Although the Freedom Caucus statement does not specify the exact “cancerous woke policies in the Pentagon,” a spokesperson for the group pointed to provisions included in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act in July. That bill would prohibit the Defense Department from reimbursing expenses related to abortion services, prevent health care coverage of transgender surgeries or hormone treatments, ban drag shows on military grounds, bar the teaching of critical race theory in the military, limit diversity training, and prevent the Pentagon from carrying out President Joe Biden’s climate-related executive orders. The House version of the NDAA passed largely along party lines and is dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
GOP: Support the troops! Unless they’re not Christian Nationalists, in which case they should have their lives destroyed by our bizzarre religious crusades!
More and more, the existence of people like MTG makes me think we are living in a simulation, and some teenaged alien is laughing his ass off and showing his friends how ridiculous this particular simulation has gotten.
Actually In hindsight, it is enormously optimistic to assume the ‘conservative’ party existed in more than name only by the time 2024 comes around.
Americans will have to choose between a moderate conservative party and a radical right party in the 2024 elections.
Thanks to Duverger's law and the moving of the Overton window rightward, we no longer have viable left-wing options. If we can get ranked-choice voting or similar, most of these problems with political parties will evaporate as viable alternatives emerge on both sides and elected officials are forced to work together and compromise.
This is what they do. They get out ahead of bad news for him by announcing it themselves and downplaying the wrongdoing. They seek to control the narrative, normalize what he did, and plant seeds of doubt. When the consequences hit, his supporters will be outraged due to all this brainwashing.
I think they're setting the stage for more Jan. 6 events.
Okay so there's an aspect of law that's really needs to be considered when we talk about this 3rd indictment. Motive. So Trump's lawyers are asking the public to simply look at the actions that were taken. Which are questionable, needs a judge to iron out, but not massively culpable for the particular crimes Trump is being indicted on.
But when we look at what the DA is submitting before the judge, we see Trump talking, having arguments about knowing that what they are doing is questionable, and still continuing those things to elicit a much larger plan of delaying the counting of votes. This is where the conspiracy sets in.
It isn't that the actions themselves warrant the greatest concern, it's the underlying motive Trump had for doing the things he did that moves it into potentially criminal actions.
Like filing a lawsuit isn't any kind of bad thing. But if you file a lawsuit knowing that you're just doing it to enact some other aspect outside of justice for a perceived wrong, that's a frivolous lawsuit or can be a violation of the False Claims Act. Say your former boyfriend or girlfriend accuses you of some crime because you broke up. Filing the lawsuit isn't wrong in of itself, but when you consider the background details for why this lawsuit exists, oh boy are you in trouble now.
And that's where we are at with Trump. His angry speech is just that, a speech, but when there's emails going around indicating that Trump needs to fire up the group so they'll go marching on the Capitol, and that during that invasion of the Capitol Trump will start calling key people to try and get different slates accepted to be counted. Well now all that combined, that's the problem. No one thing in isolation is some massive "Oh no", but all together and it begins to become clear that the entire point was to "convince by any means necessary" any hold outs to Trump's idea of how the election should progress. That is a violation 18 USC §§ 1512(c)2.
From Trump's lawyer:
What’s the unlawful means? There was an effort to get alternate electors, which is a protocol that was used in 1960 by John Kennedy. And it was a protocol that was constitutionally accepted
And the thing is, it isn't that he just tried that. It's that there is a stack of emails and text indicating that the people attempting to work with Trump to do that thing knew that they were doing something that wouldn't be accepted by Congress, were told by members of Congress that they wouldn't accept it, and that a "plan" to "convince them" that they should accept it was needed to get them to accept it. That's the massive difference. It isn't the action in isolation that's at issue, it is Trump's team indicating that they will need to, in broad terms, help convince members of Congress to accept that new slate. That's interference. If you've cannot accept the answer and then motivate yourself to do things to change that answer you've already gotten, that's interference. Just like you cannot just keep on, keeping on in a courtroom after a Judge has ruled. It's over with, you got your answer.
