequent years letting the loss offset future profits. Craig and Barstow had found other evidence that Trump probably had big losses in 1991 and 1993, which is more plausible since the real estate market had big losses in the early 1990s but had recovered by 1995. They also said that tax experts found no evidence of illegalities in what could be deduced from just those three pages; but it would obviously require studying the entire return to clear the overall tax return. Don't feel too bad for Trump; that near-billion-dollar loss probably is, in large part, paper losses, such as depreciation -- even when the properties are appreciating. That's legal in real estate law.
Trump and his surrogates are spinning this as a "brilliant" use of the tax code legally for Trump's benefit. But the Clinton campaign is emphasizing that this is the problem: the law does allow this kind of advantage to wealthy people, and real estate dealers in particular. The average Americans, in contrast, have no such loopholes to allow them to avoid paying taxes.
Ralph
Fellow Times reporter David Barstow flew to Florida to get the authenticity of the pages verified by Trump's former accountant who had prepared the tax return. He was able to authenticate these pages, including an explanation for why the numbers did not quite line up: the computer software he used to fill out the forms did not make room for a 9 digit number in the loss column, so he had to enter that line using his old typewriter.
Barstow also explained that this $915,729,293 loss did not necessarily all occur in one year, since this kind of loss is allowed to be carried forward to subsequent years letting the loss offset future profits. Craig and Barstow had found other evidence that Trump probably had big losses in 1991 and 1993, which is more plausible since the real estate market had big losses in the early 1990s but had recovered by 1995. They also said that tax experts found no evidence of illegalities in what could be deduced from just those three pages; but it would obviously require studying the entire return to clear the overall tax return. Don't feel too bad for Trump; that near-billion-dollar loss probably is, in large part, paper losses, such as depreciation -- even when the properties are appreciating. That's legal in real estate law.
Trump and his surrogates are spinning this as a "brilliant" use of the tax code legally for Trump's benefit. But the Clinton campaign is emphasizing that this is the problem: the law does allow this kind of advantage to wealthy people, and real estate dealers in particular. The average Americans, in contrast, have no such loopholes to allow them to avoid paying taxes.
Ralph
And then there was this . . Trump Foundation gets shut down order from New York Attorney General
Starting with his disastrous debate performance last Monday, this new week has just gotten worse and worse for Donald Trump. One big difference is that the media has done a 180 degree reversal in how they cover him. Before, he was their cash-cow for upping their ratings; and all the coverage tended to portray his oddity and his outrageousness in a lighthearted, bemused way that, cumulatively, tended to "normalize" it all. Now, suddenly, they're covering him as a loser, with one scandal after another to expose.
Last week, following the debate, Trump kept the Miss Universe controversy going for another five days by constantly talking about it -- to his detriment. Then there was the report about violating the U.S. embargo of Cuba by sending an operative down there to look into opening a Trump casino. Then there was the New York Times blockbuster about him declaring a near-one-billion dollar operating loss in 1995 that would allow him to pay zero federal income tax for the next 18 years.
Over the weekend, one of Trump's Three Stooges (Giuliani, Christie, and Gingrich) got into the bad-week act as well. Rudi Giuliani was the invited keynote speaker at the "40 Under 40" awards dinner at the Waldorf in New York, sponsored by the Commercial Finance Association. He was supposed to talk about "Leadership," but instead he veered off into his Trump talking points, including derogatory comments about immigration and the "Mexicans in the kitchen." It was so shocking that the Association's CEO sent out a note of apology the next day to those attending. Rudi has always been an excitable, ridiculous, yapping attack dog. But lately he's gotten worse. Either being a Trump stooge is going to his head, or his head is not quite all together these days.
Also, over the weekend, David Farenthold, the Washington Post reporter, who has been doggedly investigating the Trump Foundation, exposed the fact that the Foundation had never registered or been credentialed as a charity or non-profit foundation by the State of New York Charities Bureau.
