Is the GOP Tax Bill a Smuggler's Charter?

[Stavros]

It is sometimes hard if not possible on this side of the Atlantic to understand how the Congress manages to pass laws. A law goes from the House to the Senate, I get that, but in the latest version of the House of Representatives Bill as modified by the Senate I read that parts of it were handwritten at the last moment, sometimes legal provisions scribbled in the margins of the printed section, and the whole thing is at least 500 pages long! I thought the aim was to simplify the tax code. And after all that, there will be a final version before it goes to the White House for the President's approval.

What also puzzles me about the process is the way in which issues not related to tax can be smuggled into the Bill, with the consequence that the law of the USA will have to be re-written.

Assuming it has passed the vote on this latest version and is in the Bill that becomes law, there is a provision that re-defines a Person in law through a provision known as '529 Plans' giving rise to this:

At issue is a somewhat obscure proposal regarding beneficiaries to what are termed “529 plans” (also known as qualified tuition programs (http://archive.is/k6vG4#selection-50885.0-50885.33)), which are savings funds for college tuition. The new tax bills would make it explicitly legal to list an “in-utero” unborn child as a beneficiary to such saving funds. A description (http://archive.is/POFmg#selection-10515.0-10541.40) of the change in the Senate Bill describes the proposal:
The proposal specifies that nothing in Code section 529 shall prevent an unborn child from qualifying as a designated beneficiary. For these purposes, an unborn child means a child in utero, and the term child in utero means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
https://www.snopes.com/gop-tax-bill-fetal-personhood-legislation/



But if this does become law, it will conflict with the current definition of a person-
U.S. Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text) › Title 1 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1) › Chapter 1 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/chapter-1) › § 8
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=1-USC-1760845812-956340326&term_occur=1&term_src=title:1:chapter:1:section:8)”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=1-USC-119639350-956340327&term_occur=1&term_src=title:1:chapter:1:section:8) at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=1-USC-119639350-956340327&term_occur=2&term_src=title:1:chapter:1:section:8)”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=1-USC-119639350-956340327&term_occur=3&term_src=title:1:chapter:1:section:8)” as defined in this section.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

So it would appear that a Bill to reform and amend the tax code is not only concerned with a completely different issue, namely abortion, but in its attempt to make abortion hard to obtain, it has also re-defined a person in law, I wonder how many US citizens think this is the appropriate way in which to deal with amendments to the law?

And surely, coming next, is a law making it illegal for an unmarried man to ejaculate, and for a married man to ejaculate unless he is ejaculating while penetrating a woman -and only a woman? Sperm is a crucial component of life, so why begin the legal definition of a person with the fetus when it cannot exist without a man's sperm, and 'spillage' or 'wastage' of that sperm is in effect part of the process of abortion and the denial of life.

Maybe it will be in the next version of the tax code...?

[flabbybody]

They love putting unrelated shit into future laws. Great American tradition.
you've clearly put more thought into this legislation than all 52 Republican senators combined (one of them actually voted No).
and how much effort do you think Trump expended studying the law he will claim sole credit for?
many of us middle income New Yorkers will be totally fucked by the elimination of deductions on state income and property taxes. This tax law almost makes their repeal and replace look benevolent.

[buttslinger]

The way I understand it is the Republicans have to come up with a bill that pours money to the rich, that's the easy part,....then they have to find various public welfare programs to steal the money from to pay for it. You might notice that tax breaks for the middle class drop off in a couple years, while the corporate tax sweetheart deals go on for eternity.
I think big corporations have been sitting on their money playing a game of chicken with Obama for eight years, well, they won again, you have to wonder when Trump's base is going to catch on they've just been screwed.
Ordinarily, a President with this economy should have approval numbers in the stratosphere.
It's mildly amusing that the same day Trump's ultimate wet dream started to cum true, is the same day his ultimate fall began. Life is funny like that.
Who's going to clean up this mess?

