All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Maybe the focus should be on the DOJ rather than just Barr. If what he's asking them to do is unethical, and they do it anyway, then the place is rotten.

Unethical people working for the US Department of Justice? Say it ain't so. We're talking about a demographic made up in large part of lawyers, after all.

Perhaps the issue is that career Justice Department personnel are not so much unethical as they are aware that it isn't in their remit to publicly second-guess the legal decisions of the US Attorney General. The responsibility to curb any dictatorial monkeyshines by the executive properly lies upon the other branches of government, and ultimately upon the people.

[Hermit]

What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the harbour?

A good start.



This joke made the rounds in Australia when the bottom of the harbour scheme blew up. It was a tax avoidance method promoted by lawyers and accountants.

The operation at the heart of bottom of the harbour schemes involved a company would be stripped of assets and accumulated profits before its tax fell due, leaving it then unable to pay.

Once assets were stripped, the company would be sent, metaphorically, to the "bottom of the harbour" by being transferred to someone of limited means and with little interest in its past activities. The company's records were often lost too. The ATO, being in the same position as other unsecured creditors in the case of an insolvent company, ended up with nothing.

Promoters such as lawyers or accountants generally facilitated the transactions. The promoter would help the owners of a company first transfer the assets to a new company which was to continue the business, then the owners sold the old company to the promoter for the value of the untaxed accumulated profits, less an amount representing a fee or commission. For the owners this was the sale of a capital asset and hence untaxed (being prior to capital gains tax).

The promoter would have the company pay (to the promoter) a dividend of the money it had left, then the promoter on-sold the now empty shell to someone else. The way the promoter paid the owners for undistributed profits was similar to a dividend strip operation. In any case the amount the promoter paid was a tax deduction (since the promoter would be in the business of buying and selling shares) and the dividend would be taxable income, leaving just the promoter's commission taxable, not the whole original company profit.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Creating problems in town.

'Rudy Giuliani admits he may have been suckered by Russia agent: He "didn’t do much investigation"'

On Thursday, the U.S. Treasury Department accused Andriy Derkach of being “an active Russian agent for over a decade.”

Giuliani met with Derkach in his efforts to efforts to pin a Ukrainian scandal on Biden, which was part of the series of events over which Trump was impeached. [Derkach was a primary source for the OAN/Giuliani production that tried to give RT a run for its money in the Pushing Russian Propaganda Sweepstakes.]

“Giuliani said in an interview Thursday night that he ‘felt comfortable’ meeting with Mr. Derkach ‘because there were no sanctions against him’ at the time,” The New York Times reported Thursday. “While he acknowledged that he ‘didn’t do much investigation’ of Mr. Derkach, Mr. Giuliani said: ‘I have no reason to believe he is a Russian agent. There is nothing I saw that said he was a Russian agent. There is nothing he gave me that seemed to come from Russia at all.’ But he added, ‘How the hell would I know?'”

Yeah, man, how the hell would Rudy know that his Eastern European caper featured Russian intelligence operatives?

[L'Emmerdeur]

What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the harbour?

A good start.



This joke made the rounds in Australia when the bottom of the harbour scheme blew up. It was a tax avoidance method promoted by lawyers and accountants.

The operation at the heart of bottom of the harbour schemes involved a company would be stripped of assets and accumulated profits before its tax fell due, leaving it then unable to pay.

Once assets were stripped, the company would be sent, metaphorically, to the "bottom of the harbour" by being transferred to someone of limited means and with little interest in its past activities. The company's records were often lost too. The ATO, being in the same position as other unsecured creditors in the case of an insolvent company, ended up with nothing.

Promoters such as lawyers or accountants generally facilitated the transactions. The promoter would help the owners of a company first transfer the assets to a new company which was to continue the business, then the owners sold the old company to the promoter for the value of the untaxed accumulated profits, less an amount representing a fee or commission. For the owners this was the sale of a capital asset and hence untaxed (being prior to capital gains tax).

The promoter would have the company pay (to the promoter) a dividend of the money it had left, then the promoter on-sold the now empty shell to someone else. The way the promoter paid the owners for undistributed profits was similar to a dividend strip operation. In any case the amount the promoter paid was a tax deduction (since the promoter would be in the business of buying and selling shares) and the dividend would be taxable income, leaving just the promoter's commission taxable, not the whole original company profit.