So yeah, there's an attempt by Trump's lawyers to grossly simplify the conspiracy their client is currently facing. This is a pretty age old tacit of being a lawyer. It's like those bad videos where people jump out of nowhere on purpose to be hit by a car, then attempt to sue the driver, and then they fail at their act. Yeah, you can simplify that as "oh well they're just trying to cross the street..." But it's the motive that drove them to do the thing they did, they were motivated to do something in the commission of highly questionable conduct for monetary gain. So maybe they we're able to successfully convince the insurance you hit them or you had a dashcam. So technically speaking, they didn't get away with it. But just because they didn't actively defraud your insurance does not mean they did not still commit a crime.
That's the really important aspect of these new charges. All of the actions in of themselves aren't gross violations of the law, but they are manifest of a something deeper that was being carried out to defraud the US Government and overturn an election. That deeper part is what this indictment points out.
Donald Trump went over the edge over the weekend and began calling for his detractors to be prosecuted or even put to death.
“They are almost all dishonest and corrupt, but Comcast, with its one-side and vicious coverage by NBC NEWS, and in particular MSNBC, often and correctly referred to as MSDNC (Democrat National Committee!), should be investigated for its ‘Country Threatening Treason,’” he wrote on Truth Social Sunday night.
“I say up front, openly, and proudly, that when I WIN the Presidency of the United States … the LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events,” he said. “They are a true threat to Democracy and are, in fact, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country!”
Trump’s threat to the news media was actually his second attempt to menace detractors this past weekend alone. On Friday, he slammed Mark Milley, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggesting that perhaps he also committed treason.
“This guy turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States,” Trump said on Truth Social. “This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”
Donald Trump is a danger to society. If you haven’t already, join your city/county’s Democratic club/caucus and organize locally to elect Democrats up and down the ballot in 2024.
I wonder if they will argue that wealth tax is discriminatory. I don't see any other way for it to be challenges since power to raise revenue is vested with Congress so they have pretty broad power to do so as long as it is properly apportioned
My understanding of the article is that the Moores are suing probably based on the difference between wealth and income.
The Trump policy stipulates that if you own 10+% of a foreign business, you are taxed on the value of that ownership. Valuation is a function of wealth as I understand it because it's folded into how much a person is deemed "worth." Something similar here is property or stocks. If you own so many shares of a company, you are "worth the value" of those stocks even though that isn't currency at your disposal. That's why people are taxed on the value of stocks they sell because now that's moved from an imaginary realm of value into income into the bank account.
The Moores are saying: but valuation isn't income, so you can't tax us.
The lower courts have said: valuation is deferred income, so yes the federal tax on you was legal.
I don't think an argument about discrimination is at all on the table. I think it'll be a more pedantic argument of value, wealth, and income - which of these is taxable and which of these are imaginary (with real outcomes).
This is a complex notion for a non-legal person such as myself. The Trump tax package was absolute bullshit, but even I am surprised this one provision was in it. Surely this was created to hurt people Trump deemed as enemies, such as Mitch McConnell's wife Elaine Chao, but then "ordinary" rich people like the Moores got swept up into it. I am very much in favor of more taxes on the rich, especially for overseas finances, which often is sheltered from federal taxation and transparency. But even I am torn about trying to make the distinction between valuation and income, and which should be taxable.
I did not click the article or read the cases so thank you for providing this summary.
"The lower courts have said: valuation is deferred income, so yes the federal tax on you was legal."
This is a bad argument... you get taxed on your house and chattel property by lower branch of government at that. You get taxed on the value of the property. Similar legal underpinnings can be used for a wealth tax.
So here it sounds like, case is specific to ownership of foreign equity. I am not sure why this was implemented and honestly I have not heard of it. We have controlled foreign companies rules in place to target foreign earned income of us residents, which is riddled with holes like swiss cheese. For example, tax code provides an exclusion from this regime for companies utilizing foreign contract manufacturers. What has happened to US manufacturing over last 30 years... asking for friend. But i digress.
The title is a bit misleading since this is an a wealth tax per se and it was not really structured as such. If the policy makers went this route, they almost certain wanted it to be over turned, the legal underpinnings are just not there.
