Summations Only

... never happened,From the Guardian: Workers barely benefited from Trump’s sweeping tax cut, investigation showsThat big fat ol' tax cut turned out to be a big gift to the large corporations which failed to pass much at all to their employees, and was full of additional loopholes and mistake since it was rushed through with little to no chance of adequate debate.None of which is a surprise to the people who were warning of exactly this at the time.

Lie No. 10,000 is really a whopper

quote:

---

AS PRESIDENT TRUMP zoomed past a lowly personal milestone ” his 10,000th false or misleading statement in his 27-month-old presidency, according to The Post Fact Checker ” he let fly a series of whoppers on a subject that logic would suggest he’d be better off leaving unremarked: family separation. The president, whose own administration imposed and then rescinded a systematic policy of wrenching migrant children from their parents, with no protocol in place to reunite them, now poses as a paragon of compassion that ended cruel laws in place before he took office. This is false.

​

During an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Mr. Trump suggested that his heartless policy had continued practices in place under the Barack Obama and George W. Bush administrations, among others. In contrast to his predecessors, Mr. Trump said, “we’ve been on a humane basis . . . we go out and stop the separations,” he said. “The problem is you have 10 times as many people coming up with their families. It’s like Disneyland now.”

​

In fact, the “zero tolerance” policy was formulated (with White House approval) by Mr. Trump’s then- attorney general, Jeff Sessions. The policy mandated automatic imprisonment for undocumented adult asylum seekers apprehended at the border, meaning migrant children would be seized from their parents’ custody and transferred for placements scattered around the country by the Department of Health and Human Services.

---

As we now know, after Barr released his letter exonerating Trump of obstruction of justice, Mueller sent Barr a memo on March 27 saying that Barr's letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance" of the report. Here's a link to Mueller's memo, and here is that full paragraph:

quote:

---

As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is new public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. See Department of Justice, Press Release (May 17, 2017).

---

In testimony before Congress in early April Barr stated that he did not know why there were reports that members of Mueller's staff were dissatisfied with the Barr letter, apparently believing the fact that Mueller himself had expressed dissatisfaction not worth mentioning.In today's testimony before Congress Barr defended his earlier answer as accurate to the question, as if he was unaware that the questioner was seeking to establish whether the Mueller team agreed with Barr's statement of the report's primary findings. Growing numbers of Democratic House members are becoming increasingly distrustful of Barr's statements, and calls for his impeachment are beginning to be heard.--Percy

DONALD TRUMP SAYS GAMING TAX SYSTEM WAS ”SPORT’ WHILE HE ADMONISHES POOR AMERICANS FOR USING WELFARE

quote:

---

resident Donald Trump lost nearly $1 billion, or “more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer,” between 1985 and 1994, according to a new report by The New York Times. The president responded Wednesday by claiming that those significant losses were just a way to get out paying the federal government owed money for “sport.”

​

Yet while brushing off depriving the federal government of huge amounts of revenue, Trump has repeatedly spoken out and created a policy against impoverished Americans who rely on welfare programs, whom he views as gaming the system.

​

“Real estate developers in the 1980’s & 1990’s, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write-offs and depreciation which would, if one was actively building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases. Much was nonmonetary. Sometimes considered ”tax shelter,’” the president tweeted Wednesday morning following the Times report.

​

“You would get it by building, or even buying. You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes....almost all real estate developers did - and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport. Additionally, the very old information put out is a highly inaccurate Fake News hit job!”

---

quote:

---

The Times found that between 1990 and 1991, the president’s businesses lost more than $250 million each year, “more than double those of the nearest taxpayers in the I.R.S. information for those years." If the president was truly losing millions of dollars each year (and declaring bankruptcy on a number of occasions) to game the government for “sport,” he was truly blowing his competition out of the water.

​

In a statement to the Times, a White House official said, “The president got massive depreciation and tax shelter because of large-scale construction and subsidized developments." They added, "That is why the president has always scoffed at the tax system and said you need to change the tax laws. You can make a large income and not have to pay a large amount of taxes.”

​

But the president's $1.5 trillion tax plan gave the top 1 percent of Americans about 21 percent of the tax cuts. By 2027, over 80 percent of tax cuts will flow to the top 1 percent.

---

One important thing to remember is that there are limits on Presidential Pardons.A President cannot grant pardons related to an Act of Impeachment.A President cannot grant a pardon for any State or Local crimes.A President cannot issue pardons for any crimes committed in any other Nation.This is why it is so important to Follow the Money.If the money trail shows any State, Local, or International crimes were committed by Trump or Trump Inc or any of the Trump family or any of the Trumpians those crimes cannot be pardoned by Trump or any other President.

This is all true, but of course he is stacking the federal courts, hoping appeals will fall in his favor.And there is no way to hold him accountable for the long term damage he is doing to every agency, State, Interior, EPA, law enforcement, intelligence, experts gone in every field instead of training future experts. Corrupt clowns, both confirmed by the Senate AND unconfirmed by the Senate running the dismantling of those agencies.