That brings us up to Monday this week. The New York Attorney General released a letter that orders the Trump Foundation to "immediately cease soliciting contributions or engaging in any other fund-raising activities in New York" and, within 15 days, to file all delinquent financial reports with the New York Charities Bureau. The failure to do so within 15 days "shall be deemed to be a continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York." Attorney General Schneiderman had previously opened an investigation against Trump University back in June, which is ongoing. At that time he called that venture a "straight-up fraud."
Also on Monday, the U.S. Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit ruled unanimously that Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN), Trump's VP running mate, had no authority to withhold funding from refugee resettlement organizations that are guaranteed aid under federal law. Pence had tried to deny aid to Syrian refugees in his state of Indiana, in an attempt to keep them from settling there. He cannot legally do that. This will surely come up in the debate tomorrow night between the two VP candidates.
All of this adds up to big time trouble for the Trump campaign. It also marks a definite change in tone of the reporting. No more presenting Trump as an entertaining clown to some, an inspiring strong-man to his base. The media is less gullible, less easily played by Trump, since he conned them into giving him 30 minutes of free live tv coverage of the opening of his new hotel in Washington a couple of weeks ago. (See ShrinkRap, Sept 17). The tv anchors were furious, and I thought then that this was going to be a turning point in the Trump coverage.
So here we are. And it's only Monday of this second very-bad-week for Donald Trump.
Ralph
Last week, following the debate, Trump kept the Miss Universe controversy going for another five days by constantly talking about it -- to his detriment. Then there was the report about violating the U.S. embargo of Cuba by sending an operative down there to look into opening a Trump casino. Then there was the New York Times blockbuster about him declaring a near-one-billion dollar operating loss in 1995 that would allow him to pay zero federal income tax for the next 18 years.
Over the weekend, one of Trump's Three Stooges (Giuliani, Christie, and Gingrich) got into the bad-week act as well. Rudi Giuliani was the invited keynote speaker at the "40 Under 40" awards dinner at the Waldorf in New York, sponsored by the Commercial Finance Association. He was supposed to talk about "Leadership," but instead he veered off into his Trump talking points, including derogatory comments about immigration and the "Mexicans in the kitchen." It was so shocking that the Association's CEO sent out a note of apology the next day to those attending. Rudi has always been an excitable, ridiculous, yapping attack dog. But lately he's gotten worse. Either being a Trump stooge is going to his head, or his head is not quite all together these days.
Also, over the weekend, David Farenthold, the Washington Post reporter, who has been doggedly investigating the Trump Foundation, exposed the fact that the Foundation had never registered or been credentialed as a charity or non-profit foundation by the State of New York Charities Bureau.
That brings us up to Monday this week. The New York Attorney General released a letter that orders the Trump Foundation to "immediately cease soliciting contributions or engaging in any other fund-raising activities in New York" and, within 15 days, to file all delinquent financial reports with the New York Charities Bureau. The failure to do so within 15 days "shall be deemed to be a continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York." Attorney General Schneiderman had previously opened an investigation against Trump University back in June, which is ongoing. At that time he called that venture a "straight-up fraud."
Also on Monday, the U.S. Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit ruled unanimously that Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN), Trump's VP running mate, had no authority to withhold funding from refugee resettlement organizations that are guaranteed aid under federal law. Pence had tried to deny aid to Syrian refugees in his state of Indiana, in an attempt to keep them from settling there. He cannot legally do that. This will surely come up in the debate tomorrow night between the two VP candidates.
All of this adds up to big time trouble for the Trump campaign. It also marks a definite change in tone of the reporting. No more presenting Trump as an entertaining clown to some, an inspiring strong-man to his base. The media is less gullible, less easily played by Trump, since he conned them into giving him 30 minutes of free live tv coverage of the opening of his new hotel in Washington a couple of weeks ago. (See ShrinkRap, Sept 17). The tv anchors were furious, and I thought then that this was going to be a turning point in the Trump coverage.
So here we are. And it's only Monday of this second very-bad-week for Donald Trump.
Ralph
Monday, October 3, 2016
In their blind opposition to Obama, Congress ignores his warnings, overrides his veto, and now our soldiers and diplomats are in danger.
