Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
GreyhoundFan

United States Senate

Recommended Posts

GreyhoundFan

Given that the House of Representatives now has its own thread, here's a thread for Senate actions, antics, and assorted goings on.

Continued from here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyhoundFan

A great op-ed: "Elizabeth Warren: Corporate executives must face jail time for overseeing massive scams"

Spoiler

Elizabeth Warren represents Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate and is running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Opening unauthorized bank accounts. Cheating customers on mortgages and car loans. Mistreating service members. If you can dream up a financial scam, there’s a good chance that Wells Fargo ran it on its customers in recent years. Last week, after years of pressure, the company finally parted ways with its second chief executive in three years. But that’s not nearly enough accountability. It’s time to reform our laws to make sure that corporate executives face jail time for overseeing massive scams.

In 2016, after the Wells Fargo fake-accounts scam came to light, I called out then-chief executive John Stumpf for gutlessly throwing workers at the bank under the bus — and told him he should resign. Weeks later, he did. When Wells Fargo elevated longtime senior executive Tim Sloan to replace Stumpf, I told Sloan he should be fired for his role in enabling and covering up the fake-accounts scam. For years, I pressured federal regulators, urging Sloan’s dismissal, and last week Sloan “retired.”

Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad Sloan and Stumpf aren’t in charge anymore. But this isn’t real accountability. When a criminal on the street steals money from your wallet, they go to jail. When small-business owners cheat their customers, they go to jail. But when corporate executives at big companies oversee huge frauds that hurt tens of thousands of people, they often get to walk away with multimillion-dollar payouts.

Too often, prosecutors don’t even try to hold top executives criminally accountable. They claim it’s too hard to prove that the people at the top knew about the corporate misconduct. This culture of complicity warps the incentives for corporate leaders. The message to executives? So long as you bury your head in the sand, you can keep collecting fat bonuses without risk of facing criminal liability.

Even when in-house lawyers flag conduct that skirts the law, there’s little reason for executives to listen. The executives know that, at worst, the company will get hit with a fine — and the money will come out of their shareholders’ pockets, not their own.

It doesn’t have to be this way. With sustained resources and a commitment to enforcing the law, we can bring more cases under existing rules. Beyond that, we should enact the Ending Too Big To Jail Act, which I introduced last year. That bill would make it easier to hold executives at big banks accountable for scams by requiring them to certify that they conducted a “due diligence” inquiry and found that no illegal conduct was occurring on their watch. This would force executives to look for wrongdoing or face prosecution for filing false certifications with the government. The proposal would also create a permanent and well-funded unit dedicated to investigating financial crimes.

But we can go further still. Wednesday, I’m proposing a law that expands criminal liability to any corporate executive who negligently oversees a giant company causing severe harm to U.S. families. We all agree that any executive who intentionally breaks criminal laws and leaves a trail of smoking guns should face jail time. But right now, they can escape the threat of prosecution so long as no one can prove exactly what they knew, even if they were willfully negligent.

If top executives knew they would be hauled out in handcuffs for failing to reasonably oversee the companies they run, they would have a real incentive to better monitor their operations and snuff out any wrongdoing before it got out of hand.

My proposal builds on existing laws that impose criminal liability on negligent executives in certain areas. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Clean Air Act hold top corporate executives criminally accountable if, as a result of their negligence, companies distribute misbranded drugs or pollute the air. My proposal would impose similar criminal liability for negligent executives of any company with more than $1 billion in annual revenue in a variety of circumstances, including if that company is found guilty of a crime or is found liable for a civil violation affecting the health, safety, finances or personal data of 1 percent of the U.S. population or 1 percent of the population of any state.

It has been about 10 years since the financial crisis cost millions of people their homes, their jobs and their savings, and not one big-bank CEO has gone to prison — or even been prosecuted. Tens of thousands of Americans have died after overdosing on commonly prescribed opioids, but not a single major pharmaceutical executive has gone to prison for their role in this tragedy. Corporate America needs a wake-up call.