[Stavros]

It's mildly amusing that the same day Trump's ultimate wet dream started to cum true, is the same day his ultimate fall began. Life is funny like that.
Who's going to clean up this mess?

When the Party of God makes it illegal for you to 'cum' there will be no mess. Now be a good boy, and when you get those nasty thoughts, do something else with your hands...

1042857

[broncofan]

Initially I thought this bill repealed the estate tax. Now I am seeing that it doubled the exemption for the estate tax. The estate tax exemption is 5.49 million dollars for individuals and 10.98 million for couples. It's also inflation adjusted so it would have continued to rise with inflation but that's apparently not good enough. That means that before any tax is levied, 10.98 million dollars could be passed to the next generation. Once the exemption amount was reached, the rest of the estate would be taxed at 40%.

By doubling the exemption, the Trump administration is helping those families hardest hit by economic slumps, those single folks with a net worth between 5.49 million and 10.98 million dollars. He also helps those couples barely scraping by who would otherwise be hit with a massive DEATH TAX when their net worth sits between 10.98 and 21.96 million dollars.

I realize the sarcasm falls flat, but can you imagine anything less worthwhile than saving a couple with a net worth of say 15 million dollars from paying a 40% tax on 4.02 million dollars (the amount that exceeds the exemption amount for couples) before being passed to the next generation? Think of what pays for this; the repeal of state and local tax exemptions etc.....there really is no excuse at all for this move and if we were to go through the provisions I am sure they get even worse but this is one that was on my radar. Awful.

[Stavros]

I realize the sarcasm falls flat, but can you imagine anything less worthwhile than saving a couple with a net worth of say 15 million dollars from paying a 40% tax on 4.02 million dollars (the amount that exceeds the exemption amount for couples) before being passed to the next generation? Think of what pays for this; the repeal of state and local tax exemptions etc.....there really is no excuse at all for this move and if we were to go through the provisions I am sure they get even worse but this is one that was on my radar. Awful.

Broncofan, dude, you need to get with the program. The GOP tax bill offers you a range of incentives to get out there in the market and make a million a day, take the risks with your capital to move out of your safe and sedate Middle Class comfort blanket, embrace the hurly-burly of those market opportunities and become a billionaire. Then you can have the benefits that reward risk and vision. And you can buy or lease your own private jet. No more flying coach from New York to LA, when the people who do can subsidize your Cessna.

• The private jet lobby spent $56 million lobbying over the past ten years to save more than $1 billion in annual taxes they avoid due to preferential tax treatment.
• The tax cut package under consideration in the Senate maintains and expands the private jet tax carve-out, while the Republican budget plan increases fees on commercial airline passengers.
• Private jets contribute less than one tenth of the resources they use from the Federal Aviation Administration Trust Fund. Commercial airline passengers heavily subsidize private jet passengers.
• Commercial jets are taxed at up to 40 times the rate of private jets on the exact same route despite identical needs in terms of transportation infrastructure.
• Private jets threaten our national security as owners can obscure their identity and passengers face zero security screening.
• A single private jet trip burns more greenhouse gases than the average American does in a whole year.
http://www.ips-dc.org/report-high-flyers-2017/

[Stavros]

For the record, the proposal in the version of the tax bill written in the House of Representatives to include the term 'fetal personhood' into the 529 clauses of the tax bill was deleted by the Senate.

https://rewire.news/article/2017/12/04/senate-rules-strike-extremist-fetal-personhood-language-regressive-tax-overhaul/

[sukumvit boy]

And the bastards managed to find a way to deliver a potentially fatal kidney punch to 'Obama Care'.
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/gop-tax-bill-obamacare.html

[buttslinger]

Unlike many rabid Democrats, I am not totally anti-Republican, and I think there is a small chance that the economy taking off could be the surge that brings World Money to the USA, good for us, bad for them.
Of course the RISK involved is all on the middle class, the wealthy are guaranteed to stay wealthy. Obama had to dip into the National Debt to spur the economy, but he put it not with the banks and corporations and Wall St, he directed it more toward the middle class. My $12,750 Kash-for-Klunkers Honda Civic netted me $17,750 when some kid dressed only in swim trunks totaled it.
Thanks Obama!
I'd be happy to doubling my taxes if it paid off the National Debt, I wouldn't starve,
I'm part of the Reason Amazon.com and Microsoft are so huge, I wish I was rich,
but you know what Jesus said
"I have seen the Future of all Mankind, but without Charity, it means nothing"
Actually I think that's another one I dreamed up, I can't find it on google.

