So, the truth is revealed. But of course, according to Trump, it is "fake news by the failing NY Times." A couple of minor points to consider:
1. The only things fake in this news are the lies Trump tells about his success as a business person and the size of his wealth. Being from NY originally, I have many contacts there in my former profession, banking. I can assure you that there is not a single US bank of any renown that for the last 25 years would lend Trump a nickel, let alone the hundreds of millions of debt he currently owes. He was always considered a bad joke in NY business and banking circles. He was never allowed to sit at the adult table there.
2. Trump is a fraud, a liar, a con, and a cheat just as Michael Cohan has said. And yes, he is a racist as well, which Michael Cohan has also said. Michael Cohan is no paragon of virtue, but on Trump, he has been and is now telling the truth.
3. Trump has repeatedly cheated his customers, his suppliers, tax authorities, shareholders, and business partners, and, oh yes, even his family members, including his former wives, likely Melania as well. He is now involved in his biggest con of all on the American people and in particular his followers who believe he is doing anything at all to help them. He is not. He cares only for one person in the entire world, himself, every minute of every day. He has no deeply held beliefs or moral values whatsoever.
4. He will not only go down in history as the worst President of all time, but a terrible business person, pathological liar, a crook, a cheat, a racist bigot, and a man with no moral core at all.
It is about time that we start to hear the chant of "lock him up" from those who have supported him. However, they have sold their souls to this devil and I expect they will continue to follow him into hell no matter the cost.
As for Republican legislators, they care only about power and preservation of their own positions. Do not expect them to display any convictions, moral courage, or commitment to our Constitution or democracy. That ship sailed long ago. The only answer is to replace them. Trump has so corrupted the entire Republican party that there are none left to save it. The best answer for Republicans is to burn the party down completely and start over with a new Conservative Center-Right Party. It should only take them a decade or two to repair their image following Trump's single term in office.
I think the Republican Party was well on its way to this level of corruption before Trump came along. He just brought all the nasty methane bubbles to the top and let them stink even more.
True. Nixon’s dirty tricks seem quaint next to unfit-for-command Don the Con’s efforts to be re-elected. His major swamp talent is spreading his lies through the media. A quarter of a million “virtual nobodies” could be dead by Election Day. The methane comes directly out of his mouth.
As the Brits say: "well spoke!" You summed it up beautifully--fellow Bruce-ster! It still is remarkable when one considers that, of 25% to 30% of the population who may support him, when ANY story comes out labeled as from the NYT or WaPo, they instantly are turned off and won't go anywhere near it. The willful, cognizant ignorance of such a sizable segment of the population is simply astounding...and ultimately scary. We can only hope that if we keep chipping away at his fake façade, it will eventually crumble and the truth will come tumbling out. I appreciate your post BIGLY!
While there is some confusion about the exact first use of the following phrase, it is often attributed to Lincoln long before being later used by P.T. Barnum: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time: but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Perhaps many Republicans constitute that portion who can be fooled all of the time.
However, my favorite quote applicable to instances like this is Mark Twain's, who said, "Never argue with stupid people. They will only drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."
Exactly. I still believe the Republican party is essentially a minority power, and they know it, so they are motivated solely, 100% by POWER--gaining it and holding on to it by any, and I do mean ANY, means possible. That means aligning themselves with perhaps one of the biggest "grifters" in the history of this country. All the revelations swirling around now about Trump's financial shenanigans--today has been dizzying!--might be a big first step for the scales to fall from their eyes and lead to them realising they've been had. They'd best do something, or their party could end up being irretrievably ruined.
And this is just the first in a series of NY Times articles on Trump's finances and financial shenanigans. I see another Pulitzer Prize in this for the NY Times before this is over.
Well said, Bruce. (I too am a former New Yorker and knew how horrid he was back in the day.) Yes, WE are our only hope to get our nation back on the right path. We must vote in incontrovertible numbers and take back the presidency and the Senate.
He could easily back up his fake new claims by simply showing the world the second page of his 1040 from those years. I'm guessing it really shows $750 tax due. Otherwise the lawyers would have already filed suit against the NYTimes for libel.
The only thing that will change the vote of the R senators is if they think they are in peril of losing that which they hold dear: money and power and that a no vote will help them. We are donating to a number of their opponents.
What's Melania going to do when she realizes Corona Don is actually broke? She's been doing her gig for the money, surely, but when he's finally out of office, there won't be any and he'll be headed for jail. Should be fun to watch.
Well, as long as she sues for divorce after Trump leaves the White House and no longer has Bill Barr and the seven dwarfs in his DOJ to defend Trump, the only lawyer that will probably work for Trump is Rudy. That shouldn't be much of a battle for whomever Melania brings on to take the case. But it looks like she will pretty much be scraping the bottom of the Trump asset barrel at that point.
Do you have solid information that the tax returns are joint returns? I would bet money that the Crime Don's attorneys and accountants have advised him to file separate returns. He does not want to leave any trail of her fingerprints on any of his assets in the event there is a divorce proceeding. We know for sure that she signed some kind of prenuptial agreement. However, even so, I would bet he files separate, not joint returns.
Given she's likely been scraping barnacles off the bottom of the Trump ass barrel since he came back from his last assignation with a porn star, that shouldn't be a problem. (Yes, I know, this is a joke in poor taste.)
So how is it that he was never taken down criminally by either State of New York authorities or the US Department of Justice??? Particularly, I hear all sorts of expectations directed at the Southern District of NY but in fact the history looks like one of long-term failure to indict and convict a very flagrant criminal...
Oops, October Surprise in September. LoL But this is likely the gift that just keeps on giving over the next 5 weeks of revelations. Could be migrating time for the chickens to come home to roost.
As I read the NY Times story, (I got two thirds through it and gave it up as the plot line stayed more or less the same with different dates and details,) a picture grew in my mind that was bigger than the business/tax fraud history of Donald Trump.
This is also a story of how the very wealthy avoid paying taxes. A small army of dedicated tax lawyers and accountants use our unbeleivably complex and convoluted tax laws, rules, and regulations to help well-heeled clients avoid paying anywhere near the taxes the rest of us working slobs, the little people, pay. And, to add insult to injury, their fees are likely tax-deductible!
This is not a revelation; we all know this, but the NY Times story brings this into sharp focus again.
The NY Times Trump tax fraud story is a thunderously loud argument in favor of the Alternative Minimum Tax. And, just for me, you can throw in making tax lawyers' fees non-tax-deductable as well.
I live in Europe so the NYT’s Trump Taxes story hit me this morning as I was firing up the laptop and brewing my first cup of coffee – woke me right up! I read it and the WP’s coverage as well, and none of it was surprising.
We knew he was a phony and that he would slide gains and losses around like a sidewalk three-card Monte huckster. It must be exhausting being Trump – just the hair & makeup odyssey each morning would bring most folks to their knees, but add to that the financial juggling and non-stop lying and it makes you wonder what the guy might be capable of doing if he just did his bloody job.
But the thing that stuck with me was the story of the codicil to his father's will that Trump attempted to foist on his aging father that would have given Donnie control over his father’s estate.
In a sworn deposition, Trump declared that he had no idea his father was struggling with dementia at the time Trump tried to trick him into signing the codicil. No idea, even though Trump senior had been tested and been found to be suffering early signs of dementia. The family knew this and yet Trump denied it.
This is the man he says he revered – whose picture sits behind the Resolute desk, the father who bailed Donnie out time and time again. This one episode speaks louder than most of the horrendous things we have heard from his own mouth or heard about from others like his niece.
Donnie was in debt, so he tried to trick his ailing father into signing a document to bail him out one last time.
Well, as we learned today, and suspected all along, Donnie is still in debt and one can only wonder (fear) who he has turned to for relief this time and what he might be willing to offer in return for that relief.
You touch on one of the very issues I have always wondered about - if criminals used the energy that they put into doing criminal activities in legitimate activities, they could be successful in an acceptable, legal way. Instead, it is all about beating or fixing the system. Such a waste of talent!
Wonder no longer. Deutsche Bank has been making large dicey loans to Trump for years now, backstopped by Putin's state bank. I don't have the links offhand, but it has been well reported.
Was aware of the DB connection - it is the biggest bank in Germany (where I reside) and currently under intense scrutiny, but not of the Putin connection. Would be interested in knowing more.
That is certainly part of it - but his cash/credit needs exceed what he might be able to steal from us. He's going to be looking for a deep-pocket, perhaps some leader who controls the banking system in their country - just guessing, of course.
Names aligning with the authoritarians "assisted" with their elections by Cambridge Analytica's micro-targeted Facebook ads. (Today's news via UK's Channel 4.)
A documentary titled "A Thousand Cuts" about a courageous civil rights lawyer in the Philippines described ruling party political manipulation through Facebook, with the Philippines being one of the largest per capita users of Facebook in the world.