Four words are engraved over the front door of the Supreme Court: “equal justice under law.” It’s the fundamental principle that’s supposed to drive our legal system. But it’s not equal justice when a kid with an ounce of pot can get thrown in jail while a wealthy executive can walk away with a bonus after his company cheats millions of people. Personal accountability is the only way to ensure that executives at corporations will think twice before ignoring the law. It’s time to stop making excuses and start making real change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmazonGrace

"No!" He exclaimed. "I'm fine with a nice, nonincriminating chat with someone whose name is not Mueller, but please no evidence, I don't want to see evidence " 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nervous
Audrey2
24 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

"No!" He exclaimed. "I'm fine with a nice, nonincriminating chat with someone whose name is not Mueller, but please no evidence, I don't want to see evidence " 

 

And, in a related note,

"No, I don't want to eat a nice thick juicy steak and a baked potato. I'd rather have someone else eat them then chew up each of the bites and put the chewed up meat and potato in my mouth so all I have to do is swallow it." - Lindsey Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cartmann99
12 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

"No!" He exclaimed. "I'm fine with a nice, nonincriminating chat with someone whose name is not Mueller, but please no evidence, I don't want to see evidence " 

 

Oh honey, squeezing your eyes shut while sticking your fingers in your ears and making funny noises with your mouth is not going to work forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyhoundFan

Did I ever mention how much I despise McTurtle? "Mitch McConnell undid 213 years of Senate history in 33 minutes"

Spoiler

Members of the Senate used to call their institution the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”

No one is likely to mistake it for that after Wednesday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), in his latest move to seize power by dismantling the chamber’s centuries-old safeguards, was about to push through another vote to break another rule. But first he gave a speech blaming the other side.

“The Democratic leader started all of this,” McConnell proclaimed, his face blotchy red with anger.

Pointing at the Democratic leader, Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), McConnell added: “He started this whole thing.”

If that weren’t preschoolish enough, the once-distinguished gentleman from Kentucky said a third time: “He started it! That was a sad day. This is a glad day.”

Schumer just smiled and shook his head.

Actually, Vice President Aaron Burr started “it” — the Senate tradition of unlimited debate, that is. That tradition has prevailed, more or less, in the Senate since 1806. Over that time, senators had the right to delay votes on presidential nominees they found objectionable. But McConnell undid 213 years of history in 33 minutes on Wednesday afternoon, holding a party-line vote to rewrite the rules of debate.

Both sides have chipped away at this right to filibuster in recent years. Democrats restricted it for circuit-court judges in 2013 (a move that, I wrote at the time, they would come to “deeply regret”), and McConnell’s Republicans restricted it for Supreme Court justices in 2017. But McConnell has now significantly escalated, reducing the right to delay consideration of judicial or low-level executive nominees to two hours from the current 30. It’s clearly just a matter of time — a few years, perhaps — until this leads to the complete abolition of the filibuster for everything, including legislation. This will further destabilize a federal government that has suffered many such blows during the past two years.

And McConnell took this extraordinary step — the “nuclear option,” as it is known — on the mundane matter of confirming an assistant secretary of commerce who had no opposition. He did it even though the Senate has confirmed more appellate-level judges for Trump than for any president during his first two years in office going back to at least Harry S. Truman.

McConnell’s move, it appears, had more to do with the mindless one-upmanship of our tribal partisanship. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) blurted out this motive on the Senate floor, saying his vote was “revenge” for a move by Schumer to block a nominee — 16 years ago. “Today, Sen. Schumer will reap what he sowed,” Cotton declared.

Democrats, in turn, are already preparing to retaliate for this latest assault on Senate norms which, at least in theory, forced legislators to build bipartisan support for nominees. As The Post’s Paul Kane pointed out, McConnell’s move “provides more fodder for liberal activists to push for complete elimination of the filibuster,” which could one day advance policies such as Medicare-for-all, the Green New Deal and D.C. statehood.

