Is the GOP Tax Bill a Smuggler's Charter?

[LovetheLBs]

Why is it that whenever someone hits a Trump supporter (ie: anyone who thinks positively of anything Trump is doing), they immediately get defensive, start name calling, and (like the idiot POTUS) try to insinuate that the media, Snopes, etc are all "biased." How absolutely fucking ridiculous. If you don't want people to mention Fox News, then stop talking like a "Hannity" junkie.

And just as a side note - Fox News/Breitbart/Hannity junkies (like yourself) constantly cling to "oh.. like those 2016 polls?" line to try to prove their falsehoods. The polls stated that Hillary would win 3% more of the vote than Trump would, and that's exactly what she did. The polls were dead on. They just didn't take into consideration the antiquated electoral college that has now resulted in TWO illegitimate GOP Presidents.

Seriously, people need to stop quoting the Trump University Playbook every day. It's the same old, same old EVERY DAY.

[broncofan]

Further, how is the prospective head of the NSA in violation of the Logan Act if he's acting on behalf of the incoming President? That's more of a stretch than saying Obama is in violation for currently meeting with world leaders with the very clear goal of subverting the current Presidents agenda. Where'd you conjure this shitty argument from?

I'd delve into the details of how the obstruction of justice claim is another crock, conjured by either completely intellectually dishonest hacks who comprise that "free press" which is nothing more than partisan hackery at this point, Jeffrey Toobin being a fine example. But obviously, random guy, you know much more on the legalities of obstruction than people such as Alan Dershowitz. Not my favorite person to be sure, but certainly no conservative. So tell me, since you've clearly looked at the federal obstruction statute, and you obviously know more about it than a constitutional scholar and Harvard Law Professor, tell me how his powers under Article II don't clearly make the case that the head of agencies such as the FBI serve at the pleasure and under the direction of the President, and can be fired at will? Furthermore, prove intent statutorily. You can't. All the Vox articles in the world and one dopey tweet are a shitty way to pass the bar of reasonable doubt.

One can violate the Logan Act if they undermine the policy of a sitting president. When Flynn discussed sanctions with the Russians, Trump was not President and the purpose of the discussion was to undermine Obama's sanctions on Russia. The fact that Trump was the prospective President is why it violated the Logan Act.

I have looked at the obstruction of justice statute. I also know how to read statutes as I'm an attorney. I've gone through the statute line by line which you can read in other threads. Out of a poll of 13 law professors not a single one agreed with Alan Dershowitz. His argument is incoherent and is cited by morons such as yourself to argue something that would completely obliterate the rule of law. As I've said before, acting under the color of one's authority does not mean one cannot corruptly interfere with the due administration of justice. In fact, lawfully terminating someone also does not mean that their termination does not obstruct justice. It's irrelevant whether as a matter of employment law or acting pursuant to his article II powers he could fire Comey if he in fact did it to corruptly interfere with the due administration of justice. That's obstruction of justice and the statute applies to even the President.

As you say, you would not be quoting Dershowitz if he did not provide you cover on this one issue. But tell me, who is more of a pre-eminent expert on Constitutional Law, Dershowitz or Laurence Tribe? Who has written treatises on the subject? Who has written more law review articles? There are dozens of law professors who have published more scholarship, and better scholarship as measured by number of citations on Constitutional Law than Alan Dershowitz. You are citing his sophistry because he is the only law professor you know of who appears regularly in right wing media. There is nothing to his argument according to any scholar I know of.

[dirkmcgee]

^Did you plan on adding anything substantive to the discussion, or are you just interested in playing conduct police?

Like the utter contempt from strangers on the internet wasn't palpable because I dared question the veracity of a claim that is completely ridiculous, and I find absolutely nonsensical narratives distracting from actual substantive criticism of a Presidency. It's completely damaging. For the third time now, that is where all of this stemmed from. What the fuck happened to the anti-war, free speech left? Where are you guys?

A Hannity junkie? I don't recall suggesting some sort of deep state coup. Maybe you're just not comfortable with a divergent opinion?

[broncofan]

^Did you plan on adding anything substantive to the discussion, or are you just interested in playing conduct police?

Like the utter contempt from strangers on the internet wasn't palpable because I dared question the veracity of a claim that is completely ridiculous, and I find absolutely nonsensical narratives distracting from actual substantive criticism of a Presidency. It's completely damaging. For the third time now, that is where all of this stemmed from. What the fuck happened to the anti-war, free speech left? Where are you guys?

A Hannity junkie? I don't recall suggesting some sort of deep state coup. Maybe you're just not comfortable with a divergent opinion?

