Hoyt
Hoyt's JournalUnfortunately, won't change before midterms. And, it appears Biden got more dark money than trump
for 2020, like 6 times more.
"Liberal dark money groups overshadow conservatives
"Anonymous donors poured record amounts of money into groups backing President Joe Biden in the 2020 contest, leaving the public without a full accounting of who helped him win the White House.
"Biden’s presidential bid attracted around $174 million in support from anonymous donors, more than six times the $25.2 million in dark money contributions and spending boosting President Donald Trump’s unsuccessful re-election effort.. . . . . . "
"After years of dark money overwhelmingly boosting Republicans, this marks the first presidential election cycle where dark money benefited Democrats. That’s a continuation from the 2018 midterm elections when Democrats benefited from more dark money than their Republican counterparts at the federal level for the first time since Citizens United. . . . . . "
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/03/one-billion-dark-money-2020-electioncycle/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/politics/democrats-dark-money-donors.html
There are reasons Obama, Biden, and H Clinton chose not to rely on Reich. People prefer working for
big corporations, rightly or wrongly. And the majority of voters do work for big corporations.
Point is, I hope Biden rejects Reich this time too.
Is Big Business Really That Bad?
Large corporations are vilified in a way that obscures the innovation they spur and the steady jobs they produce.
"As for the treatment of workers, here too perception and reality part ways. The depredations of a few job cutters have earned Big Business a reputation for heartless streamlining, but employment at large businesses is in fact steadier than at small businesses. In 2015, small enterprises were four times more likely to lay off their workers than large ones. Workers employed by large firms also earned more—on average, 54 percent more than workers at small companies. Companies with more than 500 employees offer 2.5 times more paid leave and insurance benefits and 3.9 times more in retirement benefits than workers at firms with fewer than 100 employees. Large firms are also more likely to be unionized, and they employ a greater share of women and minorities than small firms do, making Big Business an unlikely enemy of progressives."
"Big companies also create more net jobs. This will surely come as a surprise to many Americans, who have been handed down the hoary legend that small business is the engine of job creation. The origins of this misimpression began with David Birch, an MIT researcher, who in the late 1970s purported to show that, from 1969 to 1976, companies with 100 or fewer employees created more than 80 percent of all new jobs. A few economists have found similar results, but many others have criticized Birch’s methods and conclusions. The economist Catherine Armington found that, from 1976 to 1982, small firms were responsible for just 56 percent of new jobs, much closer to their share of total jobs in the U.S. Even Birch himself has acknowledged that his results rely on a series of assumptions very much open for debate. For example, he failed to account for the much higher rates at which small businesses destroy jobs shortly after creating them."
"Big firms pay better, offer more paid leave, and employ a greater share of women and minorities than small firms do.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/learning-to-love-big-business/554096/
Now, if you want to talk about taxing big corporations more, I'm with you.
Broke, feeble, GOPer friends ignore him, Melanoma gone, and worse. That's what I want for trump.
Mueller got the blame? Ha, here is Mueller saying attendees at trump tower were too stupid
to break the law.
Trump Jr. Dodged Charges Because He Was ‘Too Dumb to Prosecute’
ALBERTO LUPERONApr 18th, 2019, 2:18 pm
Some wondered if the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., would be charged in the Mueller investigation after his admitted 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer to solicit dirt on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Well, that’s not the case. He and and other participants–then-campaign manager Paul Manafort and senior advisor Jared Kushner— aren’t being charged with violating campaign finance law because there wasn’t “admissible evidence” to show that they knew that what they were doing was illegal, according to the newly released and redacted Mueller Report.
“To prove that a defendant acted ‘knowledgeably and willfully,’ the government would have to show that the defendant had general knowledge his conduct was unlawful,” said the report.
Mueller’s team hypothesized that Trump Jr. could claim that he didn’t believe that his actions broke the law. They suggested the same is true of Kushner. Investigators pointed out that Manafort is experienced in political campaigns, but added that they didn’t have the evidence to show that he actually knew the law.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-jr-dodged-charges-because-he-was-too-dumb-to-prosecute/
You really should read the Mueller Report, a true disservice to America.
Eastman might be in trouble. But it's not illegal to contest Electoral Votes. Check out Jan 6, 2017
where Reps Raskin, Jayapal, McGovern, Shelia Jackson Lee, Barbara Lee, Grijalva, and Waters forced Biden to shut them down trying to stop the election of trump. Of course, there was no storming of the Capitol in 2017, but there was an attempt to overturn Electoral votes. (Honestly, wish they had been successful in stopping trump.)