Call it what it is, and tax it as such as long as it is fair to the class of people being subjected to the regime, there is not reason for corrupt geriatric council to be involved.
The tax implications are far beyond my life experience as someone who qualifies for the 1040EZ form every year lol
I'm not sure if this was a Trumpian Easter egg bomb that was planted and waiting to be discovered for the purpose of further eroding the federal government's ability to raise funds through the IRS. That does sound like it comes from the conservative playbook, but the way this particular case has played out sounds like it required far more foresight than what Trump and his sycophants could have devised without external help.
You make an excellent case about the taxation on value for homes taking place at the municipal level, but the case for stocks is at the federal level, so I can see why business dealings might fall under the scope of federal taxation.
I think if this particular court case was only about the scope of the 16th amendment, then it would be a bit more cut and dry. However, the lawyers for the Moores are also pushing rhetoric that this court decision should also be instrumental in guiding and shaping future legislation on wealth tax and that is so incredibly unethical and problematic. That is not the role of the court and should not be one of its aims.
Because two things are at issue here, I find it hard to pick a side to root for: yes, defeat for the Moores so the law stands and proposals for future wealth tax legislation aren't encumbered by this decision; or yes, a tax policy part of an otherwise regressive tax system implemented by an authoritarian criminal is defeated to really stick it in that guy's eye, but now Pandora's box is opened for nearly all taxation on wealth to have new precedent set and possibly stymy good, progressive legislation proposals.
What do you mean by this comment? The fact the court might hear a case on the premise that it would stymy future legislation is completely unorthodox and not within the purview of the court. That is overreach, by definition.
I mean that it's usually right-wingers whining about overreach, but when it's their assholes doing it for their fascist agenda all of a sudden they go silent, which is (unsurprisingly) flagrant hypocrisy.
Walmart is evil. They single-handedly caused the deportation of millions of jobs. Their workers are subsidized by the American taxpayer, because even if Walmart allows you to work full time, you are still in poverty.
Heat is one of the reasons I decided not to stay in the conservation industry. It could be 45°C out and my boss would still have me suit up and march out to spray weeds. I would come home drenched head to toe in sweat and it’s only going to get worse. Outdoor labour jobs need regulations to protect them from unsafe working conditions caused by the environment.
they're doing their best to cause as much chaos as possible, yeah.. that's all they've got.. like comic book villains throwing babies out windows so Spidey can't end their reign of terror..
It's the right play politically. Consider if the roles were reversed.
If Bernie Sanders was arrested for breaking into Walmart headquarters and demanding they unionize, he'd absolutely say something like "It's not about breaking the law, it's about standing up for the millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet while the Walton family continues to amass wealth. That's what this is about. It's not about me, it's about us."
His supporters believe in his cause and they'd absolutely eat that up. I don't really get why people are so into thuggish authoritarian rule - but if that's what gets you up in the morning, then seeing Trump admit to this is surely exciting.
I was trying to come up with a hamfisted analogy and clearly missed the mark.
I'm pretty sure Bernie has actually been arrested at civil rights protest, so that's probably a better example. I actually think that makes him more qualified to be president.
Presumably trump enthusiasts feel similarly about his mounting list of felonies. I think that should immediately disqualify him from being considered as a candidate, but a lot of people obviously don't and I have to assume that's because they believe in authoritarian psuedo-dictatorship in the same way I believe in civil rights.
In a rational world this would completely shatter his chances for any presidential nomination from a major party (or probably the first indictment would)
However, there are a good number of people who believe so firmly in trump that they'll view this in exactly the same light as a left wing leader being arrested at a civil rights protest or admitting they smoked weed. To them this is a feather in his cap, it burnishes his credentials as being anti-establishment and proves whatever batshit conspiracy theories he's spouting.
I think democrats are too quick to overlook that risk and I think that's dangerous.
We all know that Bernie’s arguments have always been sincere and fact based. We know that Trumps are dishonest and held for his convenience, but the magas Don’t know or don’t care
newrepublic.com
Top