Thank you Heather . As always you have done an exemplary job in laying out a roadmap for us on this rather exploding news day. With every nugget of news from yesterday, I find I am particularly repulsed by the fact that Trump only paid $750.00 in taxes for several years. Perhaps because that is less than the quarterly cost for just the 20 minute consult with my Oncologist. My testing every 3 months alone is more than 6 times what that derelict paid in yearly taxes. To me, the perspective is staggering.
I hear you--my monthly oncology and appointments, according to my health insurance statements, would cost me $30,000 A MONTH if I were not insured through work. And I have consistently fallen through every "crack" between the wealthy haves whose tax burdens have bottomed out and the not wealthy "have nots" who have seen a modest reduction in their taxes. I have paid more in federal taxes in the last three years than ever previously--as my salary has fallen in value because of no raises at all. These are existential issues that the Repos in the Senate, sheltered as they are because of taxpayer-funded platinum healthcare, pensions, and protections, refuse to acknowledge. I don't even think about the deranged resident of the White House in this context: as a pathological narcissist he isn't capable of empathy anyway.
All of this--every word--is a must read. But for me, the sentence that was a personal gut punch was this: "It shows that he was deeply in debt in 2015, and was, as his former fixer Michael Cohen said, eager to rebuild his brand by running for the highest office in the land." Think about that. (pause)
This thoroughly lawless, corrupt, incompetent, narcissistic buffoon used and abused the United States of America as his last, best personal-centered hope for digging himself and his companies out of crushing debt. He is a lifelong, epic failure. It's appalling that, by extension, he also used and abused every tax-paying American and every American too poor to have to pay taxes.
trump has used the White House and every other place he has parked his privileged derrière as a showcase for (wait for it...) himself. He has done this at America's expense, literally and metaphorically. For four years, we have waited for verification of what we have long assumed to be true: donald j trump is (among other things) a tax-dodging weasel of the highest order.
Am I remembering correctly that it was tax evasion that brought down Al Capone? An apt comparison, since trump is a ruthless, amoral con man who has scammed our country from the get-go. If he has any remorse at all, it is only that he has finally been verifiably sniffed out. It's a very big stink.
I found a post this morning on FB, I thought I'd share it here to see what people think about it.
Bill Svelmoe
A few thoughts on Amy Coney Barrett, our new Supreme Court justice.
- As noted above, she's a done deal. So Democrats should not waste time trying to besmirch her character, focusing on her religion, trying to box her into a corner on how she will vote on hypothetical cases.
The People of Praise is not a cult. I've had half a dozen of their kids in my classes, including some men who heard about me from their female friends. Almost without fail, these have been among the best students I've ever had. Extremely bright. Careful critical thinkers. Wonderful writers. I loved having them in class. So don't go after the People of Praise.
By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I've had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court. I have no first hand knowledge of her, but take the above for what you will.
So Democrats should not take a typical approach with her.
- Stay focused on the election. If the election were tomorrow, Biden wins comfortably, and the Democrats likely take the Senate as well. The latest polls were taken after RBG's death. No gain for Trump. In fact the majority of Americans think the Supreme Court seat should not be filled until after the election. Watching Republicans ram Barrett through helps Democrats. So don't mess with her. Let Republicans do what they're going to do. As a great man once said, It is what it is.
If the Democrats take the presidency and the Senate, none of this matters much. A Democratic administration will not let a conservative court mess with Democratic priorities. Lots of avenues, including adding justices, passing a law that no act of Congress can be overturned by the Court except by a seven vote majority, etc. So keep the focus where it matters. On November 3.
So how should Democrats approach these hearings? I've seen one good suggestion today. Turn all their time over to Kamala Harris. I like that one.
Here's a few more suggestions.
- Don't show up for the hearings. There is no reason to dignify this raw exercise in political hypocrisy. Don't legitimize the theft of a Supreme Court seat with your presence. This also shows Barrett that the nation knows she is letting herself become a pawn in Trump's game. That in itself says something about character.
- Schedule high interest alternate programming directly opposite the hearings. Bring together all 26 of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. Let them tell their stories on air. Or interview liberal justices that Biden will add to the court next year. Hearings with only Republicans extolling Barrett's virtues will get low ratings. It shouldn't be hard to come up with something people would rather watch. Hell, replay the Kavanaugh hearings! Bring in Matt Damon to reprise his role on SNL! I'd watch that! How about a show "Beers with Squee"?!
- If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion.
Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.
Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?
Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?
Then turn to the Hatch Act.
Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?
Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.
Then turn to Congressional Oversight.
Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?
Then turn to Trump's impeachment.
Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a "perfect phone call"? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?
Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion. [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.
Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.
Taking this approach does a number of things.
1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.
2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.
3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.
Any of these outcomes would go much further toward de-legitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character.
Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television ...
I don't think the Democrats should skip the hearings. That strikes me as too similar to McConnell's failure to even hold hearings for Judge Garland which I found repugnant. I also agree that it is dangerous to attack her religious beliefs. I do, however, find a great irony in the fact that she stated in a 2016 interview that she opposed Garland's nomination because it would "dramatically shift the makeup of the Court" to replace Scalia with Garland. Garland was at least somewhat moderate. The differences between Ginsburg's and Barrett's jurisprudence differs far more dramatically, so how does she now rationalize this about face?
BUT, I'd pay money to watch Kamala Harris pose a few of these questions to Judge Barrett. She might simply refuse to comment as many of these examples could end up as actual cases before SCOTUS in the future, but it would make for an exciting exchange.
FWIW, my biggest beef with Barrett is her lack of judicial experience. Three years on the Federal Bench after 15 years of teaching in law school is not the depth of experience needed for the highest court in the land.
YES YES YES! First thing I said was 'Let Kamala Gert to this!' And I absolutely agree that she is way too inexperienced... And who knows what may be further revealed over the next week or two about Trump... how bad could it get? Could it get so bad that any action could be taken to curtail this procedure? Sorry I don't know about that, it's just all so bizarre, it makes me think that anything could happen!
I like all these ideas, but here's something: If at least one of the oldest, most bigoted, most misogynistic Republican Senators doesn't ask whether she has a note from her husband giving her permission to seek a job that "should have been filled by a man," and also giving her permission to work the long hours required for this position, I would be mightily disappointed. ;)
I love this post, and thank you. Exactly the right strategies..either not show up at all, or dredge up every single dirty dealing and put them before the public.
Very interesting. I doubt the ability of the Democratic leadership of either the House or Senate to deal effectively with this situation, just as they failed to make the impeachment case effectively.
OK but the GOP Senate decided not to impeach in an election year but rather, let the people's vote settle the matter. Ergo, we should wait until after the election to make any decision. If Trump loses, has been impeached and also may be compromised then perhaps there will be enough to force the matter before the courts and possible run the time out.
In the meantime, I would add that all religions are cults.
Donald Trump has been robbing Peter to pay Paul his entire adult life. Lots of people do it; it's not a crime unless you commit crimes to try to get out of the economic corner you've painted yourself into. If you lie, cheat and steal to try to escape responsibility for your actions (instead of buckling down and earning or educating your way out) hopefully you just end up in jail, unless you owe money to the wrong people.
The fact that Mr. Trump has embroiled the American people in his epic financial failure while they are literally fighting for their own lives, is not only unforgivable, it is criminal.
The other thing to acknowledge is the fact that he encourages his heavily armed supporters take to the streets and fight against those in peaceful protest who "hate America". He is willing to push the country into a bloody civil war in an effort to save his own hide from his debtors and the IRS.
How did we create a tax system that let Trump and those like him generate such massive tax credits and such a loose definition of business losses that he could get away with paying practically no US taxes. That he severely bent the rules and that their must have been a certain amount of complicity on the part of the IRS people receiving his fancyfull tax returns would seem glaringly obvious. That he was allowed to get away with it for at least 18 years when the whole of NY knew that he was an unsuccessfull crook staggers belief. His last ploy to avoid criminal prosecution by hiding beneath the skirts of the Presidential role, while paying the Russian piper, and benefiting from DOJ protection has finally put him under the spotlight and revealed that "the emporer has no clothes" and I cannot say that I am in the least bit surprised.
The NYT journalists have once again done their job well when our legal system has failed us. I love the idea of a new Trump "taxless bankrupt, failed businessman" story coming out in the NYT every day or so alongside the WaPo's ongoing Woodward Tales of "What the President Should Not Have Said!
On the Supreme Court issue, I think that Biden is right firstly delay as much as possible and to go after issues such as abortion and healthcare in the confirmation process of Barrett and not her religious beliefs nor any personal political views that she has expressed. She is an erudite, if young, Ultra-Constitutionalist and will as such look at what the Constitution actually says and thus will require politicians to take their responsabilities with regard to social issue...and indeed all issues...by doing their jobs and passing new laws and/or making new changes to the Constitution. Judges making new laws does not make for a democracy. The people elect politicians to make laws and not the Supreme Court Justices who are named by politicians often in the expectation of political advantage for one side or the other. This, like the horrors of gerrymandering and denial of civic rights etc, must be dealt with by the elected representatives of the people...and they must be held accountable to the people for their acts. I think that, if Trump/McConnell are hoping that Barret will save them from a fate worse than death, they are going to be disappointed.
