The Fourth Estate and Politics

[Trinity]

Makes one think the laughter of some black woman somewhere is indelible in his hippocampus.

[cradleandshoot]

https://nypost.com/2018/11/17/the-obama ... lar-brand/ Does this mean the Barack and Michelle have advanced into that despised group of reprobates called the 1%ers ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://nypost.com/2018/11/17/the-obama ... lar-brand/ Does this mean the Barack and Michelle have advanced into that despised group of reprobates called the 1%ers ?

That is what is great about America. Prime examples of American Success Stories. Thanks for posting. South side of Chicago....Single parent home.... against the odds.

[cradleandshoot]

https://nypost.com/2018/11/17/the-obama ... lar-brand/ Does this mean the Barack and Michelle have advanced into that despised group of reprobates called the 1%ers ?

That is what is great about America. Prime examples of American Success Stories. Thanks for posting. South side of Chicago....Single parent home.... against the odds.

Could not agree more... I am sure our former POTUS will be more than happy to pay his fair share when the bill comes due. I expect our distinguished former POTUS will not have tax accountants searching for loopholes. Maybe if he asks very nicely Trump will share some of his tricks with him for circumventing paying your fair share. John Kerry is also pretty adept at this game. He tried the old register your yacht in another state to avoid paying taxes on it... It is a funny thing no matter what your political beliefs once you become rich nobody just wants to hand that money over to the gubmint. We can only hope that Michelle and Barack are the exception to the rule. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/ ... 56985.html I just have to post this for old time sake... for all those elitist democrats who lecture everybody for the need to pay your fair share... unless your name is John Kerry. We expect republicans to stick it to us all. There are so many folks here at this forum that tell us democrats are looking out for us... until the bill comes in the mail. Suddenly democrats start acting like republicans... who would a thunk it? What is that term Fatty loves to use... TAATS? exactly...

[MDlaxfan76]

Fair critique, cradle, as far as you went.

The question we need to ask, though, is who wishes to change the laws to make it harder for the 1% to avoid paying taxes and who wants to make it easier for the 1% to pay less?

BTW, Trump did much worse than simply using the tax laws to avoid paying taxes (legally).
He committed fraud.
Maybe you don't think that is a difference that matters, but I do.

[cradleandshoot]

Fair critique, cradle, as far as you went.

The question we need to ask, though, is who wishes to change the laws to make it harder for the 1% to avoid paying taxes and who wants to make it easier for the 1% to pay less?

BTW, Trump did much worse than simply using the tax laws to avoid paying taxes (legally).
He committed fraud.
Maybe you don't think that is a difference that matters, but I do.

I don't disagree with you MD. My only point is that when it comes to paying your fair share, democrats and republicans alike find it hard to pull the trigger. My hope is that Michelle and Barack will do so very happily. That is why tax accountants make so much money...

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://nypost.com/2018/11/17/the-obama ... lar-brand/ Does this mean the Barack and Michelle have advanced into that despised group of reprobates called the 1%ers ?

That is what is great about America. Prime examples of American Success Stories. Thanks for posting. South side of Chicago....Single parent home.... against the odds.

Could not agree more... I am sure our former POTUS will be more than happy to pay his fair share when the bill comes due. I expect our distinguished former POTUS will not have tax accountants searching for loopholes. Maybe if he asks very nicely Trump will share some of his tricks with him for circumventing paying your fair share. John Kerry is also pretty adept at this game. He tried the old register your yacht in another state to avoid paying taxes on it... It is a funny thing no matter what your political beliefs once you become rich nobody just wants to hand that money over to the gubmint. We can only hope that Michelle and Barack are the exception to the rule. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/ ... 56985.html I just have to post this for old time sake... for all those elitist democrats who lecture everybody for the need to pay your fair share... unless your name is John Kerry. We expect republicans to stick it to us all. There are so many folks here at this forum that tell us democrats are looking out for us... until the bill comes in the mail. Suddenly democrats start acting like republicans... who would a thunk it? What is that term Fatty loves to use... TAATS? exactly...

I hope they pay what is due. The Obama’s have made their tax returns available when President Obama was in office. I am sure he will get good tax advice. I don’t recall Democrats taking a vow of poverty....as for Kerry, it looks like a tax code problem....

[MDlaxfan76]

Fair critique, cradle, as far as you went.

The question we need to ask, though, is who wishes to change the laws to make it harder for the 1% to avoid paying taxes and who wants to make it easier for the 1% to pay less?

BTW, Trump did much worse than simply using the tax laws to avoid paying taxes (legally).
He committed fraud.
Maybe you don't think that is a difference that matters, but I do.