Another interesting thing about Presidential pardons is that by receiving one, you can still be called in to testify in that investigation and you can no longer plead the Fifth.The reason for pleading the Fifth is to avoid self-incrimination. But if you've been pardoned, then you no longer have any reason to avoid self-incrimination -- indeed, by accepting that pardon you have effectively admitted your guilt, it's just that you won't pay the penalty for it. That means that if called in to testify, you will not only have no excuse for not testifying, but you also cannot refuse to answer any of the questions. And if you lie, then it's perjury which is not what you were pardoned for.So if Trump were to start giving out pardons like candy, it will backfire on him.

I think the departments and the rest of the civil service can recover with a new administration albeit a lot of those loses will not be recovered in the rebuilding.The environmental and political damage done to the world, however, may take decades to fix if they can be fixed at all.

Definition of Trump from a Brit

quote:

---

Someone on Quora asked, “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” Nate White, an articulate and witty writer from England wrote this magnificent response.

​

A few things spring to mind.

​

Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem.

​

For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed.

​

So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

​

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever.

​

I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility - for us, to lack humor is almost inhuman.

​

But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is - his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

​

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers.

​

And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults - he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness....

​

If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

---

There's been a new development in the Assange case (Swedish prosecutor reopens Assange rape investigation, will seek extradition). Assange is no longer under Ecuadorian protection and is serving a 50 week sentence in a British prison, so a Swedish prosecutor has stated that she will continue and conclude the investigation into rape allegations and seek a European Arrest Warrant to gain Assange's extradition to Sweden. The US also has an extradition request. Once Assange completes his British prison time the UK will decide which extradition request to honor first.I remain surprised that the US has maintained its extradition request for Assange. His prison term will expire next year just as the US presidential election is whipping into high gear, and the possible impact on the Trump administration ranges from inconsequential to embarrassing to criminal. Maybe Assange will reveal nothing of import, or maybe he'll testify that Roger Stone or his emissaries visited him several times in the Ecuadorian embassy and discussed the timing of the release of emails and how to obtain more.A Swedish arrest warrant helps the Trump administration, which I am guessing will negotiate with the British behind the scenes to have them honor the Swedish arrest warrant first. This will put Assange in Sweden for the duration of the US presidential election and safely out of harm's way.--Percy

Just heard a piece on the radio about the Swedish extradition case. It’s quite likely, apparently, that the extradition proceedings could be strung out long enough by Assange’s team, for the limitation period in Sweden to expire. Watch this space.

Attorney General William Barr has appointed a prosecutor to investigate the origins of the Russia probe to see if the FBI did anything unlawful or inappropriate. Barr is most likely interested in how the FBI obtained a surveillance warrant for Trump associate Carter Page, and their use of an informant to gain information from Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos (Barr appoints prosecutor to examine Russia probe origins).Suspicion of FBI malfeasance by the Attorney General is sufficient to justify this probe into a probe, but Barr isn't any ordinary Attorney General. Through his false characterization of Mueller report conclusions, by his exoneration of Trump of any obstruction of justice, and by his referring to FBI surveillance as spying, Barr has revealed himself as a Trump partisan, the president's attorney, and not the people's lawyer.There is a very real possibility that no matter what the Russia probe probe finds, Barr will mischaracterize it as finding misbehavior by the FBI. This is what Trump wants, so that's what Barr will find.--Percy

Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't object to the examination of a law enforcement agency's investigation of a political campaign. As those of us who remember COINTELPRO will point out, investigation opposition campaigns can have a "chilling effect" on the democratic process and can be open to abuse. Government officials need to be ready to explain to the public openly and cleary how their actions were fair and appropriate.On the other hand, we also have ample evidence that the Trumpistas themselves can't be trusted to be fair or appropriate and that "chilling" any process that opposes them is the actual intent of this.Here is an additional New York Times article on this: Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia InquiryI haven't yet read anything that John Durham, the one who will conduct this investigation, will be a political hack for the Administration. But I agree with Percy that the real danger is that the Administration will twist and mischaracterize any result from this investigation, especially if there does turn out to be any impropriety however minor.But what worries me more is how this is going to be used in the meantime in the propoganda war. The Democrats are going to need to be careful to stay focused and on topic during their campaigns and not get sucked into an unnecessary distraction.

I think Barr chose him for a reason and it is not to get to the truth.

quote:

---

For anyone who ever wondered how it was possible that no one in the Bush administration ever faced a single charge from “black sites,” “enhanced interrogation,” and prisoner deaths: The answer is John Durham.

---

The prosecutor Barr selected to investigate Mueller let the Bush CIA walk away from torture charges

Barr is also a Reagan era fixer.William Barr Supported Pardons In An Earlier D.C. 'Witch Hunt': Iran-Contra : NPR