This ranks high up on the list of perfidious acts of blind hatred and opposition to our duly elected president by a congress that cannot see past their prejudice against someone with President Obama's combination of intellect, judgment, temperament, and skin color.
Yes, I'm saying what you think I'm saying. Racial prejudice -- implicit bias, if you want to be kind -- has to be at the bottom of this Republican congress's stupidity and utter determination not to let this president have any success, if they can possibly stop it.
This is a bit complicated, so stay with me for a moment. We all know that many of the 9/11 hijackers, including Osama bin Laden himself, were Saudi Arabian nationals. There are rumors and some evidence that a lot of Saudi money backed them and later al Qaeda as well. So the families of the 9/11 victims have wanted to be able to sue the Saudi government. President Obama has resisted that, because that would open up our own military and diplomatic personnel to similar court proceedings from other countries, as well as possible physical attacks or arrest by foreign governments.
Nevertheless, Congress went forward with a bill called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). Recognizing the risk to us that this would open up, President Obama vetoed the bill. Then Congress this week voted overwhelmingly, with bipartisan support, to override his veto -- the first of his presidency.
And now, according to political writer Jason Linkins of Huffington Post, they are having morning-after remorse. House Majority Leader Paul Ryan thinks maybe they might just need to tweek the bill "to protect our service members overseas from any kind of legal ensnarements that occur, any kind of retribution.”
You see, what the bill did, and what Obama warned them about and why he vetoed it, was that to allow our citizens to sue other governments, we have to waive sovereign immunity protections. And that sets a precedent that other nations can also use against us -- like when we invade Iraq or bomb Syria. It's why we left no personnel in Iraq when we pulled out. Despite Republicans blaming Obama for that, it was George W. Bush who negotiated the exit date; and the Iraqi government would not agree to give our soldiers immunity if we stayed longer. Republicans ignore this when they blame Obama for the chaos in Iraq now, saying he should have left some troops there.
OK. Now it gets interesting. In their morning-after remorse, Republicans are learning from their new leader, Donald Trump. Never admit a mistake or acknowledge a failure. Rather than accept responsibility, Republicans are trying to blame it on . . . wait for it . . . on President Obama. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called this debacle "a good example of . . . a failure to communicate early about the potential consequences of a piece of legislation [that] was obviously very popular."
In other words, they were rashly rushing forward to ride the wave of popular support for the bill, and it's the president's fault that he didn't explain the consequences of their own bill to them before they passed it.
The trouble with that is obvious. It's their bill; they own it and are responsible. But that's not the issue. The real truth is that President Obama DID try to tell them. In a July 15, 2016 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained to reporters why they were opposed to JASTA.
Earnest: ". . . [T]he way that this law is written could open up U.S. companies and even potentially U.S. personnel to vulnerabilities when they’re engaged in actions or doing business or conducting official government work overseas. There is an important principle related to sovereign immunity. . . . So we believe that’s a principle worth protecting. . . . a specific principle that benefits the United States and private U.S. interests in countries all around the globe."
OK. But that was a press secretary speaking to reporters. Did the White House directly communicate this to Congress? At another press briefing on September 23, 2016, Earnest discussed attempts by the White House to get congress to address these concerns about preserving the immunity of our own people. He said "that’s the nature of the conversations that we’re having with members of Congress on Capitol Hill."
Congress went ahead anyway and passed the bill without finding the solution, and in his letter accompanying his veto, President Obama wrote to the Senate:
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
"I am returning herewith without my approval S. 2040, the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA), which would, among other things, remove sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated state sponsors of terrorism. . . .
". . . . JASTA would upset longstanding international principles regarding sovereign immunity . . . could have serious implications for U.S. national interests. . . . sovereign immunity principles protect our Nation and its Armed Forces, officials, and assistance professionals, from foreign court proceedings. These principles also protect U.S. Government assets from attempted seizure by private litigants abroad. . . .