One of the "norms" on which our tax laws depend is the inherent honesty of the CPAs and accounting firms that prepare them for businesses. Now it is revealed that the gaping holes in these norms allow for those rampantly corrupt to pass through with apparent ease paying little to no taxes. Lest those reading this believe Trump is the only thief in the forest, let me assure you that the corporate woods are full of such bandits. Continuing defunding of the IRA has only made the sheriff's forces stretched them more thinly making it easier for these bandits to continue to rob and pillage. Yes, our tax laws need adjustments and rewriting to eliminate or at least significantly reduce abuses, but just as importantly they need enforcement. Chasing small cheats and abuses is more costly than the revenues it produces and abuse avoided. But the wealthy and large businesses with relatively small tax liabilities need much closer scrutiny and real enforcement and most importantly prosecution. Such prosecutions should result not only in recoveries of taxes but serious criminal sentences/penalities for taxpayers, corporate executives, and their accountants and executives of accounting firms helping to prepare returns and audit such firms.
It is the American taxpayers who are being cheated in the present system. Those paying the bills of those avoiding paying taxes they should legitimately have paid.
And i've worked in the consulting arms of three of the biggest cpa/tax/audit networks in the world. I've seen them at it and getting rich themselves in the process.
We are waiting to hear what our CPA has to say when we try to deduct hair cuts. She has told people that they can forget about her bending the rules for them and find another CPA.
How does this happen? It is the Gold rule - "He who has the gold, makes the rules." This is true for why our tax system is so out of whack and why our justice system is out of whack. This is why a Bernie Madoff gets a similar sentence as a man that held up a 7-Eleven. And, this is why we have such racial bias in the system.
I agree and am enlightened by your comments, Stuart. Also, as Biden is a devout Catholic, too, I would think he would not "go after" her religious beliefs.
I’m Catholic too, and I can tell you People of Praise is a fringe group of well-meaning people who exercise their faith that particular way. There are also “traddies,” who would like us to return to pre-Vatican II ways of worship; those who think if the pope sneezes (JPII worshipers) we should all worry; wealthy and grudge-filled anti-Pope Francis people who despise him because he acts like the humble pastor he is; and single-issue laypeople and bishops who are perfectly willing to overlook Trump’s corruption, faithlessness, disdain for the “least among us” to seek the Holy Grail of overturning Roe v. Wade. In other words, the church is representative of any collection of humans—varied in opinion.
Well said. While RBG was a staunch defender of women and equality on the bench, she was very clear throughout her life that what she wanted and what she was working for was for the LAW of the land to be changed by legislation and hopefully Constutional amendment. Let's hope we can get there with a true Blue Wave. It's past time.
Based on his tax returns, the Man with the $75,000 hairdo has turned everything he got involved with - from golf courses to hotels and beyond (to quote Buzz Lightyear)- into financial disasters, while at the same time cheating many of his contractors out of their just earnings. No wonder he is letting his Washington Hotel and Florida golf course charge the GOP campaign fund hundreds of thousands. His legal fees alone must be almost as large as the National Debt, but typically, he is getting the taxpayers to foot much of the bill.
Now he wants to do the same on a much larger scale. It is time that he be held accountable for all these potentially dishonest activities. (I hope Joe Biden is reading this; great fodder for the debate)
I wouldn't put this man in charge of the janitorial services for a local school, much less running the most important country in the world.
Actually, the janitor at my elementary school, a very white suburb in the Midwest, in the 1950s was a quiet, dignified, kind black man who we all loved and respectfully called Mister Steel. I've always thought how wonderful it was he was our first role model for a black person in our lives, a man I will always think highly of so unlike the bigoted horror of a person currently in the White House.
The janitor in my parochial school was a white guy that my dad suspected of being a child predator. So there you go. I wish we had your janitor as our role model.
Late night for you, Heather! Thank you, so much. It seems, from a presidential re-election campaign standpoint, the wheels are coming off, the train has left the tracks and the dumpster is ablaze. 20 or so years ago, there would be no doubt about the results of the upcoming election. As such, voter turnout would be historically low, but Biden would win in a landslide. It says something about the current political climate of our country that, even with the governing failures of the incumbent president, his impeachment and his personal scandals, voter turnout will have to be at an all time high just to squeak out an electoral college victory for Biden. So that is what we will do.
I had to reread your comments about the SC candidate several times because they did not make sense to me. I too think that justices should not impose their private opinions on their decisions. Being an “originalist”, in my view, is a somewhat sneaky way of doing just that. Barrett is opposed to abortion for religious, hence private, reasons.
The justices interpret the law; thus in trying to stay with what they think the founders would have meant, they are still imposing their own views. Interpretation ALWAYS involves subjective reasoning. Thus ALL SC justices cannot help but impose their “views of social mores on the American people”.
That’s why I was confused because it seems to me that originalism itself is bunk, orcas Biden would say, malarkey.
I think it would be better for change to come from laws rather than the SC. But the Congress doesn’t do it’s job anymore, thanks to people like McConnell and his ilk.
Complete bunk and delusion. How does one step outside of one's self and then decide? How does one understand what was intended 250 year's ago, other than by making their own judgements and interpretations, which judgements and interpretations can only be based upon what goes on inside that little black box between their own ears? A box that is filled with biases developed and nutured over the years. To say, "I know what was intended and this is what that was," is self idolatry in the extreme. Sounds very much like ultramontane, pre twentieth century catholicism to me.
I somewhat agree with you. That is exactly why the vetting process for these seats must be thorough. It is important to understand what the nominee's biases are. I agree that everyone has them. Once you understand those biases, you can review their record on the bench. Have they decided cases based on their biases? From that point, come the interviews and hearings where the nominee has to respond to questions about how they will rule on the bench. It is a good process, except for one thing: the hearings can become extremely heated and political. When that happens, the vote is along party lines. I expect that to happen this time.
To remove as much bias as possible and tend towards moving out of the "party line" we must follow the questions, not excluding or cutting off any. When we tacitly agree to an avoidance of a question, we adopt an easy nihilism, sinking to where we find ourselves.
If I understand correctly, Scalia and Barrett believe that the Constitution must be interpreted in the context of the society in which it was created. Since the document was created at a time when there were no federal civil rights for anyone other than propertied white men, only explicit amendments can change that. This claim becomes a vehicle for striking down any federal legislation that benefits the general welfare. It is why Barrett is against the ACA, even though as a religious person she would place value on healing the sick. In 2000, Scalia was one of the 5 justices who corruptly ruled against their own principles of states' rights that the state's right to run elections was pre-empted by the need to install a Republican as president. (They phrased it differently, of course.). Trump is openly in a hurry to confirm Barrett because he expects her to do the same.
OK, then, muskets only for all those militias. She does not belong on any court because she cannot separate her religious beliefs from the law. We are a secular state and the Founders intended that we be a secular state.
The Founders were reaching for the concept of a secular state, but it's not quite where they were. They all believed in a deity. They were also very aware of the harm done when the advocates of one religion controlled the state and imposed their beliefs and practices on everyone else. So they carefully designed the new government to prevent that - exactly the opposite of the claims of those who wish to impose their particular brand of Christianity through the government today.
I understand that they were Deists. They were not too far removed from awful religious wars in Europe and rightfully did not want that here. We have had plenty examples of theocracies in history and some now. I was thinking of a secular state vs. a theocracy, not that people did not believe in a deity.
Morning, Dr. R! Morning, all! I started reading the NYT article last night and am only half-way through it. No expert when it comes to the nuts and bolts of our tax laws, but the lay explanations dotted throughout the article keeps this reader engaged. When news broke out about Deutsche Bank (last week, was it?) and several other related stories, I reposted them on my FB page with the title "Follow the Money?" Seems accurate in light of what is unfolding now.
I like to harken back to "famous lines" from movies that I have seen. In the original Die Hard movie (1988) there was the scene between Holly Gennaro McClane (Bonnie Bedelia) and Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) where she accuses him of being "nothing but a common thief," to which he replies that he is "an exceptional thief." Call me crazy, but this so resonates with me with every story that I am reading these days.
And finally, does having six Catholic Supreme Court judges truly represent the views of this diverse nation?
Demographically, no more than the hundreds of years of all judges being Protestant white men represented this country. As a non-Catholic, I would add Pope Francis to the court in a heartbeat if it were possible, because he would support using the government to heal the sick. (Reproductive rights are dead at a federal level already.) The problem is that the court has a majority of persons who oppose the idea that the purpose of government is to support the general welfare, and prefer instead to limit it to supporting only the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful. <Insert my usual comments about creating a new Federal Law Review Court to replace SC review of federal laws>
And pass new laws and change the constitution where necessary so that the governments defend people and not property! Let the politicians take their responsibilities or punish them!