This is a new tack. Someone pretending they once supported the left or support segments of the left in order to defend a man who said there must have been good people among torch-bearing Nazis yelling "Jews will not replace us" and who wants to build a wall on our southern border. This is all substantive criticism and it's piling up. What about Trump's transgender military ban? What about him appointing to the federal bench a judicial nominee who did not know what the Daubert standard is or what a motion in limine is? What about him hiring a climate change denier to head the EPA? What about him wanting to double the exemption on the estate tax? These are criticisms and you're an apologist for a very disgusting regime.

[LovetheLBs]

This is a new tack. Someone pretending they once supported the left or support segments of the left in order to defend a man who said there must have been good people among torch-bearing Nazis yelling "Jews will not replace us" and who wants to build a wall on our southern border. This is all substantive criticism and it's piling up. What about Trump's transgender military ban? What about him appointing to the federal bench a judicial nominee who did not know what the Daubert standard is or what a motion in limine is? What about him hiring a climate change denier to head the EPA? What about him wanting to double the exemption on the estate tax? These are criticisms and you're an apologist for a very disgusting regime.

Amen... and most importantly - considers the Russian investigation a "distraction". No point in even wasting time with this one.
He doesn't care about the country - just angry and will play along with anything as long as it "pisses off liberals". Pathetic.

[dirkmcgee]

I have looked at the obstruction of justice statute. I also know how to read statutes as I'm an attorney.

See that's funny. Again with that attempt to condescend. I am as well. So either you're full of shit which is certainly possible, or my mind is legitimately boggled at how someone could be so clouded by a desire to throw this entire nation and what is currently for better or worse a positively booming economy into the lurch because they can't handle the results of a freely held election, and wait unforced error after unforced error out for four years. But then, you thought Hillary lost because of misogyny.

Anyway, obviously you don't know how to read statutes, because you've yet to provide the argument for intent. You say he wanted to obstruct a criminal investigation (to what end considering if there was anything on this, they'd have flipped Flynn and there'd have been radio silence, and certainly no indictment), I say he fired Comey because he repeatedly refused to go public about the fact that Trump wasn't under FBI investigation. Which Comey even testified too. But ok Mr. Internet Lawyer Guy, you win, even though like any prosecutor your burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. Funny how you dodged that at your attempt at trying to big-time someone who CALI'd his con law class before passing the bar on the first shot. Oops.

There are dozens of law professors who have published more scholarship, and better scholarship as measured by number of citations on Constitutional Law than Alan Dershowitz. You are citing his sophistry because he is the only law professor you know of who appears regularly in right wing media. There is nothing to his argument according to any scholar I know of.

The idea that the President of the United States doesn't have prosecutorial discretion to direct the end of an investigation is completely ridiculous. There's constitutional authority and precedent. But I mean it's only Dershowitz and I on this point right? It's not Jonathan Turley (a real friend to conservatives as he's repeatedly called for W to be jailed for war crimes...fuck W, but I digress), or Elizabeth Foley, or Andrew McCarthy, etc. etc. The amazing thing is, we both just admitted what a shitheap Fox is, but you're on the side of Andrew Napolitano on this one. Not I.

As for the rest of your idiotic diatribe.

Out of a poll of 13 law professors not a single one agreed with Alan Dershowitz. His argument is incoherent and is cited by morons such as yourself to argue something that would completely obliterate the rule of law. As I've said before, acting under the color of one's authority does not mean one cannot corruptly interfere with the due administration of justice.

That poll was conducted by VOX. Surely a bastion of unbiased journalism. And you're a lawyer? Seriously? Did you learn anything about critically weighing the evidence, identifying objective sources...or any critical thinking skill for that matter in law school?

The entire obstruction narrative is hilarious considering the last sitting AG acting on direction of the sitting President literally told the head of the FBI to publicly misrepresent the status of a criminal investigation into a presidential candidate. I wonder if that was one of his 18 lies?!?!

On a side note, Ezra is just a capitalist who found a money making machine and feeds it, but Matt Yglesias is literally one of the worst people on the planet.

Anyway, if everyone could get back to true liberal principles and focus on the myriad of issues with this administrations public stances on real issues like civil asset forfeiture, the need for cj reform, the indiscriminate droning and the lack of a healthcare plan, this would be a one-term Presidency. So why do I have the sneaking suspicion the exact opposite is going to occur?

What about Trump's transgender military ban? What about him appointing to the federal bench a judicial nominee who did not know what the Daubert standard is or what a motion in limine is? What about him hiring a climate change denier to head the EPA? What about him wanting to double the exemption on the estate tax? These are criticisms and you're an apologist for a very disgusting regime.

Holy shit! Actual criticisms! Thanks. That's really all I was looking for. Literally don't disagree on any of those points except for the death tax, and the fact that I'm an "apologist for a disgusting regime." No, you're just a hack.