McConnell has a history of doing things for short-term tactical gains, regardless of the cost. He did more than anybody else to open the floodgates to unlimited dark money in politics, famously declared his top priority was for President Barack Obama “ to be a one-term president ” and killed the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 by refusing to act on it. Between 2009 and 2013, McConnell’s Republicans blocked 79 Obama nominees with filibusters, compared with 68 in the country’s entire previous history.

Schumer denounced McConnell’s hypocrisy. “This is a very sad day for the Senate,” he said. Glaring at McConnell, he called the move to limit delays to two hours “a mockery of how this institution should work.”

McConnell enjoyed a quiet chuckle and laughed again when Schumer said he hit a “new Machiavellian low.” He laughed again after Schumer said it’s “a disgrace.” And McConnell grinned when Schumer said: “I am sorry, so sorry, my Republican colleagues have gone along with Sen. McConnell’s debasement of the Senate.”

McConnell rose to blame his victims. He sat on the Garland nomination for a year, he said, because he knew “for absolute certainty” that Democrats would have done the same. And he’s taking away the filibuster because Democrats made him.

“He’s acting like it’s a sad day for the Senate. You want to pick a sad day for the Senate? Go back to 2003, when we started filibustering . . . and he started it,” McConnell said of Schumer. “So don’t hand me this sad-day-in-the-Senate stuff.”

He assured his Republican colleagues that “I don’t think anybody ought to be seized with guilt over any institutional damage being done to the United States Senate.”

McConnell then read out a 42-word parliamentary maneuver that jettisoned 213 years of wisdom.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyhoundFan

I love the videos in this thread: McTurtle, Lindsey, and Grasshole all bitching about Clinton and saying that lying means he has to go. The hypocrisy is insane:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enraged
47of74

Some people gave Joni (R-Vichy Iowa) a hard time at a roundtable

Quote

Iowans gave Senator Joni Ernst an earful of concerns, Wednesday, as the ag sector continues to struggle with tariffs.

At a roundtable in Williamsburg, the Republican listened as business owners and ag leaders explained personal struggles with the tariffs.

Kinze Manufacturing-- a maker of farm machinery-- said steel tariffs cost them a "seven-figure" sum in the last year.

The founder of Cedar Ridge Distillery and maker of whiskey, Jeff Quint, said his exporting to Europe was on hold. High retaliatory import tariffs on whiskey meant that particular part of his business was struggling to keep its head above water.

Joni says she's gonna take their concerns back to the orange fornicate and that he'll listen.

Yeah right.  If anyone believes a word Joni says I've got the following for sale.

bridgeFour.thumb.jpg.fb4ad4d03cfb8c2e5ca4e090e1602404.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyhoundFan

I can't express how much I despise McTurtle:

A senate leader joking about a judge's death. Seriously.

  • Disgust 2
  • Rufus Bless 1
  • WTF 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyhoundFan

"McConnell calls for end to investigations of Trump, says ‘case closed’"

Spoiler

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made a case Tuesday to move on from investigations of President Trump and his 2016 campaign, calling the matter “case closed” even as Democrats intensify their inquiries of Trump’s conduct. 

McConnell (R-Ky.), who will face a reelection bid next year, argued that Democrats are continuing to re-litigate an election result that is now more than two years old — deriding it as a “Groundhog Day spectacle” — and insisted in a floor speech Tuesday morning that the matter is finished and that lawmakers should focus on legislation.

“Remember, Russia set out to sow discord, to create chaos in American politics and undermine confidence in our democracy,” McConnell said. “But on that front, given the left’s total fixation on delegitimizing the president — the president Americans chose and shooting any messenger who tells them inconvenient truths, I’m afraid the Russians hardly needed to lift a finger.” 

Declaring “case closed,” McConnell added: “This ought to be good news for everyone but my Democratic colleagues seem to be publicly working through the five stages of grief.”

Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) responded sharply and immediately to McConnell in his own floor remarks moments later, calling the Republican leader’s speech “an astounding bit of whitewashing — not unexpected but entirely unconvincing.”