I don't disagree with you MD. My only point is that when it comes to paying your fair share, democrats and republicans alike find it hard to pull the trigger. My hope is that Michelle and Barack will do so very happily. That is why tax accountants make so much money...

Yup, but 'fair share' is highly subjective.
Want people to pay a 'larger share'?
Pass tax laws that do so...and enforce them.

[dislaxxic]

As the Obama DOJ Concluded, Prosecution of Julian Assange for Publishing Documents Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom

"Over the last two years, journalists and others have melodramatically claimed that press freedoms were being assaulted by the Trump administration due to trivial acts such as the President spouting adolescent insults on Twitter at Chuck Todd and Wolf Blitzer or banning Jim Acosta from White House press conferences due to his refusal to stop preening for a few minutes so as to allow other journalists to ask questions. Meanwhile, actual and real threats to press freedoms that began with the Obama DOJ and have escalated with the Trump DOJ – such as aggressive attempts to unearth and prosecute sources – have gone largely ignored if not applauded.

But prosecuting Assange and/or WikiLeaks for publishing classified documents would be in an entirely different universe of press freedom threats. Reporting on the secret acts of government officials or powerful financial actors – including by publishing documents taken without authorization – is at the core of investigative journalism. From the Pentagon Papers to the Panama Papers to the Snowden disclosures to publication of Trump’s tax returns to the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, some of the most important journalism over the last several decades has occurred because it is legal and constitutional to publish secret documents even if the sources of those documents obtained them through illicit or even illegal means.

The Obama DOJ – despite launching notoriously aggressive attacks on press freedoms – recognized this critical principle when it came to WikiLeaks. It spent years exploring whether it could criminally charge Assange and WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. It ultimately decided it would not do so, and could not do so, consistent with the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment. After all, the Obama DOJ concluded, such a prosecution would pose a severe threat to press freedom because there would be no way to prosecute Assange for publishing classified documents without also prosecuting the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and others for doing exactly the same thing."

..

[cradleandshoot]

Fair critique, cradle, as far as you went.

The question we need to ask, though, is who wishes to change the laws to make it harder for the 1% to avoid paying taxes and who wants to make it easier for the 1% to pay less?

BTW, Trump did much worse than simply using the tax laws to avoid paying taxes (legally).
He committed fraud.
Maybe you don't think that is a difference that matters, but I do.

I don't disagree with you MD. My only point is that when it comes to paying your fair share, democrats and republicans alike find it hard to pull the trigger. My hope is that Michelle and Barack will do so very happily. That is why tax accountants make so much money...

Yup, but 'fair share' is highly subjective.
Want people to pay a 'larger share'?
Pass tax laws that do so...and enforce them.

My point has always been how to define what any particular taxpayers "fair share" is. You could not be more correct when you use the term " highly subjective" When you are a 1%er you can afford a small army of tax accountants and lawyers to help you maneuver your way thru the labyrinth of tax regulations. Damn if there is not always some sort of loophole to be found... when you can afford to find the right people to find it. It is quite the catch 22. You want the wealthy to pay their fair share but the wealthy folks are not having any of that. I would ask why do the politicians include all these loopholes for the uber rich to shield their money? You can talk out of one side of your mouth wanting them to pony up... then you write tax laws that help them to keep their money. Is there not something wrong with this picture?

A Fan is so very right when he speaks of a flat tax for everyone. Then in reality... everyone will pay their fair share. I for one am all on board with that. Get rid of all the loopholes and everybody pays their taxes... no questions... no excuses... no accountants digging for ways around the law. BTW... I believe Michelle and Barack will pay their fair share. I have been critical of the former first couple for many reasons. They have always been very open about what they pay to the government. Once you are a private citizen what you pay is really nobodies business if you don't want it to be.

[youthathletics]

https://nypost.com/2018/11/17/the-obama ... lar-brand/ Does this mean the Barack and Michelle have advanced into that despised group of reprobates called the 1%ers ?

Interesting.....The Obama's get a multi-million dollar hedge on a Netflix show, with Soros as major shareholder and Susan Rice on the Board of Directors. Maybe we need to open up a SC investigation....seems like Netflix may be doing some shady dealings, maybe even some DNC money laundering.

[MDlaxfan76]

As the Obama DOJ Concluded, Prosecution of Julian Assange for Publishing Documents Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom

"Over the last two years, journalists and others have melodramatically claimed that press freedoms were being assaulted by the Trump administration due to trivial acts such as the President spouting adolescent insults on Twitter at Chuck Todd and Wolf Blitzer or banning Jim Acosta from White House press conferences due to his refusal to stop preening for a few minutes so as to allow other journalists to ask questions. Meanwhile, actual and real threats to press freedoms that began with the Obama DOJ and have escalated with the Trump DOJ – such as aggressive attempts to unearth and prosecute sources – have gone largely ignored if not applauded.