" . . . . Enactment of JASTA could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials ― including our men and women in uniform ― for allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third parties. . . . "
Nothing about this concern was a secret. Huffington Post put out a podcast on it last week. And it was discussed on NPR well ahead of the veto override. Heck, even I knew about the problem without hearing any of those discussions. So congressional leaders certainly should have known the consequences.
But Republican House and Senate leaders won't take the responsibility of their own rash actions that they were adequately warned about. Either they don't respect President Obama enough to pay attention to his warnings. Or they understood fully and their game plan was this: to force the hated Obama to veto a bill that's very popular with a public unaware of the consequences. Then they would override his veto, so they could rush home to campaign on having stood up to Obama, who was siding with a foreign Muslim government over the American people.
It worked for a day -- and then somebody began reporting on it, and Ryan and McConnell had to admit there was a problem with the bill as written (as Obama had warned). So now it's amusing to watch them squirm in their own backfire stew -- and, like their great orange leader, try to blame it on somebody else, namely President Obama. What? He didn't make you listen to him the first time, so it's his fault? It just won't wash, folks. And it gives voters one more reason to vote Republicans out of office -- and send Donald Trump back to his gold-plated toys.
Ralph
Yes, I'm saying what you think I'm saying. Racial prejudice -- implicit bias, if you want to be kind -- has to be at the bottom of this Republican congress's stupidity and utter determination not to let this president have any success, if they can possibly stop it.
This is a bit complicated, so stay with me for a moment. We all know that many of the 9/11 hijackers, including Osama bin Laden himself, were Saudi Arabian nationals. There are rumors and some evidence that a lot of Saudi money backed them and later al Qaeda as well. So the families of the 9/11 victims have wanted to be able to sue the Saudi government. President Obama has resisted that, because that would open up our own military and diplomatic personnel to similar court proceedings from other countries, as well as possible physical attacks or arrest by foreign governments.
Nevertheless, Congress went forward with a bill called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). Recognizing the risk to us that this would open up, President Obama vetoed the bill. Then Congress this week voted overwhelmingly, with bipartisan support, to override his veto -- the first of his presidency.
And now, according to political writer Jason Linkins of Huffington Post, they are having morning-after remorse. House Majority Leader Paul Ryan thinks maybe they might just need to tweek the bill "to protect our service members overseas from any kind of legal ensnarements that occur, any kind of retribution.”
You see, what the bill did, and what Obama warned them about and why he vetoed it, was that to allow our citizens to sue other governments, we have to waive sovereign immunity protections. And that sets a precedent that other nations can also use against us -- like when we invade Iraq or bomb Syria. It's why we left no personnel in Iraq when we pulled out. Despite Republicans blaming Obama for that, it was George W. Bush who negotiated the exit date; and the Iraqi government would not agree to give our soldiers immunity if we stayed longer. Republicans ignore this when they blame Obama for the chaos in Iraq now, saying he should have left some troops there.
OK. Now it gets interesting. In their morning-after remorse, Republicans are learning from their new leader, Donald Trump. Never admit a mistake or acknowledge a failure. Rather than accept responsibility, Republicans are trying to blame it on . . . wait for it . . . on President Obama. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called this debacle "a good example of . . . a failure to communicate early about the potential consequences of a piece of legislation [that] was obviously very popular."
In other words, they were rashly rushing forward to ride the wave of popular support for the bill, and it's the president's fault that he didn't explain the consequences of their own bill to them before they passed it.
The trouble with that is obvious. It's their bill; they own it and are responsible. But that's not the issue. The real truth is that President Obama DID try to tell them. In a July 15, 2016 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained to reporters why they were opposed to JASTA.
Earnest: ". . . [T]he way that this law is written could open up U.S. companies and even potentially U.S. personnel to vulnerabilities when they’re engaged in actions or doing business or conducting official government work overseas. There is an important principle related to sovereign immunity. . . . So we believe that’s a principle worth protecting. . . . a specific principle that benefits the United States and private U.S. interests in countries all around the globe."