A thing of beauty!

[Sean Hayden]

It's unethical to follow an unethical order simply because it's not your job to question the person giving the order. We all have that job buddy. The least you could do is quit. Many Americans resign in protest for far less.

A less unethical approach may be available to some who may argue ignorance/humility ie as a servant I'm not in a position to act singularly against the collective, owing to my limited understanding and power to forsee the consequences. But the way you've framed the issue, and the nature of the work being done appears to rule out such a defense. They understand fully what they are being asked to do, and they can reasonably be expected to grasp the consequences of refusing --mostly losing their job.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's unethical to follow an unethical order simply because it's not your job to question the person giving the order. We all have that job buddy. The least you could do is quit. Many Americans resign in protest for far less.

A less unethical approach may be available to some who may argue ignorance/humility ie as a servant I'm not in a position to act singularly against the collective, owing to my limited understanding and power to forsee the consequences. But the way you've framed the issue, and the nature of the work being done appears to rule out such a defense. They understand fully what they are being asked to do, and they can reasonably be expected to grasp the consequences of refusing --mostly losing their job.

Lawyers aren't known for their bravery. On the other hand, Barr isn't alone in his belief in an extremely robust interpretation of the strong unitary executive. Evidence indicates that he's pretty canny about assigning the legal footwork to willing underlings. His cat's paws appear to be completely on board with the program.

We view the use of the Department of Justice as a personal law firm for the president as corrupt. It appears that the US Attorney General's opinion is that under Article II of the US Constitution the president is essentially the embodiment of governmental power. From that perspective, stepping in to defend the president in a private lawsuit is completely constitutional--even a duty of the Department of Justice as an instrument of the executive.

The US Supreme Court in a recent decision supported the strong unitary executive theory. It might balk at going as far as Barr would like, or it might not.

[Tero]

To the tune of my Sharona

When you gonna give to me, a gift to me
Is it just a matter of time, Corona?
Is it d-d-destiny, d-destiny
Or is it just a game…

trump my corona.jpg (57.94 KiB) Viewed 1844 times

high res pic on Bella's FB wall, Sep 10 rally

[Tero]

“The truth will prevail!” the first lady wrote in solidarity with a post from her chief of staff Stephanie Grisham accusing someone of “spreading falsehoods in exchange for a few dollars & some TV time.”

[Tero]

00958371-BED0-40B3-A593-F24421DDA17B.jpeg (63.26 KiB) Viewed 1840 times

[Alan B]

CNN

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump admitted he knew weeks before the first confirmed US coronavirus death that the virus was dangerous, airborne, highly contagious and "more deadly than even your strenuous flus," and that he repeatedly played it down publicly, according to legendary journalist Bob Woodward in his new book "Rage."
"This is deadly stuff," Trump told Woodward on February 7.
In a series of interviews with Woodward, Trump revealed that he had a surprising level of detail about the threat of the virus earlier than previously known. "Pretty amazing," Trump told Woodward, adding that the coronavirus was maybe five times "more deadly" than the flu.
Trump's admissions are in stark contrast to his frequent public comments at the time insisting that the virus was "going to disappear" and "all work out fine."
The book, using Trump's own words, depicts a President who has betrayed the public trust and the most fundamental responsibilities of his office. In "Rage," Trump says the job of a president is "to keep our country safe." But in early February, Trump told Woodward he knew how deadly the virus was, and in March, admitted he kept that knowledge hidden from the public.
"I wanted to always play it down," Trump told Woodward on March 19, even as he had declared a national emergency over the virus days earlier. "I still like playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic."
If instead of playing down what he knew, Trump had acted decisively in early February with a strict shutdown and a consistent message to wear masks, social distance and wash hands, experts believe that thousands of American lives could have been saved.

He fucking knew. So he played to the ignorant and uneducated and treated a killer pandemic situation like a fucking game show.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's unethical to follow an unethical order simply because it's not your job to question the person giving the order. We all have that job buddy. The least you could do is quit. Many Americans resign in protest for far less.