“It’s sort of like Richard Nixon saying, ‘Let’s move on’ at the height of the investigation of his wrongdoing,” Schumer said. “Of course he wants to move on. He wants to cover up. He wants to silence.”

McConnell’s speech comes as Trump repeatedly has rebuffed Democrats’ requests for documents and witnesses in their multiple investigations. House committees are focusing not only on a special counsel investigation by Robert S. Mueller III but Trump’s taxes and businesses.

McConnell spent a substantial portion of his speech on the Russian interference portion of Mueller’s investigation, which ended with him concluding that there was not enough evidence to establish conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

McConnell invoked comments from former president Barack Obama during his 2012 reelection campaign dismissing warnings from then-GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney — now a senator from Utah — that Russia posed a major geopolitical threat.

Somewhat sarcastically, McConnell noted that it was “heartening to see many of my Democratic colleagues and the media abruptly awaken to the dangers of Russian aggression.”

But he barely discussed the special counsel’s identification of 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, which has been the larger focus for Democrats as they continue their own investigations.

Schumer pointed to a letter signed Monday by more than 450 former prosecutors asserting that Trump, were he a private citizen, would have been charged with federal obstruction of justice for the conduct described in the Mueller report. He went on to accuse McConnell of blocking efforts to respond to foreign election meddling dating to 2016.

He challenged McConnell to put election security or Russian sanctions legislation on the floor for debate. Instead, he said, McConnell “sits on his hands, does nothing, creates a legislative graveyard for this and every other issue and says, ‘Let’s move on.’ No way. No way.”

“What we have here is a concerted effort to circle the wagons, to protect the president from accountability, to whitewash his reprehensible conduct by simply declaring it irrelevant,” Schumer added. “The leader and Senate Republicans are falling down drastically on their constitutional duty to provide oversight and, I fear, to defend the national interest as well.”

McConnell’s forceful rhetoric comes as the fallout from Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign shows no signs of ending anytime soon. Separately, regarding McConnell’s call for a focus on the legislative agenda, the Senate has spent much of the past few months on nominations and little time on legislation. A key House committee plans to vote Wednesday on whether to hold Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt of Congress for not complying with a subpoena, as the conflict continues to flare over releasing Mueller’s unredacted report and Barr’s testimony before the House.

Barr declined to appear before the House Judiciary Committee last week under conditions demanded by Democrats who control the panel. In his speech, McConnell defended Barr as a “distinguished” public servant who accommodated Democrats as much as possible.

Tuesday is also the deadline for Donald McGahn, Trump’s former White House counsel, to hand over three dozen types of documents to the House Judiciary Committee as part of an investigation of the president. 

How rich, coming from the party that conducted 843,559,234 "investigations" into Benghazi and email.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fraurosena

McTurtle: Oh, snap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fraurosena

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyhoundFan

A good piece by Aaron Blake: "‘Lock her up’ vs. ‘Case closed’: McConnell and the Trump team’s self-serving view of criminal procedure"

Spoiler

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declared Tuesday morning that it’s “case closed” when it comes to President Trump and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation.

Calling it a “Groundhog Day spectacle,” McConnell said, "This ought to be good news for everyone, but my Democratic colleagues seem to be publicly working through the five stages of grief.”

This is an argument Trump’s allies have made for weeks. “Case closed,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said nine days ago when asked about whether he would call former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify. “It’s over, folks,” White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said immediately after the Mueller report was released. The White House even declared “case closed” before we saw the report. “I don’t think it is going to be damaging,” press secretary Sarah Sanders said of the report, after Attorney General William P. Barr’s letter summarized it’s top conclusions. “We consider this to be case closed.”

That early declaration should show you just how much of a tactic this is. There are a whole host of reasons this claim is problematic — both procedurally and rhetorically.

The main reason is that Mueller expressly left this as a matter for others to decide. He decided not to render a traditional opinion on whether to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice, citing existing Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president. He also said he would have exonerated Trump on obstruction if he could, but added explicitly that the report “does not exonerate him.”