Although, its the death tax, and I find the whole "Estate tax" label to be completely odious. Call it what it is. You want to tax people both when they die and upon their ancestors inheritance. It's straight up wealth envy.

Amen... and most importantly - considers the Russian investigation a "distraction". No point in even wasting time with this one.
He doesn't care about the country - just angry and will play along with anything as long as it "pisses off liberals". Pathetic.

Yeah. I'm the one that wants to throw the country into a constitutional crisis over what is indeed, a completely failed narrative.

[broncofan]

It's getting late here so I will respond one more time before leaving you. I am not saying this to be rude but it took you 52 minutes to write an argument that does not actually contain arguments. Why would you tell me you passed the bar on your first attempt? 70% of people in my jurisdiction passed the bar during the administration I took it. That was said to be a nearly historic low. You will notice that the historic low is still a fairly high number. I wasn't trying to big-time you as all I did was tell you I'm an attorney. You've told me you're an attorney and also that you think it's a noteworthy accomplishment to have passed the bar the first time you took it.

The reason I did not discuss the intent issue is because it is mooted by your argument that the President cannot obstruct justice. If he cannot obstruct justice then it does not matter whether he violated the statute. But how does one establish intent? The same way a person would establish intent in any case, by inference from the words and actions of the person being prosecuted. Trump claimed he had tapes of his conversation with Comey, something that it now appears he lied about. In a case between someone who told a bald-faced lie and someone who wrote a memo after a conversation people will tend to believe the person who has not publicly lied about an interaction. According to Comey Trump asked him to let Flynn go because he's a good guy. It appears that Trump also knew Flynn had broken the law, which means he did not have a bona fide law enforcement purpose for asking Comey to let Flynn go. Trump later admitted that he fired Comey because of how he conducted the Russia investigation. These are all facts that establish intent. But why are we discussing this if you think he could not be guilty of obstruction? Yes there are questions about whether it would meet a burden of proof, but you're arguing it's not legally possible rather than that the facts don't add up to obstruction. Or do you know what you're arguing?

Where did I say the President does not have prosecutorial discretion to end an investigation? I said his authority to do so does not mean he can do it for corrupt reasons. The obstruction statute would not apply to the President even if he did not have such authority as long as he was not corruptly interfering with justice. Whether he has authority to speak on a matter or not, he is not exempt from a statute that only punishes corrupt interference since he is not in any way duty bound as President to obstruct justice. In fact, quite the opposite.

As for your claim about the estate tax it should tell everyone everything we need to know about your judgment. You think "death tax" is a less tendentious phrasing than "estate tax." Thanks for weighing in.

[filghy2]

Say what you want about Trump, and there's a lot that can be said on the con side, but I know one thing-he said we'd get to 3% in our GDP output despite the previous President saying it would take "a magic wand." POOF! .

Trump is claiming that he can get 3% growth on a sustained basis over the next 10 years - that is what Obama was referring to. The fact that 3%+ has been achieved over the past 2 quarters doesn't tell us much because temporary periods of high growth happen quite often - in fact, there were even higher growth rates under Obama. https://www.statista.com/statistics/...gdp-in-the-us/ If you believe Trump has achieved something exceptional then you really have been drinking the kool-aid. Virtually no independent economist thinks the 3% growth target is plausible for the next 10 years. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/25/econ...th-target.html

[buttslinger]

Welcome aboard McGee!
How come it sounds like you lost the election and don't have The House, Senate, and Supreme Court?
Because the Truth forgot to come along for the ride? Your President is the biggest goddam liar in Presidential History. Only a fool would believe a liar, only a liar would accuse 12 women he abused as liars.
He is going to end up in a chair under oath one day, and he's going to fold like a 13 year old.
You might want to prepare yourself for that, it ain't gonna be no Bengazi hearing. It's going to be real prosecutors, not that crowd of circle jerk congressmen that stink up Hannity's show. Trump won't be able to edit out his mistakes like every Conservative News Outlet does. Enjoy your sham tax bill. It's another lie.
tick tock, Donald, the truth is closing in!!!
I think we're going to find out you're not only a liar, but a pretty big thief, too.
Wealth envy, Jesus.

[filghy2]

Although, its the death tax, and I find the whole "Estate tax" label to be completely odious. Call it what it is. You want to tax people both when they die and upon their ancestors inheritance. It's straight up wealth envy.

It is a tax on inherited estates above a very high threshold, not a tax on death. Who do you think pays - the dead person or their heirs? Also, it is not levied twice as you have claimed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate..._United_States If you knew anything about economics you would know that wealth taxes may be preferable to other forms of tax on both equity and economic efficiency grounds.https://www.theguardian.com/business...r-donald-trump