Heavens, no, I was not being sarcastic. I look forward to reading your posts. They expand my education, which is subpar on these important issues. Seriously.
If he had taken the inheritance from his father and simply invested it in virtually any reliable index fund he would be worth more than he even claims to be worth at present.
Every US bank of any renown with a sign on the street in Manhattan could have told us all that for the last 25 years or more. None of them would lend him a nickel.
I was being sarcastic - so true that the banks have had his number for years. I also think he's had a tough time getting high-powered legal representation because he's notorious for not paying his bills
I can’t say Trump’s taxes get me all that excited - the President isn’t as wealthy as he says he is, and his scummy accountants work hard to minimize his taxes? This isn’t surprising. I think of it as part of the whole package of psychopathy; this guy has said and done so many awful things that I can no longer conceive of the legal and ethical significance of any one act. He needs to be escorted from his castle as soon as possible, right into the welcoming arms of a paddy wagon. #January20MovingDay
"This, of course, means that Trump is a huge national security risk. He owes money—to whom we don’t know—and he does not have it to pay his debts. It is no wonder that a bipartisan group of nearly 500 national security officials, past and present, last week endorsed Biden for president. According to Defense News, the list included 'five former secretaries of the Navy, two former Army secretaries, four former Air Force secretaries, two retired governors, and 106 ambassadors.' "
I agree. As the stepdaughter of a lifelong intelligence and security officer, it was the first thing that came to mind. Well, maybe the second thing after disgusted rage at the confirmation of how he's ripping off our country.
As a long time New Yorker, we knew he was a terrible and corrupt businessman. When I read the Times article though, it struck me on a new level how he is compromised by his financial ties with foreign governments. How that affects our country is vital I think to our national security.
Assuming SCOTUS will give millions of Americans, including my daughters, a sabbatical from health care insurance during a pandemic, perhaps this is the opportunity for President Biden and Congress to address known flaws in the ACA and give Americans that better plan that another person has been promising as imminent off and on these last four or so years.
It will have to be written very very carefully to prevent the Movement Conservative majority on the SC from overturning it. Unless, of course, a blue wave Congress creates a new Federal Law Review Court to take over being the final court for reviewing federal laws. Constitutionally, the Congress has the power to do that. The Supreme Court would be limited to the cases in which the Constitution gives it "original jurisdiction" - which would be more in line with the "originalist" views of its majority. This new court could then be set up better, with its 9 justices serving staggered 18 year terms. Pres.Biden would have to nominate an initial set of justices who would have varying length terms, from 2 years to 18 years.
Trump is deeply indebted. Someone, somewhere holds a lot of leverage over this president. Further complicating the story is this thread which suggests that the magnitude of the debt isn't a few hundred million, but more like a billion.
I’m glad you mentioned Dan Alexander’s eye-popping Twitter thread, Andrew, which clarifies Trump’s debt with photos of documentation. Here’s a link to it for those who don’t have a Twitter account: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310342791336284160.html
Alexander also said he will be continuing his detailed analysis today on Twitter. The bottom line is clear: Trump is beholden to many, which makes him a security risk.
I was JUST wondering about Dan Alexander's book on Trump's finances and what he would have to say about the NYT article. I wondered if his information squared with what the NYT uncovered. Ask, and it shall be given...THANKS, Andrew.
Annnd... Dan Alexander is on it again this morning, continuing his analysis. I was just going to share a more updated thread of his posts than I did 10 minutes ago (I should have looked at his latest before posting the link above), but he’ll be digging into this for awhile. I am grateful he is helping to untangle this web.
One only need look to the reported "salaries" being paid to Kimberly Guifoyle or Lara Trump, or the finances of Brad Parscale to understand how the Trump organization is profiting off of the campaign. It speaks volumes that he announced his candidacy for reelection the day after his inauguration in 2017. We know this to be consistent with his past. See: Ivanka Trump $747,622 "consulting fee" on a hotel for which she is an executive.
I believe the New York Times will run additions to this story for the next 36 days! That anyone can still believe that he has the interests of his base in mind is beyond me. He can only think about his next "trick" to fool those to whom he owes tons of money. And, we know that there's more to come. Putin probably has tons of dirt on him, and it's now only a matter of time that people looking at this with a fine eye will start to draw lines directly between tRump and Putin. Bring it on. Pile on tRump as much shit as possible, and let him drown in it. He is the ultimate LOSER and the American people will tell him "you're fired" on Nov 3.
The nomination of Barrett is certainly scary, but the outright power play of the repubs is more scary and infuriating. I hope that the Dems on the Judiciary Committee will make her work for this. Ask hard questions (not about her religious beliefs), and make her defend her positions. Maybe there will be a repub or two who will see the iight and not vote not confirm. (I know.....wishful thinking, but one can always hope.)
I've also said, I think his niece Mary has more things to release too. She's probably also going to gradually release little bombshells between now and Election Day. Pile it on! If he tries to grab headlines, then others will beat him at his own strategy. Let him have it with everything we've got!!
I certainly hope that the NYT will do so but history gives me a suspicion that the stories on Trump will be ameliorated by an increase in Cletus Safaris along with a breathless, unsourced story or two on Hunter Biden's business dealings. I've put faith in the NYT before, only to have it dashed.
Google tells us this: It’s one of those innumerable, insufferable, “Let’s go to Rust Bucket, Ohio and interview the old racist white people who voted for Trump and see what they have to say now” pieces that every major news outlet feels obligated to churn out once per month.
That's the term describing the work of coastal reporter who think they've found something profound when they find Trump supporters in diners in the Midwest and publish their quotes as "simple wisdom from the Heartland." It's as though the thoughts of millions of American voters who live in cities need to be balanced by the maunderings of embittered racist retirees in Iowa.
So, the truth is revealed. But of course, according to Trump, it is "fake news by the failing NY Times." A couple of minor points to consider:
1. The only things fake in this news are the lies Trump tells about his success as a business person and the size of his wealth. Being from NY originally, I have many contacts there in my former profession, banking. I can assure you that there is not a single US bank of any renown that for the last 25 years would lend Trump a nickel, let alone the hundreds of millions of debt he currently owes. He was always considered a bad joke in NY business and banking circles. He was never allowed to sit at the adult table there.
2. Trump is a fraud, a liar, a con, and a cheat just as Michael Cohan has said. And yes, he is a racist as well, which Michael Cohan has also said. Michael Cohan is no paragon of virtue, but on Trump, he has been and is now telling the truth.
3. Trump has repeatedly cheated his customers, his suppliers, tax authorities, shareholders, and business partners, and, oh yes, even his family members, including his former wives, likely Melania as well. He is now involved in his biggest con of all on the American people and in particular his followers who believe he is doing anything at all to help them. He is not. He cares only for one person in the entire world, himself, every minute of every day. He has no deeply held beliefs or moral values whatsoever.
4. He will not only go down in history as the worst President of all time, but a terrible business person, pathological liar, a crook, a cheat, a racist bigot, and a man with no moral core at all.
It is about time that we start to hear the chant of "lock him up" from those who have supported him. However, they have sold their souls to this devil and I expect they will continue to follow him into hell no matter the cost.
As for Republican legislators, they care only about power and preservation of their own positions. Do not expect them to display any convictions, moral courage, or commitment to our Constitution or democracy. That ship sailed long ago. The only answer is to replace them. Trump has so corrupted the entire Republican party that there are none left to save it. The best answer for Republicans is to burn the party down completely and start over with a new Conservative Center-Right Party. It should only take them a decade or two to repair their image following Trump's single term in office.
I think the Republican Party was well on its way to this level of corruption before Trump came along. He just brought all the nasty methane bubbles to the top and let them stink even more.
True. Nixon’s dirty tricks seem quaint next to unfit-for-command Don the Con’s efforts to be re-elected. His major swamp talent is spreading his lies through the media. A quarter of a million “virtual nobodies” could be dead by Election Day. The methane comes directly out of his mouth.
Yep, Nixon was a saint compared with 45.
As the Brits say: "well spoke!" You summed it up beautifully--fellow Bruce-ster! It still is remarkable when one considers that, of 25% to 30% of the population who may support him, when ANY story comes out labeled as from the NYT or WaPo, they instantly are turned off and won't go anywhere near it. The willful, cognizant ignorance of such a sizable segment of the population is simply astounding...and ultimately scary. We can only hope that if we keep chipping away at his fake façade, it will eventually crumble and the truth will come tumbling out. I appreciate your post BIGLY!
While there is some confusion about the exact first use of the following phrase, it is often attributed to Lincoln long before being later used by P.T. Barnum: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time: but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Perhaps many Republicans constitute that portion who can be fooled all of the time.
However, my favorite quote applicable to instances like this is Mark Twain's, who said, "Never argue with stupid people. They will only drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."