My Pop lucked into two great stock tips in his life, One was from the Nazi Rocket genius Werner Von Braun, who he met at Redstone during Army Reserve. He told my Pop they were switching from liquid to solid rocket fuel, and the only place that made it was some little business in Washington State. My Dad had no money, but one of my Uncles made a killing.
My Dad was one of the first "guinea pigs" on the Kidney Machine, Dialysis, so he had Million Dollar Doctors hovering around him all the time. It paid off when he overheard them saying they were going to go with a new dialysis machine nationwide that a small company somewhere dreamed up. We got a whole hose full of new furniture on that one!!
Being Super-rich would intoxicate anyone. Even Nancy Pelosi has made a small fortune from her contacts in The House.
One way to figure out if a guy is ripping you off is to catch him in a lie. That should give anyone pause.....

https://preview.ibb.co/n75YLR/01.jpg (https://ibb.co/kZV00R)
website for uploading photos (https://imgbb.com/)

[dirkmcgee]

^The idea that Obama only told 18 lies during his entire Presidency is fucking hilarious.

Hm. Why don't people trust mainstream media again?

[buttslinger]

^The idea that Obama only told 18 lies during his entire Presidency is fucking hilarious.
Hm. Why don't people trust mainstream media again?

Oh boy, another one.

[dirkmcgee]

Oh boy, another one.

It's an absolutely absurd claim to try to put forth.

[buttslinger]

It's an absolutely absurd claim to try to put forth.

I'll bite. Why?

[dirkmcgee]

I'll bite. Why?

Maybe because its a total falsehood?

[buttslinger]

Maybe because its a total falsehood?

OK that's it, I was thinking of giving you a little more line but a suspect you're just another little fish in the big Rush Limbaugh pond, am I close?
Because your boy Trump lies more than a hundred people put together.
I can't wait to get him under oath.

[dirkmcgee]

OK that's it, I was thinking of giving you a little more line but a suspect you're just another little fish in the big Rush Limbaugh pond, am I close?
Because your boy Trump lies more than a hundred people put together.
I can't wait to get him under oath.

I mean, how fucking much of an ardent partisan hack do you have to be to take issue with someone saying, "wow what a completely ridiculous claim that Obama only lied 18 times during his 8 year Presidency"?

As for the nonsense about Rush, doubly hilarious considering I'm willing to bet you get your news from the nether-regions of journalism, the Salon's, thinkprogs etc. Same coin, just heads or tails.

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!

Does anyone else realize that as long as middle america is back to work, growth is up and unemployment is down that no one gives a shit about the extracurriculars, and certainly not a completely manufactured Russian narrative? People just want to make money.

[buttslinger]

...Does anyone else realize that ...middle america is back to work, growth is up and unemployment is down.....

Thanks Obama!!!
ha ha ha ha!
Hey, don't get your Make America Great Again hat in a bunch, American.
35% of the country CAN"T be wrong!!!
ha ha ha ha.

[broncofan]

I mean, how fucking much of an ardent partisan hack do you have to be to take issue with someone saying, "wow what a completely ridiculous claim that Obama only lied 18 times during his 8 year Presidency"?

As for the nonsense about Rush, doubly hilarious considering I'm willing to bet you get your news from the nether-regions of journalism, the Salon's, thinkprogs etc. Same coin, just heads or tails.

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!