"Vice President Joe Biden presided over a joint session of Congress Friday, where members officially tallied electoral votes from the 2016 presidential election. President-elect Donald Trump’s 304 electoral votes weren’t counted without incident, however. During the course of the certification, House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiples states, with Biden gaveling them down for failure to follow the rules."
https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html
Mueller said 20+ times that there was no evidence trump or campaign conspired with Russians.
That was pretty much the end as far as indicting trump, with or without a formal rule on charging a sitting Prez.Barr is a POS, but his letter of March 24, 2019 was reasonably factual.
Beginning top of page 2, Barr said:
Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.
"The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”"
Whether we believe it or not, Mueller said over 20 times in his report that his investigation found NO EVIDENCE trump or his campaign conspired with Ruskies. A law student could have defended trump with those comments.
Beginning top of page 3, Barr said:
Obstruction of Justice.
"The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”"
Whether we like it or not, that is what Mueller's wimpy report said.
From that point, Barr essentially stated that since there was no evidence of an underlying crime, obstruction would have been difficult to prove. Mueller would have done us a favor if he had said, "Hell, how do we know what trump did, the MFer was covering his tracks at every turn." But, Mueller didn't say that.
Beginning bottom of Page 3:
"In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."
______________
Look, I despise trump. But I can't argue with Barr's assessment, although we [DUers] would have concluded differently.
I can't imagine any AG -- even one who despised trump -- would have tried to indict him after Mueller's wimpy report absolved him. I do think we would have had trump if Mueller had just added a report footnote to those 20+ times he absolved trump and his campaign. Mueller should have added something like "We couldn't find any evidence because the MFer obstructed justice."
Unfortunately, Mueller did not in his report, congressional testimony, or his news conference. So here we are.
Personally, I'd rather see Young, Mitchell, etc., do a song or album
about these MFers like Rogan, trump, Oaf Keepers, etc.
Wish there were a way to define "fair share." Is it 10 additional percentage points
above current tax rates, 20 points, 30 points, or whatever it takes?
I’d like to see a long-term tax plan that would pay for healthcare, childcare, education, and all the other things we need.
While no tax increase will impact me at my age and income, I think it would help if we had a long term plan. If I were a high earner, I’d probably pucker too at the thought of tax increase piled upon previous year tax increases.
We'll keep kicking the can down the road until an automatic cut of 25% is about to happen. Obama
Obama tried to address this and was bashed by Republicans and Dems.People think all they have to do is increase tax on incomes above the current cap, except that isn't going to happen because that roughly 12 percentage point tax increase is needed for other things.
We better pra that GOPers are not in charge when it gets closer.
"CBO projects a Social Security deficit of $120 billion this year that will steadily grow to $384 billion by 2030. Two years later, the trust fund will be fully depleted. If we do not act soon, the Social Security Administration will not have the resources or authority to pay full benefits, leading to an immediate 25 percent benefit cut. Such an outcome would be a crisis for most of the 80 million Americans who will be receiving Social Security in that year."
"This information is disturbing, but not surprising. Had we heeded earlier calls by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama, we could have phased in tax and benefit changes gradually to minimize the disruption to people’s lives. Instead, Social Security became increasingly polarized and both parties became less honest about the implications. Too many Republicans pinned their hopes on an ill-conceived plan to convert Social Security into a nationwide 401(k) style system. Democrats have been content to minimize the scope of the problem, even calling for benefit increases despite not having a plan to pay for those benefits already promised.
"In a world of combatting narratives and alternative facts, it is worth remembering that mathematics does not distort or lie. And the mathematics of Social Security are clear: benefits are at risk. And the longer we wait to face this, the more disruptive those changes will be.
"If we wait until the trust fund runs dry, then we will be faced with a mix of ugly choices. We could immediately cut benefits for 80 million recipients by 25 percent. We could raise payroll tax rates for 180 million workers from 12.4 percent to about 16.4 percent. In either case, further spending cuts or tax increases would be required going forward. Neither of these options or the others that could close the funding gap are economically attractive, let alone politically palatable. . . . . ."
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/555972-the-time-is-now-for-action-on-social-security
I hope so. The first video they released showed a man chasing Rittenhouse, probably for good reason.
Here is a link to an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that includes a video the defense "pieced" together and moderated to allegedly show that the punk was attacked. I'm sure it is completely objective.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/09/26/new-video-focuses-one-side-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-kenosha/3537879001/
The video the article refers to is:
&t=1s
Personally, I'd stick the little pissant in prison for life for showing up with a rifle dangling from his neck, and double the sentence for wearing his hat backwards.
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Jan 20, 2005, 09:46 PMNumber of posts: 54,770