A less unethical approach may be available to some who may argue ignorance/humility ie as a servant I'm not in a position to act singularly against the collective, owing to my limited understanding and power to forsee the consequences. But the way you've framed the issue, and the nature of the work being done appears to rule out such a defense. They understand fully what they are being asked to do, and they can reasonably be expected to grasp the consequences of refusing --mostly losing their job.

There has been a development on this front.

'Durham aide resigns from Russia probe amid concerns over pressure from Barr: report'

A top aide to U.S. Attorney John Durham has reportedly resigned from the Justice Department’s probe into the origins of the Russia investigation amid worries over political pressure from Attorney General William Barr.

Federal prosecutor Nora Dannehy, who has worked with Durham for decades, resigned Thursday evening, sources told the Hartford Courant in a story published Friday. Her resignation email did not include mention of political pressure.

Dannehy, whom sources told the Courant is not a supporter of President Trump, was reportedly conflicted between politics and loyalty to Durham, a longtime colleague. The career prosecutor has led high-profile investigations into leaders such as former Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland (R).

Barr appointed Durham to lead the investigation into the origins of the investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election and any potential links to the Trump campaign. Colleagues of Dannehy told the Courant that Barr is pushing Durham to produce more results before the November election.

[Tero]

Trump has Americans believing there is an Antifa, a bunch of anarchists. And they are everywhere!

But shortly after they left, Paulsen began checking Twitter and Facebook to see news about the fires. She noticed that residents were sharing information about their car, including detailed descriptions of its appearance and license plate. The posts claimed they were members of antifa, an amorphous collection of left-wing groups that the president has called “a terrorist organization,” who had come to Molalla from Portland to commit arson.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Molalla is already into the edges of red state, USA, which is a significant portion of Oregon outside the cities. Eighty miles southeast of Portland and you might as well be in Frozen Ass, Wyoming.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Slogan for a new Trump/Pence bumper sticker.

'Is Donald Trump mostly evil or mostly ignorant? Bob Woodward's book offers an answer: Both'

It figures that Bob Woodward, the man who helped to take down Richard Nixon 45 years ago, would follow up with a big book about Nixon's natural heir to the presidency, Donald Trump. Just as Nixon was undone by tape recordings he foolishly made to document his own corruption, so too Trump foolishly allowed himself to be recorded by Woodward. That's what sets Woodward's book "Rage" apart from all the other Trump books that have come before: We can hear the quotes in Trump's own voice, so he can't get away with calling it fake news.

...

It's obvious that Trump has never, from the beginning, cared in the slightest about the pain and suffering caused by this deadly virus. I'm reminded of that anecdote about an early April task force meeting in which Trump wanted to open up the economy immediately and just let the pandemic "wash over the country." He was told that would result in many, many deaths. Yet, according to the Washington Post, he raised that idea repeatedly — and essentially, that's the plan he ultimately implemented by default. (Indeed, Trump has now elevated Dr. Scott Atlas, a radiologist he saw on Fox News who believes in herd immunity — but has no particular expertise in epidemics or infectious disease — to a high-status advisory position in the White House.) .

We can say now that when it comes to the pandemic at least, malevolence was the driving force behind Trump's decisions.

...

But I think the other revelations reported in this book so far can better be attributed to ignorance. For instance, in the very first conversation they had, he told Woodward all about his new secret nuclear program that he claimed Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping knew nothing about — but would be very impressed if they did. Woodward confirmed this with other sources, but was told that people in the national security realm were a bit shocked that Trump had told a journalist about it.

That's just dumb. So is all the ridiculous folderol over North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, whom Trump believed could be cajoled into giving up his nuclear weapons by snuggling up to him. Woodward asked people in the CIA about Kim's "beautiful letters" to Trump and was told that while intelligence officials didn't know who had actually written them, they were "masterpieces."

The analysts marveled at the skill someone brought to finding the exact mixture of flattery while appealing to Trump's sense of grandiosity and being center stage in history.

It's pretty obvious who was being played in that relationship.

...

So, malevolence or ignorance? When it comes to politics and domestic policy, the evidence strongly suggests that malevolence governs Donald Trump — but that ignorance rules when it comes to national security.

[pErvinalia]

Wouldn't be surprised if he tried to claim it fake news.