Does anyone else realize that as long as middle america is back to work, growth is up and unemployment is down that no one gives a shit about the extracurriculars, and certainly not a completely manufactured Russian narrative? People just want to make money.
The economy is cyclical and while I'm sure Obama or any Democrat would have taken credit for the run we've had in the last year if they were in office, tracing it to policies is a bit more difficult. I'll also point out that in spite of the boon to the economy, as Buttslinger pointed out, Trump has a historically low approval rating of 35%. So at least 65% of people are smarter than you. They have probably noticed the unprecedented incompetence of his nominees, his failure to come up with a coherent health care bill, his routine attacks on a free press, and other hallmarks of his lack of character and special lack of competence.

The Russia investigation is a subject for a different thread, but we know several things. First, we know that Russia did hack the DNC and release the emails in order to swing the election to Trump. Second, we know they disseminated propaganda to try to help Trump win. We know that Flynn probably violated the Logan Act in his discussions with them during the transition, which contained indications that Trump would ease sanctions imposed by Obama to pay them back, and then lied to the FBI about it (which is consciousness of guilt and its own crime). We know that Trump fired Comey by his own admission because of the Russia investigation, including Comey's prosecution of Flynn, who we also know thanks to sloppy tweeting Trump knew was guilty. So we know the President committed obstruction of justice, a felony, and that several people who worked for him including his National Security Advisor have already been indicted for federal crimes.

I'll also point out that like some people who post talking points some of what you say doesn't make sense. 3% of GDP? Do you mean an increase of GDP by 3%? You do know there's a difference between achieving that in a single year and it being a sustainable thing right?

[broncofan]

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/trumps-gdp-puffery/

[dirkmcgee]

The economy is cyclical and while I'm sure Obama or any Democrat would have taken credit for the run we've had in the last year if they were in office, tracing it to policies is a bit more difficult. I'll also point out that in spite of the boon to the economy, as Buttslinger pointed out, Trump has a historically low approval rating of 35%. So at least 65% of people are smarter than you. They have probably noticed the unprecedented incompetence of his nominees, his failure to come up with a coherent health care bill, his routine attacks on a free press, and other hallmarks of his lack of character and special lack of competence.

The Russia investigation is a subject for a different thread, but we know several things. First, we know that Russia did hack the DNC and release the emails in order to swing the election to Trump. Second, we know they disseminated propaganda to try to help Trump win. We know that Flynn probably violated the Logan Act in his discussions with them during the transition, which contained indications that Trump would ease sanctions imposed by Obama to pay them back, and then lied to the FBI about it (which is consciousness of guilt and its own crime). We know that Trump fired Comey by his own admission because of the Russia investigation, including Comey's prosecution of Flynn, who we also know thanks to sloppy tweeting Trump knew was guilty. So we know the President committed obstruction of justice, a felony, and that several people who worked for him including his National Security Advisor have already been indicted for federal crimes.

I'll also point out that like some people who post talking points some of what you say doesn't make sense. 3% of GDP? Do you mean an increase of GDP by 3%? You do know there's a difference between achieving that in a single year and it being a sustainable thing right?



I love when stupid people try and condescend. The factcheck link put it over the top. Why not use Snopes while we're at it. No bias there.

Anyway, as far as your approval rating dig-its easy to get a number when you oversample the shit out of a poll. I thought this lesson would be learned after the 2016 election, but apparently, you and a bunch of others who are hellbent on overtly showcasing their stupidity decided to plug their ears, shut their eyes and shout MUH RUSSIA, over and over again. At least some of you have recognized its a failed narrative at this point, others have moved into the realm of accusing JILL FUCKING STEIN of being a Russian agent (HAHAHHAHAHA).


We know that Flynn probably violated the Logan Act in his discussions with them during the transition, which contained indications that Trump would ease sanctions imposed by Obama to pay them back, and then lied to the FBI about it (which is consciousness of guilt and its own crime).

In what universe do we know this. 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? Salon? Slate?

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.