OK. But that was a press secretary speaking to reporters. Did the White House directly communicate this to Congress? At another press briefing on September 23, 2016, Earnest discussed attempts by the White House to get congress to address these concerns about preserving the immunity of our own people. He said "that’s the nature of the conversations that we’re having with members of Congress on Capitol Hill."
Congress went ahead anyway and passed the bill without finding the solution, and in his letter accompanying his veto, President Obama wrote to the Senate:
* * * * *
Veto Message from the President ― S.2040:TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
"I am returning herewith without my approval S. 2040, the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA), which would, among other things, remove sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated state sponsors of terrorism. . . .
". . . . JASTA would upset longstanding international principles regarding sovereign immunity . . . could have serious implications for U.S. national interests. . . . sovereign immunity principles protect our Nation and its Armed Forces, officials, and assistance professionals, from foreign court proceedings. These principles also protect U.S. Government assets from attempted seizure by private litigants abroad. . . .
" . . . . Enactment of JASTA could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials ― including our men and women in uniform ― for allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third parties. . . . "
* * * * *
Nothing about this concern was a secret. Huffington Post put out a podcast on it last week. And it was discussed on NPR well ahead of the veto override. Heck, even I knew about the problem without hearing any of those discussions. So congressional leaders certainly should have known the consequences.
But Republican House and Senate leaders won't take the responsibility of their own rash actions that they were adequately warned about. Either they don't respect President Obama enough to pay attention to his warnings. Or they understood fully and their game plan was this: to force the hated Obama to veto a bill that's very popular with a public unaware of the consequences. Then they would override his veto, so they could rush home to campaign on having stood up to Obama, who was siding with a foreign Muslim government over the American people.
It worked for a day -- and then somebody began reporting on it, and Ryan and McConnell had to admit there was a problem with the bill as written (as Obama had warned). So now it's amusing to watch them squirm in their own backfire stew -- and, like their great orange leader, try to blame it on somebody else, namely President Obama. What? He didn't make you listen to him the first time, so it's his fault? It just won't wash, folks. And it gives voters one more reason to vote Republicans out of office -- and send Donald Trump back to his gold-plated toys.
Ralph
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Bombshell: Trump maybe paid no tax for 18 years
The New York Times released a late-night report suggesting that Donald Trump may have paid zero federal income taxes for 18 years. The Times obtained a copy of his 1995 income tax returns, in which he reported a $916 million business loss. According to tax experts, he could spread out the deduction over the next 18 years, and it would be large enough to wipe out $50 million of taxable income for each of those years. So, with that deduction alone, if Trump's taxable income did not exceed $50 million each year, he would have owed no tax. And it would be perfectly legal.
What is not known is whether Trump did have more than $50 million taxable income in any of those years; and, given his smart tax lawyers, they probably manipulated the loopholes so that he didn't. So far, Trump has not denied that this is true, although he did find time to charge that the 1995 document was obtained illegally and that the Times is operating as an extension of the Clinton campaign.
Ralph
What is not known is whether Trump did have more than $50 million taxable income in any of those years; and, given his smart tax lawyers, they probably manipulated the loopholes so that he didn't. So far, Trump has not denied that this is true, although he did find time to charge that the 1995 document was obtained illegally and that the Times is operating as an extension of the Clinton campaign.
Ralph
Trump's no good, very bad, absolutely terrible week -- with nobody but himself to blame
Donald Trump does not -- ever -- accept the responsibity for anything, no matter how minor. That's a fact that he is proud of. Once asked by a religious conservative if he had ever asked God's forgiveness, he said no. He'd never felt he had anything he needed forgiveness for. Not that he's an atheist, or doesn't consider confession a part of religious practice; it's that he is blameless.
This week began with a debate performance widely panned as a "disaster." But it was not his fault. He blamed the moderator for being unfair, he blamed the mic for being "a bad mic," he blamed a Miss Universe winner from years ago for saying he harassed her for gaining weight, he blames the biased media, he blamed the polls.
So the debate set the stage for his very bad week. But that's not all. The investigative reporters are on the job.