But prosecuting Assange and/or WikiLeaks for publishing classified documents would be in an entirely different universe of press freedom threats. Reporting on the secret acts of government officials or powerful financial actors – including by publishing documents taken without authorization – is at the core of investigative journalism. From the Pentagon Papers to the Panama Papers to the Snowden disclosures to publication of Trump’s tax returns to the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, some of the most important journalism over the last several decades has occurred because it is legal and constitutional to publish secret documents even if the sources of those documents obtained them through illicit or even illegal means.

The Obama DOJ – despite launching notoriously aggressive attacks on press freedoms – recognized this critical principle when it came to WikiLeaks. It spent years exploring whether it could criminally charge Assange and WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. It ultimately decided it would not do so, and could not do so, consistent with the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment. After all, the Obama DOJ concluded, such a prosecution would pose a severe threat to press freedom because there would be no way to prosecute Assange for publishing classified documents without also prosecuting the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and others for doing exactly the same thing."

..

It's indeed a fine line, a potential slippery slope.
If Assange is indicted, I think we can expect that it will be for more than publishing classified or otherwise illicitly obtained documents.
And if he's indicted, there will be substantial evidence to support the charge for which he's indicted.

[MDlaxfan76]

Fair critique, cradle, as far as you went.

The question we need to ask, though, is who wishes to change the laws to make it harder for the 1% to avoid paying taxes and who wants to make it easier for the 1% to pay less?

BTW, Trump did much worse than simply using the tax laws to avoid paying taxes (legally).
He committed fraud.
Maybe you don't think that is a difference that matters, but I do.

I don't disagree with you MD. My only point is that when it comes to paying your fair share, democrats and republicans alike find it hard to pull the trigger. My hope is that Michelle and Barack will do so very happily. That is why tax accountants make so much money...

Yup, but 'fair share' is highly subjective.
Want people to pay a 'larger share'?
Pass tax laws that do so...and enforce them.

My point has always been how to define what any particular taxpayers "fair share" is. You could not be more correct when you use the term " highly subjective" When you are a 1%er you can afford a small army of tax accountants and lawyers to help you maneuver your way thru the labyrinth of tax regulations. Damn if there is not always some sort of loophole to be found... when you can afford to find the right people to find it. It is quite the catch 22. You want the wealthy to pay their fair share but the wealthy folks are not having any of that. I would ask why do the politicians include all these loopholes for the uber rich to shield their money? You can talk out of one side of your mouth wanting them to pony up... then you write tax laws that help them to keep their money. Is there not something wrong with this picture?

A Fan is so very right when he speaks of a flat tax for everyone. Then in reality... everyone will pay their fair share. I for one am all on board with that. Get rid of all the loopholes and everybody pays their taxes... no questions... no excuses... no accountants digging for ways around the law. BTW... I believe Michelle and Barack will pay their fair share. I have been critical of the former first couple for many reasons. They have always been very open about what they pay to the government. Once you are a private citizen what you pay is really nobodies business if you don't want it to be.

Except the IRS.
Yes, the Obamas have been quite transparent and I agree that they will most likely continue to be. And most likely will not do somersaults to avoid taxes.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://nypost.com/2018/11/17/the-obama ... lar-brand/ Does this mean the Barack and Michelle have advanced into that despised group of reprobates called the 1%ers ?

Interesting.....The Obama's get a multi-million dollar hedge on a Netflix show, with Soros as major shareholder and Susan Rice on the Board of Directors. Maybe we need to open up a SC investigation....seems like Netflix may be doing some shady dealings, maybe even some DNC money laundering.

silly. kinda stupid too. "DNC money laundering". confused2

It's amazing what comes out of the Trumpist fever swamp.

youth, we'll assume your tongue is firmly in your cheek on this one.

[kramerica.inc]

https://nypost.com/2018/11/17/the-obama ... lar-brand/ Does this mean the Barack and Michelle have advanced into that despised group of reprobates called the 1%ers ?

Interesting.....The Obama's get a multi-million dollar hedge on a Netflix show, with Soros as major shareholder and Susan Rice on the Board of Directors. Maybe we need to open up a SC investigation....seems like Netflix may be doing some shady dealings, maybe even some DNC money laundering.

silly. kinda stupid too. "DNC money laundering". confused2

It's amazing what comes out of the Trumpist fever swamp.

youth, we'll assume your tongue is firmly in your cheek on this one.

It's actually a pretty good example of politicians being taken care of by special interests. Same with payouts to former and current politicians for speaking events, and "consultant" fees.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://nypost.com/2018/11/17/the-obama ... lar-brand/ Does this mean the Barack and Michelle have advanced into that despised group of reprobates called the 1%ers ?