On your last point, where like a typical leftist you parse words as opposed to offer anything of substance, tell that sustainability argument to the NY Federal Reserve and their 4% projection next year. Somehow I have a feeling our, "free press" neglected to mention that on MSNBC.

And just to cut this line of argument off at the pass because its so typical at this point-Fox News sucks balls too.

Just a reminder. This whole conversation started because amazingly enough people can't accept that its completely ridiculous that beloved members of our "fREEEEEEEE press" the New York Times of all places, actually tried to pass off as fact that Obama only lied 18 times in his 8 years. HAHAHA. Yeah. And that administration was scandal free, as a year later there's STILL dirt coming out on his direct support of fucking Hezbollah.

[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/188185/percent-chance-from-preceding-period-in-real-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/economists-dont-buy-trumps-3-percent-gdp-growth-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_tax_in_the_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/2017/oct/11/imf-higher-taxes-rich-inequality-jeremy-corbyn-labour-donald-trump

[Stavros]

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 the question is simple -does the USA have a 'positively booming economy' and if so, what does it look like?

In a country so large and diverse, the headline figures for growth nationwide mask deep disparities in its regions. The stock market may be registering record transactions but some analysts think the Bull market will either slow down in 2018 or register shock falls, maybe not as bad as 2008 or just as bad, or worse- as no two economists can ever agree on anything.

There is in fact a long-term sickness in the US economy, one that emerges when you look at states where mostly Republican administrations have followed a broadly 'Reaganomic' policy that has failed to tackle low-wages and poverty, and where the outstanding features are tax-cuts for businesses intended to create jobs, and the corresponding reduction of taxes on citizens that has reduced the ability of the State to perform its functions and led to increases in debt.

Thus, in Kansas, tax cuts mean that the state can barely maintain 200 out of 1,000 miles of road; that it is struggling to maintain its prisons and because of staff shortages is hiring high school graduates with no work experience. The state is heavily in debt, but cannot plan for a future of growth because there is no significant long term investment in the state.

Similarly, in Alabama, the Republican administration has also given businesses sweetheart deals on taxes, but the assumption this would lead to industrial re-generation following the decline of its textile industry in the 20th century has been a disappointment, as Valerie Gray of the Chambers Country Development Authority has conceded:

Since 1994, Chambers County’s textile mills have lost 20,000 jobs, Ms Gray says. But the county found ways to attract other industries, including abatements on non-education taxes, aid for infrastructure, a lack of unions and an interstate highway providing easy access to Atlanta 90 miles away. If a company would hire at least 100 people, Ms Gray says, the county would kick in $1,500 in incentives per job.
The policies helped Chambers County steer clear of the abyss. But Ms Gray acknowledges that the area remains a work in progress. She said county authorities were surprised that roughly a fifth of the new manufacturing jobs were temporary and have adjusted incentives to encourage full-time hiring. “We had been so accustomed to the textile industry of all full-time employees . . . so that was an eye-opening experience,” she says, adding: “I would not say anything we have done is a mistake. But I would say that it is a valuable learning experience.”

But here is the key point, because it feeds directly into the Tax Bill passed in the Senate: tax cuts not only do not produce the jobs that provide the foundation for a family to live and plan long term, it also eats into the services the State is responsible for, such as education:

Wayne Flynt, an Alabama historian, says the state has failed to absorb the lessons of the past. Since the 19th century, he says, Alabama has been caught in a vicious circle. It has sought to attract industry with low taxes, government assistance and cheap non-unionised labour. As a result, it never collects enough revenue to fund the kind of education system it needs to move up in the world. “The only thing we have to sell is the labour of our people,” Mr Flynt says. “We don’t have the minds to sell.”
https://www.ft.com/content/54d05c3e-e9fa-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539

It may argued that it is time for the State to stop raising taxes to provide services that should be provided by the private sector, but what is so striking about this entire argument is that there is no sustained evidence that tax cuts at either the Federal or the State level lead directly to local investment increasing across the economy be it investment in manufacturing, social services, the physical infrastructure, health and education etc. A rich state like Connecticut may be able to fund local schools from taxation, but where states have in effect impoverished themselves through tax cuts, education suffers, even though it is the key investment in the future.