Exactly. I still believe the Republican party is essentially a minority power, and they know it, so they are motivated solely, 100% by POWER--gaining it and holding on to it by any, and I do mean ANY, means possible. That means aligning themselves with perhaps one of the biggest "grifters" in the history of this country. All the revelations swirling around now about Trump's financial shenanigans--today has been dizzying!--might be a big first step for the scales to fall from their eyes and lead to them realising they've been had. They'd best do something, or their party could end up being irretrievably ruined.
And this is just the first in a series of NY Times articles on Trump's finances and financial shenanigans. I see another Pulitzer Prize in this for the NY Times before this is over.
Well said, Bruce. (I too am a former New Yorker and knew how horrid he was back in the day.) Yes, WE are our only hope to get our nation back on the right path. We must vote in incontrovertible numbers and take back the presidency and the Senate.
He could easily back up his fake new claims by simply showing the world the second page of his 1040 from those years. I'm guessing it really shows $750 tax due. Otherwise the lawyers would have already filed suit against the NYTimes for libel.
The only thing that will change the vote of the R senators is if they think they are in peril of losing that which they hold dear: money and power and that a no vote will help them. We are donating to a number of their opponents.
What's Melania going to do when she realizes Corona Don is actually broke? She's been doing her gig for the money, surely, but when he's finally out of office, there won't be any and he'll be headed for jail. Should be fun to watch.
Well, as long as she sues for divorce after Trump leaves the White House and no longer has Bill Barr and the seven dwarfs in his DOJ to defend Trump, the only lawyer that will probably work for Trump is Rudy. That shouldn't be much of a battle for whomever Melania brings on to take the case. But it looks like she will pretty much be scraping the bottom of the Trump asset barrel at that point.
Hasn't she signed some pretty dodgy joint tax returns? Isn't she also on the hook? I don't think divorce will help.
Do you have solid information that the tax returns are joint returns? I would bet money that the Crime Don's attorneys and accountants have advised him to file separate returns. He does not want to leave any trail of her fingerprints on any of his assets in the event there is a divorce proceeding. We know for sure that she signed some kind of prenuptial agreement. However, even so, I would bet he files separate, not joint returns.
No, no solid information at all. I wonder if she is paying taxes?
Given she's likely been scraping barnacles off the bottom of the Trump ass barrel since he came back from his last assignation with a porn star, that shouldn't be a problem. (Yes, I know, this is a joke in poor taste.)
So how is it that he was never taken down criminally by either State of New York authorities or the US Department of Justice??? Particularly, I hear all sorts of expectations directed at the Southern District of NY but in fact the history looks like one of long-term failure to indict and convict a very flagrant criminal...
Oops, October Surprise in September. LoL But this is likely the gift that just keeps on giving over the next 5 weeks of revelations. Could be migrating time for the chickens to come home to roost.
As I read the NY Times story, (I got two thirds through it and gave it up as the plot line stayed more or less the same with different dates and details,) a picture grew in my mind that was bigger than the business/tax fraud history of Donald Trump.
This is also a story of how the very wealthy avoid paying taxes. A small army of dedicated tax lawyers and accountants use our unbeleivably complex and convoluted tax laws, rules, and regulations to help well-heeled clients avoid paying anywhere near the taxes the rest of us working slobs, the little people, pay. And, to add insult to injury, their fees are likely tax-deductible!
This is not a revelation; we all know this, but the NY Times story brings this into sharp focus again.
The NY Times Trump tax fraud story is a thunderously loud argument in favor of the Alternative Minimum Tax. And, just for me, you can throw in making tax lawyers' fees non-tax-deductable as well.
And prosecute those who cheat and their accountants.
We were just wondering this am if we should deduct our hair cuts.
I live in Europe so the NYT’s Trump Taxes story hit me this morning as I was firing up the laptop and brewing my first cup of coffee – woke me right up! I read it and the WP’s coverage as well, and none of it was surprising.
We knew he was a phony and that he would slide gains and losses around like a sidewalk three-card Monte huckster. It must be exhausting being Trump – just the hair & makeup odyssey each morning would bring most folks to their knees, but add to that the financial juggling and non-stop lying and it makes you wonder what the guy might be capable of doing if he just did his bloody job.
But the thing that stuck with me was the story of the codicil to his father's will that Trump attempted to foist on his aging father that would have given Donnie control over his father’s estate.
In a sworn deposition, Trump declared that he had no idea his father was struggling with dementia at the time Trump tried to trick him into signing the codicil. No idea, even though Trump senior had been tested and been found to be suffering early signs of dementia. The family knew this and yet Trump denied it.
This is the man he says he revered – whose picture sits behind the Resolute desk, the father who bailed Donnie out time and time again. This one episode speaks louder than most of the horrendous things we have heard from his own mouth or heard about from others like his niece.
Donnie was in debt, so he tried to trick his ailing father into signing a document to bail him out one last time.
Well, as we learned today, and suspected all along, Donnie is still in debt and one can only wonder (fear) who he has turned to for relief this time and what he might be willing to offer in return for that relief.
You touch on one of the very issues I have always wondered about - if criminals used the energy that they put into doing criminal activities in legitimate activities, they could be successful in an acceptable, legal way. Instead, it is all about beating or fixing the system. Such a waste of talent!
Wonder no longer. Deutsche Bank has been making large dicey loans to Trump for years now, backstopped by Putin's state bank. I don't have the links offhand, but it has been well reported.
Was aware of the DB connection - it is the biggest bank in Germany (where I reside) and currently under intense scrutiny, but not of the Putin connection. Would be interested in knowing more.
me too about knowing more about the Putin connection
Seems it's the American people who he's turning to for relief.
That is certainly part of it - but his cash/credit needs exceed what he might be able to steal from us. He's going to be looking for a deep-pocket, perhaps some leader who controls the banking system in their country - just guessing, of course.
Agree. My guess....(drumroll).....Putin.
Putin, Erdoğan, Duterte and there are no doubt more ...
He might now be a liability to Putin. Do you suppose Putin's former KGB operatives are in the U.S. and have a little polonium on hand?
It's too soon for that. Putin wants instability in the U.S., which Donald is certainly promoting.
Names aligning with the authoritarians "assisted" with their elections by Cambridge Analytica's micro-targeted Facebook ads. (Today's news via UK's Channel 4.)
A documentary titled "A Thousand Cuts" about a courageous civil rights lawyer in the Philippines described ruling party political manipulation through Facebook, with the Philippines being one of the largest per capita users of Facebook in the world.
Thank you Heather . As always you have done an exemplary job in laying out a roadmap for us on this rather exploding news day. With every nugget of news from yesterday, I find I am particularly repulsed by the fact that Trump only paid $750.00 in taxes for several years. Perhaps because that is less than the quarterly cost for just the 20 minute consult with my Oncologist. My testing every 3 months alone is more than 6 times what that derelict paid in yearly taxes. To me, the perspective is staggering.
Bless you and the millions of people is similar situations. We must make health care reform a top priority 🙏
I hear you--my monthly oncology and appointments, according to my health insurance statements, would cost me $30,000 A MONTH if I were not insured through work. And I have consistently fallen through every "crack" between the wealthy haves whose tax burdens have bottomed out and the not wealthy "have nots" who have seen a modest reduction in their taxes. I have paid more in federal taxes in the last three years than ever previously--as my salary has fallen in value because of no raises at all. These are existential issues that the Repos in the Senate, sheltered as they are because of taxpayer-funded platinum healthcare, pensions, and protections, refuse to acknowledge. I don't even think about the deranged resident of the White House in this context: as a pathological narcissist he isn't capable of empathy anyway.
All of this--every word--is a must read. But for me, the sentence that was a personal gut punch was this: "It shows that he was deeply in debt in 2015, and was, as his former fixer Michael Cohen said, eager to rebuild his brand by running for the highest office in the land." Think about that. (pause)
This thoroughly lawless, corrupt, incompetent, narcissistic buffoon used and abused the United States of America as his last, best personal-centered hope for digging himself and his companies out of crushing debt. He is a lifelong, epic failure. It's appalling that, by extension, he also used and abused every tax-paying American and every American too poor to have to pay taxes.
trump has used the White House and every other place he has parked his privileged derrière as a showcase for (wait for it...) himself. He has done this at America's expense, literally and metaphorically. For four years, we have waited for verification of what we have long assumed to be true: donald j trump is (among other things) a tax-dodging weasel of the highest order.
Am I remembering correctly that it was tax evasion that brought down Al Capone? An apt comparison, since trump is a ruthless, amoral con man who has scammed our country from the get-go. If he has any remorse at all, it is only that he has finally been verifiably sniffed out. It's a very big stink.
You beat me to it Barbara - first thing I thought of was Al Capone.
Same
Well said, Barbara, all of it. We, the people, have been the losers and suckers he so desperately needs now to buy him another four years.
I found a post this morning on FB, I thought I'd share it here to see what people think about it.
Bill Svelmoe
A few thoughts on Amy Coney Barrett, our new Supreme Court justice.