1. Kurt Eichenwald followed up on his blockbuster report in last week's Newsweek about Trump's entangled business relationships with foreign investors, including Russian oligarchs and others who are influential with foreign governments, plus possibly some criminals involved in his deals. This week, Eichenwald adds to the story with proof in printed receipts that a man representing the Trump Organization went to Cuba in 1998 to explore setting up a casino there. No deal was worked out; but the simple fact of spending money there on a single trip in 1998 was a violation of the U.S. embargo against spending any money in Cuba. And within weeks of that act in 1998, Trump was giving a speech to the Cuban-American community in Florida, excoriating the Castro regime and denouncing anyone who failed to observe the embargo. Trump did not himself go to Cuba, but his company paid for an operative to go there -- and thus violated the treaty.
As Rachel Maddow pointed out, the average voter isn't going to care about this, but Cuban-American voters in South Florida -- a key block for Trump to win the state -- are extremely angry, not only for breaking the embargo but also for lying to them about it.
2. David Farenthold is the dogged investigative reporter for the Washington Post, who broke the story of Trump's misuse of Trump Foundation funds to settle his own business interests. The Foundation was set up with Trump money, but he has not put any of his own money into it since 2008, getting other business associates and friends to contribute. Then he uses the money, under the guise that it's his charity. Now Farenthold has discovered that the Foundation has never registered with New York State and received the credentials necessary to solicit money from others for charitable purposes. This could result in fines, or a requirement that he return all the money donated, or possibly even shutting down the Foundation.
This has more than background connection to Trump's campaign for president. Last spring, in a pique with Megyn Kelly and FoxNews, he refused to participate in the next debate. Instead he held a simultaneous rally nearby to raise money for veterans. He claimed he raised $1,670,000. Online contributors were directed to send the money to the Donald J. Trump Foundation. Now we know that was illegal, since the Foundation is not registered by the state -- which requires periodic auditing. If a foundation only receives unsolicited donations, registration is not required. So it may be an oversight or lack of knowledge of the law when it changed from its original status as a family foundation. But once Trump began directing people to settle various deals with him by giving the money to his Foundation, he was already violating the law even before this solicitation for donations to the Foundation to be used for veterans -- which, by the way, didn't get to veteran charities until months later after investigators reported they could find no veterans groups that had gotten the money.
3. Trump's post-debate behavior has only made his bad debate performance even worse. He just will not let the story of the Venezuelan beauty queen go. He continues to lash back at her, sending out tweets at 3 am and 5 am telling people to look at a sex tape he claims is Alicia Machado. Investigators of course have been unable to find any evidence of such a tape. Instead we're getting reports that Trump himself once did an intro for a soft-core porn tape and then tried to persuade his mistress Marla Maples to accept Playboy's $1 million offer to pose nude. She refused.
Trump does not seem to realize he is only hurting himself with this continued juvenile tirade. It provides a vivid example of how easy it is to bait him into a bad response, revealing his obsessive vengeance when he is attacked. Not presidential. No, not at all.
4. And on top of all this, and largely because of it, the tension and open fighting within the Trump campaign organization has increased, with rumors that the Trump kids are unhappy that the rough campaign is hurting the business. Trump hotel bookings are down by over 50% overall, with the two major ones being New York and Las Vegas at over 70% down. In addition they are said to be blaming the staff for not preparing their father for the debate -- which of course must dismay Kellyanne Conway and others who tried so hard and just couldn't get Donald to sit down and focus.
I'd rather have Hillary Clinton winning on her own qualifications and her campaign, and not depending on the never-Trump vote. But whatever help she gets in the polls by a self-destructing Donald Trump -- we'll take it and be grateful.
Ralph
PS: What a waste that, coming into the last month of the campaign, we're talking about this stuff instead of the candidates' positions on: immigration reform, infrastructure rebuilding, jobs, the Middle East, national security, police-community relations, and voting rights.
This week began with a debate performance widely panned as a "disaster." But it was not his fault. He blamed the moderator for being unfair, he blamed the mic for being "a bad mic," he blamed a Miss Universe winner from years ago for saying he harassed her for gaining weight, he blames the biased media, he blamed the polls.