Interesting.....The Obama's get a multi-million dollar hedge on a Netflix show, with Soros as major shareholder and Susan Rice on the Board of Directors. Maybe we need to open up a SC investigation....seems like Netflix may be doing some shady dealings, maybe even some DNC money laundering.

silly. kinda stupid too. "DNC money laundering". confused2

It's amazing what comes out of the Trumpist fever swamp.

youth, we'll assume your tongue is firmly in your cheek on this one.

It's actually a pretty good example of politicians being taken care of by special interests. Same with payouts to former and current politicians for speaking events, and "consultant" fees.

It could well be that. Or it could be a quite savvy business deal.

The speeches and consultant fees clearly have less potential to add value from a business ROI perspective.

I think a good case could be made that the flow of money, the dramatic uptick in the dollars paid for a speech by Bill Clinton as his wife occupied a position of power and then was positioning for a run predicted to be successful for the Presidency, was indeed money to buy access and favor. That's the sort of thing that is particularly objectionable, IMO.

Of course, we're seeing this taken to astronomic heights during the Trump presidency. It's pretty extraordinary.

[kramerica.inc]

https://nypost.com/2018/11/17/the-obama ... lar-brand/ Does this mean the Barack and Michelle have advanced into that despised group of reprobates called the 1%ers ?

Interesting.....The Obama's get a multi-million dollar hedge on a Netflix show, with Soros as major shareholder and Susan Rice on the Board of Directors. Maybe we need to open up a SC investigation....seems like Netflix may be doing some shady dealings, maybe even some DNC money laundering.

silly. kinda stupid too. "DNC money laundering". confused2

It's amazing what comes out of the Trumpist fever swamp.

youth, we'll assume your tongue is firmly in your cheek on this one.

It's actually a pretty good example of politicians being taken care of by special interests. Same with payouts to former and current politicians for speaking events, and "consultant" fees.

It could well be that. Or it could be a quite savvy business deal.

The speeches and consultant fees clearly have less potential to add value from a business ROI perspective.

I think a good case could be made that the flow of money, the dramatic uptick in the dollars paid for a speech by Bill Clinton as his wife occupied a position of power and then was positioning for a run predicted to be successful for the Presidency, was indeed money to buy access and favor. That's the sort of thing that is particularly objectionable, IMO.

Of course, we're seeing this taken to astronomic heights during the Trump presidency. It's pretty extraordinary.

Savvy business indeed.

As a side note, we wait with our hands clenched to see where Michelle's political career will take her.

And I do believe that those previous "savvy business deals" will have no effect on her future decisions in office if/when she chooses public service.

[dislaxxic]

It is objectively false that Trump provided unprecedented cooperation; stop parroting Rudy claiming he did. [EmptyWheel]

Gathering all of the subjective "MSM" into an identical, ideological monolith is a rhetorical device wielded, unconvincingly, by the intellectually lazy.

"...because Rudy included the claim in the statement he released to the press, many news outlets are repeating that false claim, uncontested. The outlets that subscribe to the AP feed are propagating false claim today, because Eric Tucker repeated that line from Rudy’s statement with no correction to it. Unsurprisingly, Fox News parroted Rudy. But so did some more credible outlets, like NBC, ABC, CNN, and Reuters. Even the WaPo’s otherwise superb report from Carol Leonnig and Robert Costa repeated the claim in the last line of their story.

NYT’s Maggie and Mike, incidentally, avoided repeating Rudy’s claim, choosing to include the part of his statement that provided quasi-factual numbers, but leaving out the superlative claim.

It’s bad enough that most of the press has repeated Rudy and Dowd’s claim uncritically since January. But for yesterday’s stories, it is all the more important to get it right. That’s because Trump is not just refusing to answer questions on Mueller’s obstruction investigation, he’s also refusing to answer questions about the transition period, before any claim of Executive Privilege should kick in. While that’s consistent with what Trump did with Hope Hicks’ and Corey Lewandowski’s testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, it nevertheless represents an expansion of accepted claims to executive power."

..

[dislaxxic]

‘Fox & Friends’ Fed Interview Script to Trump’s EPA Chief, Emails Show

So many investigations...so little time (til November 3, 2020)...

..

[foreverlax]

‘Fox & Friends’ Fed Interview Script to Trump’s EPA Chief, Emails Show

So many investigations...so little time (til November 3, 2020)...

..

When you put that in context, it's definitely consistent -

"Throughout the world, CNN has a powerful voice portraying the United States in an unfair...." the president tweeted. "....and false way. Something has to be done, including the possibility of the United States starting our own Worldwide Network to show the World the way we really are, GREAT!"

Guess he isn't happy with Fox running the country, now he wants his own WH network.