- As noted above, she's a done deal. So Democrats should not waste time trying to besmirch her character, focusing on her religion, trying to box her into a corner on how she will vote on hypothetical cases.
The People of Praise is not a cult. I've had half a dozen of their kids in my classes, including some men who heard about me from their female friends. Almost without fail, these have been among the best students I've ever had. Extremely bright. Careful critical thinkers. Wonderful writers. I loved having them in class. So don't go after the People of Praise.
By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I've had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court. I have no first hand knowledge of her, but take the above for what you will.
So Democrats should not take a typical approach with her.
- Stay focused on the election. If the election were tomorrow, Biden wins comfortably, and the Democrats likely take the Senate as well. The latest polls were taken after RBG's death. No gain for Trump. In fact the majority of Americans think the Supreme Court seat should not be filled until after the election. Watching Republicans ram Barrett through helps Democrats. So don't mess with her. Let Republicans do what they're going to do. As a great man once said, It is what it is.
If the Democrats take the presidency and the Senate, none of this matters much. A Democratic administration will not let a conservative court mess with Democratic priorities. Lots of avenues, including adding justices, passing a law that no act of Congress can be overturned by the Court except by a seven vote majority, etc. So keep the focus where it matters. On November 3.
So how should Democrats approach these hearings? I've seen one good suggestion today. Turn all their time over to Kamala Harris. I like that one.
Here's a few more suggestions.
- Don't show up for the hearings. There is no reason to dignify this raw exercise in political hypocrisy. Don't legitimize the theft of a Supreme Court seat with your presence. This also shows Barrett that the nation knows she is letting herself become a pawn in Trump's game. That in itself says something about character.
- Schedule high interest alternate programming directly opposite the hearings. Bring together all 26 of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. Let them tell their stories on air. Or interview liberal justices that Biden will add to the court next year. Hearings with only Republicans extolling Barrett's virtues will get low ratings. It shouldn't be hard to come up with something people would rather watch. Hell, replay the Kavanaugh hearings! Bring in Matt Damon to reprise his role on SNL! I'd watch that! How about a show "Beers with Squee"?!
- If Democrats do attend the hearings, they should not focus on Barrett's views on any future cases. She'll just dodge those questions anyway. They're hypothetical. She should dodge them. Don't even mention her religion.
Instead Democrats should focus on the past four years of the Trump administration. This has been the most corrupt administration in American history. No need for hypotheticals. The questions are all right there.
Judge Barrett, would you please explain the emoluments clause in the Constitution. [She does.] Judge Barrett, if a president were to refuse to divest himself of his properties and, in fact, continue to steer millions of dollars of tax payer money to his properties, would this violate the emoluments clause?
Then simply go down the list of specific cases in which Trump and his family of grifters have used the presidency to enrich themselves. Ask her repeatedly if this violates the emoluments clause. Include of course using the American ambassador to Britain to try to get the British Open golf tournament at a Trump property. Judge Barrett, does this violate the emoluments clause?
Then turn to the Hatch Act.
Judge Barrett, would you please explain the Hatch Act to the American people. [She does.] Judge Barrett, did Kellyanne Conway violate the Hatch Act on these 60 occasions? [List them. Then after Barrett's response, and just fyi, the Office of the Special Council already convicted her, ask Barrett this.] When Kellyanne Conway, one of the president's top advisors openly mocked the Hatch Act after violating it over 60 times, should she have been removed from office?
Then turn to all the other violations of the Hatch Act during the Republican Convention. Get Barrett's opinion on those.
Then turn to Congressional Oversight.
Judge Barrett, would you please explain to the American people the duties of Congress, according to the Constitution, to oversee the executive branch. [She does so.] Judge Barrett, when the Trump administration refuses time and again [list them] to respond to a subpoena from Congress, is this an obstruction of the constitutional duty of Congress for oversight? Is this an obstruction of justice?
Then turn to Trump's impeachment.
Read the transcript of Trump's phone call. Judge Barrett, would you describe this as a "perfect phone call"? Is there anything about this call that troubles you, as a judge, or as an American?
Judge Barrett, would you please define for the American people the technical definition of collusion. [She does.] Then go through all of the contacts between the Trump administration and Russians during the election and get her opinion on whether these amount to collusion. Doesn't matter how she answers. It gets Trump's perfidy back in front of Americans right before the election.
Such questions could go on for days. Get her opinion on the evidence for election fraud. Go through all the Trump "laws" that have been thrown out by the courts. Ask her about the separation of children from their parents at the border. And on and on and on through the worst and most corrupt administration in our history. Don't forget to ask her opinion on the evidence presented by the 26 Trump accusers. Judge Barrett, do you think this is enough evidence of sexual assault to bring the perpetrator before a court of law? Do you think a sitting president should be able to postpone such cases until after his term? Judge Barrett, let's listen again, shall we, to Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape. I don't have a question. I just want to hear it again. Or maybe, as a woman, how do you feel listening to this recording? Let's listen to it again, shall we. Take your time.
Taking this approach does a number of things.
1. Even if Barrett bobs and weaves and dodges all of this, it reminds Americans right before the election of just how awful this administration has been.
2. None of these questions are hypothetical. They are all real documented incidents. The vast majority are pretty obvious examples of breaking one law or the other. If Barrett refuses to answer honestly, she demonstrates that she is willing to simply be another Trump toady. Any claims to high moral Christian character are shown to be as empty as the claims made by the 80% of white evangelicals who continue to support Trump.
3. If she answers honestly, as I rather suspect she would, then Americans get to watch Trump and his lawless administration convicted by Trump's own chosen justice.
Any of these outcomes would go much further toward de-legitimizing the entire Republican project than if Democrats go down the typical road of asking hypothetical questions or trying to undermine her character.
Use her supposed good character and keen legal mind against the administration that has nominated her. Let her either convict Trump or embarrass herself by trying to weasel out of convicting Trump. Either way, it'll be great television ...
I don't think the Democrats should skip the hearings. That strikes me as too similar to McConnell's failure to even hold hearings for Judge Garland which I found repugnant. I also agree that it is dangerous to attack her religious beliefs. I do, however, find a great irony in the fact that she stated in a 2016 interview that she opposed Garland's nomination because it would "dramatically shift the makeup of the Court" to replace Scalia with Garland. Garland was at least somewhat moderate. The differences between Ginsburg's and Barrett's jurisprudence differs far more dramatically, so how does she now rationalize this about face?
BUT, I'd pay money to watch Kamala Harris pose a few of these questions to Judge Barrett. She might simply refuse to comment as many of these examples could end up as actual cases before SCOTUS in the future, but it would make for an exciting exchange.
FWIW, my biggest beef with Barrett is her lack of judicial experience. Three years on the Federal Bench after 15 years of teaching in law school is not the depth of experience needed for the highest court in the land.
YES YES YES! First thing I said was 'Let Kamala Gert to this!' And I absolutely agree that she is way too inexperienced... And who knows what may be further revealed over the next week or two about Trump... how bad could it get? Could it get so bad that any action could be taken to curtail this procedure? Sorry I don't know about that, it's just all so bizarre, it makes me think that anything could happen!
sorry for the typo... let Kamala get to this...
These are terrific points and wonderful advice. I fervently hope some in a position of questioning Judge Barrett will do it!
I like all these ideas, but here's something: If at least one of the oldest, most bigoted, most misogynistic Republican Senators doesn't ask whether she has a note from her husband giving her permission to seek a job that "should have been filled by a man," and also giving her permission to work the long hours required for this position, I would be mightily disappointed. ;)
That made laugh out loud!
I love this post, and thank you. Exactly the right strategies..either not show up at all, or dredge up every single dirty dealing and put them before the public.
Very interesting. I doubt the ability of the Democratic leadership of either the House or Senate to deal effectively with this situation, just as they failed to make the impeachment case effectively.
OK but the GOP Senate decided not to impeach in an election year but rather, let the people's vote settle the matter. Ergo, we should wait until after the election to make any decision. If Trump loses, has been impeached and also may be compromised then perhaps there will be enough to force the matter before the courts and possible run the time out.
In the meantime, I would add that all religions are cults.
Love this guidance. I hope Democrats follow it. It sure would make for great TV.
whoa!
Donald Trump has been robbing Peter to pay Paul his entire adult life. Lots of people do it; it's not a crime unless you commit crimes to try to get out of the economic corner you've painted yourself into. If you lie, cheat and steal to try to escape responsibility for your actions (instead of buckling down and earning or educating your way out) hopefully you just end up in jail, unless you owe money to the wrong people.
The fact that Mr. Trump has embroiled the American people in his epic financial failure while they are literally fighting for their own lives, is not only unforgivable, it is criminal.
The other thing to acknowledge is the fact that he encourages his heavily armed supporters take to the streets and fight against those in peaceful protest who "hate America". He is willing to push the country into a bloody civil war in an effort to save his own hide from his debtors and the IRS.