And while doing so, Mueller noted that impeachment is an alternative method for holding a president accountable — and also that a president isn’t immune from criminal prosecution after leaving office. “A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office,” Mueller wrote in a footnote. He explicitly declined to clear Trump and noted potential future actions that could be taken.

The second reason is that there are plenty of unresolved questions. Even if you accept Graham’s argument that McGahn’s 30 hours of cooperation are contained in the report and that his testimony would be redundant, there are the 14 cases Mueller referred out, some of which are ongoing. There is the Southern District of New York’s investigation, which has implicated Trump in Michael Cohen’s criminal campaign finance violations. There are the questions about Trump’s finances and his still-unreleased tax returns, which Mueller didn’t deal with in his report. The New York Times reported that Trump and his siblings obtained their father’s wealth through, in some cases, “outright fraud.”

And there are of course Mueller’s newly revealed concerns about Barr’s handling of his report. As I wrote Monday, there are some key unresolved questions on which Mueller could provide some important clarity, even if he as circumspect in testifying as many expect he would be. The last word from Mueller right now is that he believes Barr fed misinformation about his report and that the public was misunderstanding it. Perhaps he’s satisfied now that the full report is out and people can draw their own conclusions, but we don’t know that to be the case.

And just from a strictly rhetorical perspective, the “case closed” claim is pretty discordant. Trump spent much of his 2016 fomenting “Lock her up!” chants about Hillary Clinton, despite the FBI having announced explicitly that it wouldn’t charge her with a crime. And in that case, it was because of the evidence — not some Justice Department policy saying they couldn’t indict Clinton.

The Mueller report also revealed that Trump, after taking office, tried at least three times to get the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton. So Trump wanted the Justice Department to prosecute someone whom it had explicitly declined to, but his White House and allies say a report that explicitly does not “exonerate” him is “case closed.”

The argument from there, I suppose, would be that Mueller may not have cleared Trump, but that Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein then concluded they wouldn’t accuse Trump. Even if you set aside that Trump recently appointed Barr, and Barr’s controversial handing of the matter, he was confirmed by the Senate as attorney general and does have authority over the probe. He’s welcome to make what conclusion he wanted to.

But even in his testimony last week, Barr made a point to emphasize that he hadn’t completely cleared Trump.

“No, I didn’t exonerate,” Barr said. “I said that we did not believe that there was sufficient evidence to establish an obstruction, an offense which is the job of the Justice Department, and the job of the Justice Department is now over.”

Wait, you might be saying, so Barr said it was case closed? Not exactly. Here’s what came next.

“The report is now in the hands of the American people,” he said. “Everyone can decide for themselves. There’s an election in 18 months. That’s a very democratic process, but we’re out of it.”

Congress is part of that Democratic process, as the representatives of the American people. Congress also holds in its power the only remedy for holding a president accountable while he or she is in office. Exactly what course it should take is up for it and the people who elect it to decide. McConnell and the White House have decided it’s time to move on, and from a political standpoint that’s not surprising.

But there are plenty of unresolved questions here, and at last notice one very key player sure didn’t seem to think this was “case closed”: Robert S. Mueller III.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyhoundFan

From Dana Milbank: "No, Mitch McConnell, it isn’t ‘case closed’"

Spoiler

No, Mitch McConnell, it isn’t “case closed.”

No, Mr. Leader, it’s not “finally over.”

No, we’re not going to “end this.” Neither will we “move on.”

We, as a nation, won’t move on — we can’t move on — because Vladimir Putin hasn’t moved on.

The majority leader took to the Senate floor Tuesday morning to declare his findings nearly three weeks after the release of the Mueller report. In summary: Nothing to see here. Move along.

But even as the Kentucky Republican made that case, FBI Director Christopher Wray was nearby in the Capitol complex testifying to a Senate panel that “the malign foreign influence threat . . . is something that continues pretty much 365 days a year.”