So the debate set the stage for his very bad week. But that's not all. The investigative reporters are on the job.
1. Kurt Eichenwald followed up on his blockbuster report in last week's Newsweek about Trump's entangled business relationships with foreign investors, including Russian oligarchs and others who are influential with foreign governments, plus possibly some criminals involved in his deals. This week, Eichenwald adds to the story with proof in printed receipts that a man representing the Trump Organization went to Cuba in 1998 to explore setting up a casino there. No deal was worked out; but the simple fact of spending money there on a single trip in 1998 was a violation of the U.S. embargo against spending any money in Cuba. And within weeks of that act in 1998, Trump was giving a speech to the Cuban-American community in Florida, excoriating the Castro regime and denouncing anyone who failed to observe the embargo. Trump did not himself go to Cuba, but his company paid for an operative to go there -- and thus violated the treaty.
As Rachel Maddow pointed out, the average voter isn't going to care about this, but Cuban-American voters in South Florida -- a key block for Trump to win the state -- are extremely angry, not only for breaking the embargo but also for lying to them about it.
2. David Farenthold is the dogged investigative reporter for the Washington Post, who broke the story of Trump's misuse of Trump Foundation funds to settle his own business interests. The Foundation was set up with Trump money, but he has not put any of his own money into it since 2008, getting other business associates and friends to contribute. Then he uses the money, under the guise that it's his charity. Now Farenthold has discovered that the Foundation has never registered with New York State and received the credentials necessary to solicit money from others for charitable purposes. This could result in fines, or a requirement that he return all the money donated, or possibly even shutting down the Foundation.
This has more than background connection to Trump's campaign for president. Last spring, in a pique with Megyn Kelly and FoxNews, he refused to participate in the next debate. Instead he held a simultaneous rally nearby to raise money for veterans. He claimed he raised $1,670,000. Online contributors were directed to send the money to the Donald J. Trump Foundation. Now we know that was illegal, since the Foundation is not registered by the state -- which requires periodic auditing. If a foundation only receives unsolicited donations, registration is not required. So it may be an oversight or lack of knowledge of the law when it changed from its original status as a family foundation. But once Trump began directing people to settle various deals with him by giving the money to his Foundation, he was already violating the law even before this solicitation for donations to the Foundation to be used for veterans -- which, by the way, didn't get to veteran charities until months later after investigators reported they could find no veterans groups that had gotten the money.
3. Trump's post-debate behavior has only made his bad debate performance even worse. He just will not let the story of the Venezuelan beauty queen go. He continues to lash back at her, sending out tweets at 3 am and 5 am telling people to look at a sex tape he claims is Alicia Machado. Investigators of course have been unable to find any evidence of such a tape. Instead we're getting reports that Trump himself once did an intro for a soft-core porn tape and then tried to persuade his mistress Marla Maples to accept Playboy's $1 million offer to pose nude. She refused.
Trump does not seem to realize he is only hurting himself with this continued juvenile tirade. It provides a vivid example of how easy it is to bait him into a bad response, revealing his obsessive vengeance when he is attacked. Not presidential. No, not at all.
4. And on top of all this, and largely because of it, the tension and open fighting within the Trump campaign organization has increased, with rumors that the Trump kids are unhappy that the rough campaign is hurting the business. Trump hotel bookings are down by over 50% overall, with the two major ones being New York and Las Vegas at over 70% down. In addition they are said to be blaming the staff for not preparing their father for the debate -- which of course must dismay Kellyanne Conway and others who tried so hard and just couldn't get Donald to sit down and focus.
I'd rather have Hillary Clinton winning on her own qualifications and her campaign, and not depending on the never-Trump vote. But whatever help she gets in the polls by a self-destructing Donald Trump -- we'll take it and be grateful.
Ralph
PS: What a waste that, coming into the last month of the campaign, we're talking about this stuff instead of the candidates' positions on: immigration reform, infrastructure rebuilding, jobs, the Middle East, national security, police-community relations, and voting rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