How did we create a tax system that let Trump and those like him generate such massive tax credits and such a loose definition of business losses that he could get away with paying practically no US taxes. That he severely bent the rules and that their must have been a certain amount of complicity on the part of the IRS people receiving his fancyfull tax returns would seem glaringly obvious. That he was allowed to get away with it for at least 18 years when the whole of NY knew that he was an unsuccessfull crook staggers belief. His last ploy to avoid criminal prosecution by hiding beneath the skirts of the Presidential role, while paying the Russian piper, and benefiting from DOJ protection has finally put him under the spotlight and revealed that "the emporer has no clothes" and I cannot say that I am in the least bit surprised.
The NYT journalists have once again done their job well when our legal system has failed us. I love the idea of a new Trump "taxless bankrupt, failed businessman" story coming out in the NYT every day or so alongside the WaPo's ongoing Woodward Tales of "What the President Should Not Have Said!
On the Supreme Court issue, I think that Biden is right firstly delay as much as possible and to go after issues such as abortion and healthcare in the confirmation process of Barrett and not her religious beliefs nor any personal political views that she has expressed. She is an erudite, if young, Ultra-Constitutionalist and will as such look at what the Constitution actually says and thus will require politicians to take their responsabilities with regard to social issue...and indeed all issues...by doing their jobs and passing new laws and/or making new changes to the Constitution. Judges making new laws does not make for a democracy. The people elect politicians to make laws and not the Supreme Court Justices who are named by politicians often in the expectation of political advantage for one side or the other. This, like the horrors of gerrymandering and denial of civic rights etc, must be dealt with by the elected representatives of the people...and they must be held accountable to the people for their acts. I think that, if Trump/McConnell are hoping that Barret will save them from a fate worse than death, they are going to be disappointed.
One of the "norms" on which our tax laws depend is the inherent honesty of the CPAs and accounting firms that prepare them for businesses. Now it is revealed that the gaping holes in these norms allow for those rampantly corrupt to pass through with apparent ease paying little to no taxes. Lest those reading this believe Trump is the only thief in the forest, let me assure you that the corporate woods are full of such bandits. Continuing defunding of the IRA has only made the sheriff's forces stretched them more thinly making it easier for these bandits to continue to rob and pillage. Yes, our tax laws need adjustments and rewriting to eliminate or at least significantly reduce abuses, but just as importantly they need enforcement. Chasing small cheats and abuses is more costly than the revenues it produces and abuse avoided. But the wealthy and large businesses with relatively small tax liabilities need much closer scrutiny and real enforcement and most importantly prosecution. Such prosecutions should result not only in recoveries of taxes but serious criminal sentences/penalities for taxpayers, corporate executives, and their accountants and executives of accounting firms helping to prepare returns and audit such firms.
It is the American taxpayers who are being cheated in the present system. Those paying the bills of those avoiding paying taxes they should legitimately have paid.
Sorry should read defunding of the IRS.
It would be really good if this platform allowed self-edits.
And i've worked in the consulting arms of three of the biggest cpa/tax/audit networks in the world. I've seen them at it and getting rich themselves in the process.
We are waiting to hear what our CPA has to say when we try to deduct hair cuts. She has told people that they can forget about her bending the rules for them and find another CPA.
How does this happen? It is the Gold rule - "He who has the gold, makes the rules." This is true for why our tax system is so out of whack and why our justice system is out of whack. This is why a Bernie Madoff gets a similar sentence as a man that held up a 7-Eleven. And, this is why we have such racial bias in the system.
I agree and am enlightened by your comments, Stuart. Also, as Biden is a devout Catholic, too, I would think he would not "go after" her religious beliefs.
I’m Catholic too, and I can tell you People of Praise is a fringe group of well-meaning people who exercise their faith that particular way. There are also “traddies,” who would like us to return to pre-Vatican II ways of worship; those who think if the pope sneezes (JPII worshipers) we should all worry; wealthy and grudge-filled anti-Pope Francis people who despise him because he acts like the humble pastor he is; and single-issue laypeople and bishops who are perfectly willing to overlook Trump’s corruption, faithlessness, disdain for the “least among us” to seek the Holy Grail of overturning Roe v. Wade. In other words, the church is representative of any collection of humans—varied in opinion.
Ok, since writing this, I think the organization PofP might have some cultish aspects.
Well said. While RBG was a staunch defender of women and equality on the bench, she was very clear throughout her life that what she wanted and what she was working for was for the LAW of the land to be changed by legislation and hopefully Constutional amendment. Let's hope we can get there with a true Blue Wave. It's past time.
Based on his tax returns, the Man with the $75,000 hairdo has turned everything he got involved with - from golf courses to hotels and beyond (to quote Buzz Lightyear)- into financial disasters, while at the same time cheating many of his contractors out of their just earnings. No wonder he is letting his Washington Hotel and Florida golf course charge the GOP campaign fund hundreds of thousands. His legal fees alone must be almost as large as the National Debt, but typically, he is getting the taxpayers to foot much of the bill.
Now he wants to do the same on a much larger scale. It is time that he be held accountable for all these potentially dishonest activities. (I hope Joe Biden is reading this; great fodder for the debate)
I wouldn't put this man in charge of the janitorial services for a local school, much less running the most important country in the world.
Actually, the janitor at my elementary school, a very white suburb in the Midwest, in the 1950s was a quiet, dignified, kind black man who we all loved and respectfully called Mister Steel. I've always thought how wonderful it was he was our first role model for a black person in our lives, a man I will always think highly of so unlike the bigoted horror of a person currently in the White House.
The janitor in my parochial school was a white guy that my dad suspected of being a child predator. So there you go. I wish we had your janitor as our role model.
I'm not sure thayt he knows the meaning of the word "clean" though...so he might not be qualified even for the janitorial service.
When I think of this man, I am always reminded of the Limbo chant: "How low can you go?"
I think he would be the world champion at this.
He's certainly going to be bending over backwards when the Russians call in their "loans"
Or forwards.
LOL.
He's a predator and should never be in a position of trust around children.
or anyone else
Late night for you, Heather! Thank you, so much. It seems, from a presidential re-election campaign standpoint, the wheels are coming off, the train has left the tracks and the dumpster is ablaze. 20 or so years ago, there would be no doubt about the results of the upcoming election. As such, voter turnout would be historically low, but Biden would win in a landslide. It says something about the current political climate of our country that, even with the governing failures of the incumbent president, his impeachment and his personal scandals, voter turnout will have to be at an all time high just to squeak out an electoral college victory for Biden. So that is what we will do.
I had to reread your comments about the SC candidate several times because they did not make sense to me. I too think that justices should not impose their private opinions on their decisions. Being an “originalist”, in my view, is a somewhat sneaky way of doing just that. Barrett is opposed to abortion for religious, hence private, reasons.
The justices interpret the law; thus in trying to stay with what they think the founders would have meant, they are still imposing their own views. Interpretation ALWAYS involves subjective reasoning. Thus ALL SC justices cannot help but impose their “views of social mores on the American people”.
That’s why I was confused because it seems to me that originalism itself is bunk, orcas Biden would say, malarkey.
I think it would be better for change to come from laws rather than the SC. But the Congress doesn’t do it’s job anymore, thanks to people like McConnell and his ilk.
Complete bunk and delusion. How does one step outside of one's self and then decide? How does one understand what was intended 250 year's ago, other than by making their own judgements and interpretations, which judgements and interpretations can only be based upon what goes on inside that little black box between their own ears? A box that is filled with biases developed and nutured over the years. To say, "I know what was intended and this is what that was," is self idolatry in the extreme. Sounds very much like ultramontane, pre twentieth century catholicism to me.
I somewhat agree with you. That is exactly why the vetting process for these seats must be thorough. It is important to understand what the nominee's biases are. I agree that everyone has them. Once you understand those biases, you can review their record on the bench. Have they decided cases based on their biases? From that point, come the interviews and hearings where the nominee has to respond to questions about how they will rule on the bench. It is a good process, except for one thing: the hearings can become extremely heated and political. When that happens, the vote is along party lines. I expect that to happen this time.
To remove as much bias as possible and tend towards moving out of the "party line" we must follow the questions, not excluding or cutting off any. When we tacitly agree to an avoidance of a question, we adopt an easy nihilism, sinking to where we find ourselves.
If I understand correctly, Scalia and Barrett believe that the Constitution must be interpreted in the context of the society in which it was created. Since the document was created at a time when there were no federal civil rights for anyone other than propertied white men, only explicit amendments can change that. This claim becomes a vehicle for striking down any federal legislation that benefits the general welfare. It is why Barrett is against the ACA, even though as a religious person she would place value on healing the sick. In 2000, Scalia was one of the 5 justices who corruptly ruled against their own principles of states' rights that the state's right to run elections was pre-empted by the need to install a Republican as president. (They phrased it differently, of course.). Trump is openly in a hurry to confirm Barrett because he expects her to do the same.