It remains to be seen if this new Tax Bill will encourage economic growth across all sectors of the economy, or merely transfer vast sums of money from the poorest and average income family who do not own an LLC, to the richest, thereby widening an already frightening division in America between the haves and the have-nots. One wonders what the US economy would look like if all those billions invested in property were invested in jobs instead.

[broncofan]

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.
Now that I’m looking at this with a fresh head I think you conflated analytically distinct concepts. I can think of at least three questions that are relevant and should be looked at distinctly.

First, can a sitting President be criminally convicted? Most scholars believe the answer is no and while this is noteworthy it’s really only tangentially relevant here.

Second, is it possible for a President to violate statutory law if he is acting within the scope of his Article II authority? The answer to this according to most scholars appears to be yes. I’ve described my views at length here. Even Jonathan Turley, who you cited as agreeing with both you and Dershowitz believes the answer to this question is yes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/19/donald-trump-presidents-can-be-charged-obstruction-jonathan-turley-column/103006254/

Third, if a President is capable of violating a statute while acting within his Article II authority, did Trump in fact do that? Turley believes the answer is no, but people tend to have mixed responses to this. You will notice that this last question should be distinguished from the first two since it is not a pure legal question but more a highly fact specific analysis.

But then, you should not be merely arguing that the facts don’t add up to obstruction since you’ve already claimed that all of this is manufactured. If the issue is whose story is most believable, and what precisely happened, then we’re discussing something real and consequential. That is never resolved without an investigation.

And I suppose I skimmed the parts of your post that went outside the lines of what we discussed or I’d have noticed you claimed the estate tax is levied twice. As Filghy posted it’s not. It’s a one-time tax on the transmission of wealth levied on the estate. The unified credit that I talked about in my first post also applies to gift taxes and I believe the generation skipping transfer tax. So that should really give you a clue as to the purpose of the levy; wealth transmission.

[buttslinger]

Supposedly Cain turned to God after he caught some flak for that Abel killing and argued "Am I my brother's keeper?" He never got an answer.
It really isn't up to Congress to butt into the lives of US Citizens, they're supposed to be impartial civil servants, but I think it's safe to say those days are over. I'm not sure of the facts but supposedly they jammed an 84 billion dollar gift for Real Estate Tycoons in at the very end behind closed doors, while cutting some preschool program for kids, or something, that would have cost only 14 billion,,,cough cough......Can you look up the details on that, McGee?
Republicans have only just begun to fight, however, their New Year's wish is to up the costs of Military Hardware, and NOT slash entitlements, they're just going to make sure they don't rise with the cost of living.
Any time you dip into the budget to live beyond your means, your COST OF LIVING goes up. This is where I get in way over my head, like I told the teller at my bank as he was rapidly counting out a pile of Christmas twenty dollar bills "you know, if you took a couple magician lessons you could deal me just about anything and I'd never be the wiser" (Luckily, he smiled) I'm pretty sure the government can give a poor person an extra 10 bucks a week, and raise his cost of food 12 bucks a week and still say you gave him 10 bucks a week. There is a reason no two economists agree and there is a reason all the smartest people do so well on Wall St. THEY CHEAT. Trump can read a prepared speech that says everything Obama would say, then turn around and do the exact opposite of what he just said he was going to do. You can live in the richest country in the world and not be able to afford rent. The real crime here is that Republicans ignore their own constituents and pay off the "LOANS" they got from their Donors. I missed that part of the Constitution, but if you squint you can see it.
2018 wish for Republicans: Raise Military Spending and cut cut cut entitlements!!!
2020 wish for Republicans: Let the next Democratic government save the starving fools who don't vote while they cruise over to Europe and spend the money they stole this week.