OK, then, muskets only for all those militias. She does not belong on any court because she cannot separate her religious beliefs from the law. We are a secular state and the Founders intended that we be a secular state.
The Founders were reaching for the concept of a secular state, but it's not quite where they were. They all believed in a deity. They were also very aware of the harm done when the advocates of one religion controlled the state and imposed their beliefs and practices on everyone else. So they carefully designed the new government to prevent that - exactly the opposite of the claims of those who wish to impose their particular brand of Christianity through the government today.
I understand that they were Deists. They were not too far removed from awful religious wars in Europe and rightfully did not want that here. We have had plenty examples of theocracies in history and some now. I was thinking of a secular state vs. a theocracy, not that people did not believe in a deity.
Morning, Dr. R! Morning, all! I started reading the NYT article last night and am only half-way through it. No expert when it comes to the nuts and bolts of our tax laws, but the lay explanations dotted throughout the article keeps this reader engaged. When news broke out about Deutsche Bank (last week, was it?) and several other related stories, I reposted them on my FB page with the title "Follow the Money?" Seems accurate in light of what is unfolding now.
I like to harken back to "famous lines" from movies that I have seen. In the original Die Hard movie (1988) there was the scene between Holly Gennaro McClane (Bonnie Bedelia) and Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) where she accuses him of being "nothing but a common thief," to which he replies that he is "an exceptional thief." Call me crazy, but this so resonates with me with every story that I am reading these days.
And finally, does having six Catholic Supreme Court judges truly represent the views of this diverse nation?
No, having six Catholic Supreme Court judges does not represent America.
Demographically, no more than the hundreds of years of all judges being Protestant white men represented this country. As a non-Catholic, I would add Pope Francis to the court in a heartbeat if it were possible, because he would support using the government to heal the sick. (Reproductive rights are dead at a federal level already.) The problem is that the court has a majority of persons who oppose the idea that the purpose of government is to support the general welfare, and prefer instead to limit it to supporting only the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful. <Insert my usual comments about creating a new Federal Law Review Court to replace SC review of federal laws>
And pass new laws and change the constitution where necessary so that the governments defend people and not property! Let the politicians take their responsibilities or punish them!
Thanks, Joan. This helps my understanding tremendously.
Was I actually helpful or are you being sarcastic?
Heavens, no, I was not being sarcastic. I look forward to reading your posts. They expand my education, which is subpar on these important issues. Seriously.
Thank you.
“Exceptional thief”, indeed. Always follow the money.
Or in this case, always follow the (lack of) money... He's flat broke - who could have foreseen that
If he had taken the inheritance from his father and simply invested it in virtually any reliable index fund he would be worth more than he even claims to be worth at present.
He is not only a liar and a crook, he is also a moron.
Every US bank of any renown with a sign on the street in Manhattan could have told us all that for the last 25 years or more. None of them would lend him a nickel.
I was being sarcastic - so true that the banks have had his number for years. I also think he's had a tough time getting high-powered legal representation because he's notorious for not paying his bills
I agree - it's almost like a game to him or something.
I can’t say Trump’s taxes get me all that excited - the President isn’t as wealthy as he says he is, and his scummy accountants work hard to minimize his taxes? This isn’t surprising. I think of it as part of the whole package of psychopathy; this guy has said and done so many awful things that I can no longer conceive of the legal and ethical significance of any one act. He needs to be escorted from his castle as soon as possible, right into the welcoming arms of a paddy wagon. #January20MovingDay
This is somethig to get excited about:
"This, of course, means that Trump is a huge national security risk. He owes money—to whom we don’t know—and he does not have it to pay his debts. It is no wonder that a bipartisan group of nearly 500 national security officials, past and present, last week endorsed Biden for president. According to Defense News, the list included 'five former secretaries of the Navy, two former Army secretaries, four former Air Force secretaries, two retired governors, and 106 ambassadors.' "
I agree. As the stepdaughter of a lifelong intelligence and security officer, it was the first thing that came to mind. Well, maybe the second thing after disgusted rage at the confirmation of how he's ripping off our country.
I should have read this as I posted the same concern just a minute ago. Could not agree more .
As a long time New Yorker, we knew he was a terrible and corrupt businessman. When I read the Times article though, it struck me on a new level how he is compromised by his financial ties with foreign governments. How that affects our country is vital I think to our national security.
Assuming SCOTUS will give millions of Americans, including my daughters, a sabbatical from health care insurance during a pandemic, perhaps this is the opportunity for President Biden and Congress to address known flaws in the ACA and give Americans that better plan that another person has been promising as imminent off and on these last four or so years.
If we have the numbers in Congress, that is one of the first things that should be done.
It will have to be written very very carefully to prevent the Movement Conservative majority on the SC from overturning it. Unless, of course, a blue wave Congress creates a new Federal Law Review Court to take over being the final court for reviewing federal laws. Constitutionally, the Congress has the power to do that. The Supreme Court would be limited to the cases in which the Constitution gives it "original jurisdiction" - which would be more in line with the "originalist" views of its majority. This new court could then be set up better, with its 9 justices serving staggered 18 year terms. Pres.Biden would have to nominate an initial set of justices who would have varying length terms, from 2 years to 18 years.
I'd be interested in how a blue DOJ might take a position on Court cases that are obviously "ginned up" in order to attack legislation.
Glad I kept reading to read about the Federal Law Review Court. Sounds pretty good to me.
Trump is deeply indebted. Someone, somewhere holds a lot of leverage over this president. Further complicating the story is this thread which suggests that the magnitude of the debt isn't a few hundred million, but more like a billion.
https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1310342791336284160?s=20
If nothing else the curtain is being pulled back on $1B of campaign contributions that appear so far to have failed to produce a desired result.
I’m glad you mentioned Dan Alexander’s eye-popping Twitter thread, Andrew, which clarifies Trump’s debt with photos of documentation. Here’s a link to it for those who don’t have a Twitter account: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310342791336284160.html
Alexander also said he will be continuing his detailed analysis today on Twitter. The bottom line is clear: Trump is beholden to many, which makes him a security risk.
I was JUST wondering about Dan Alexander's book on Trump's finances and what he would have to say about the NYT article. I wondered if his information squared with what the NYT uncovered. Ask, and it shall be given...THANKS, Andrew.
Annnd... Dan Alexander is on it again this morning, continuing his analysis. I was just going to share a more updated thread of his posts than I did 10 minutes ago (I should have looked at his latest before posting the link above), but he’ll be digging into this for awhile. I am grateful he is helping to untangle this web.
Thanks. I’m going to follow him on Twitter now.
Thanks. I’m going to follow him on Twitter now.
And while we know campaign contributions can be spent on legal matters, it makes you wonder where else those contributions may have landed.
One only need look to the reported "salaries" being paid to Kimberly Guifoyle or Lara Trump, or the finances of Brad Parscale to understand how the Trump organization is profiting off of the campaign. It speaks volumes that he announced his candidacy for reelection the day after his inauguration in 2017. We know this to be consistent with his past. See: Ivanka Trump $747,622 "consulting fee" on a hotel for which she is an executive.
I believe the New York Times will run additions to this story for the next 36 days! That anyone can still believe that he has the interests of his base in mind is beyond me. He can only think about his next "trick" to fool those to whom he owes tons of money. And, we know that there's more to come. Putin probably has tons of dirt on him, and it's now only a matter of time that people looking at this with a fine eye will start to draw lines directly between tRump and Putin. Bring it on. Pile on tRump as much shit as possible, and let him drown in it. He is the ultimate LOSER and the American people will tell him "you're fired" on Nov 3.
The nomination of Barrett is certainly scary, but the outright power play of the repubs is more scary and infuriating. I hope that the Dems on the Judiciary Committee will make her work for this. Ask hard questions (not about her religious beliefs), and make her defend her positions. Maybe there will be a repub or two who will see the iight and not vote not confirm. (I know.....wishful thinking, but one can always hope.)
I've also said, I think his niece Mary has more things to release too. She's probably also going to gradually release little bombshells between now and Election Day. Pile it on! If he tries to grab headlines, then others will beat him at his own strategy. Let him have it with everything we've got!!
counting on it...
I certainly hope that the NYT will do so but history gives me a suspicion that the stories on Trump will be ameliorated by an increase in Cletus Safaris along with a breathless, unsourced story or two on Hunter Biden's business dealings. I've put faith in the NYT before, only to have it dashed.
What is "Cletus Safaris"?
Google tells us this: It’s one of those innumerable, insufferable, “Let’s go to Rust Bucket, Ohio and interview the old racist white people who voted for Trump and see what they have to say now” pieces that every major news outlet feels obligated to churn out once per month.
That's the term describing the work of coastal reporter who think they've found something profound when they find Trump supporters in diners in the Midwest and publish their quotes as "simple wisdom from the Heartland." It's as though the thoughts of millions of American voters who live in cities need to be balanced by the maunderings of embittered racist retirees in Iowa.
BTW, this easily taken to be a Latin legal term, which it isn't.