Russia seeks to disrupt our elections again in 2020, with hacking and social media attacks and techniques unknown. Yet McConnell has the chutzpah to pronounce it “case closed” — when he has been the leading obstacle to defending the U.S. election system against cyberattack by the Russians. Intelligence experts have been beating the drums to build defenses against a repeat of 2016. Every step of the way, McConnell has resisted. Perhaps he figures that because Putin helped his guy in 2016, he’ll do the same again in 2020?

Back in the summer of 2016, when the CIA briefed McConnell and other congressional leaders on Russia’s attempts to undermine election systems and to get Donald Trump elected, McConnell questioned the underpinnings of the intelligence. He forced the watering down of a letter from congressional leaders warning state officials about the threat, omitting mention of Russia.

In early 2018, Congress approved a modest $380 million (of a necessary $1 billion or more) to update election infrastructure. When Democrats pushed for an additional $250 million that summer for election cybersecurity, McConnell’s Republicans blocked the measure, which had majority support.

Then came the bipartisan Secure Elections Act, originally introduced by Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and three Democrats, and later endorsed by Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.). But after White House objections, the Senate Rules Committee, at McConnell’s behest, abruptly halted the bill’s consideration last summer. “I think the leader does not share my sense that we need to pass a bill right now,” the committee chairman, Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), told a trade publication.

Since then, the House enacted sweeping legislation that includes election security, but McConnell is blocking this, or even parts of it, from consideration. “That bill’s just not going to go to the floor,” Blunt told McClatchy News. “Neither is any other bill that opens the door to these issues. Leader gets to decide that, and he has made it clear.”

It’s much the same with the bipartisan Honest Ads Act (McConnell is “skeptical”), the bipartisan Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act and the bipartisan Defending Elections from Threats by Establishing Redlines Act — all countermeasures to Russian interference. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) complained Tuesday that McConnell has even slow-walked a senators-only briefing about election security.

McConnell, in his nothing-to-see-here speech, acknowledged that “the threats and challenges are real” but cited “progress” on election security. Among the progress: “According to press reports, the Department of Defense has expanded its capabilities.”

He is so concerned about the threat that he gets his information from the media?

The majority leader portrayed the whole issue as a partisan squabble, blaming the Obama administration (“maybe stronger leadership would have left the Kremlin less emboldened”) and even taking a shot at Jimmy Carter while praising Republicans for appreciating other Russian threats years ago. He hailed what he viewed as Trump’s strong stand against Russia, citing the arming of Ukraine (Trump’s campaign opposed this), the strengthening of NATO (Trump disparaged the alliance) and new sanctions (McConnell recently backed a Trump bid to end sanctions against a Putin crony).

With hand on heart, McConnell said that Democrats “are grieving” because special counsel Robert S. Mueller III did not find a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Schumer, in his rebuttal, said that if McConnell is sincere in his talk about the Russian threat, he should “put election security on the floor.”

That’s unlikely. Trump fears attention to Russia’s interference makes him look illegitimate. (This is why then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was told not to bring her concerns to the president.) And McConnell doesn’t want to upset Trump.

McConnell was right about one thing on Tuesday. He said that “unhinged partisanship” means “Putin and his agents need only stand on the sidelines and watch us as their job is actually done for them.”

That’s true in greatest part because of McConnell. The majority leader can reasonably claim Democrats are partisan in their wish to investigate Trump further. But Russia’s election interference is different. This is an ongoing attack against the United States — and McConnell weakens our defenses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmazonGrace

Yeah so this trade war sucks but you guys should be grateful we didn't get you killed yet

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fraurosena

The corruption runs deep with this one.

Mitch McConnell and his Wife Got Caught Funneling Massive Amounts of Money to Offshore Tax-free Haven

Quote

US Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and her husband Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, recently attended a ceremony at Harvard Business School.

The ceremony was in honor of a new building, The Ruth Mulan Chu Chao Center, which is for Harvard’s Executive Education program and is named for Elaine Chao’s mother.  The building was funded by a $40 million dollar donation from the Chao family and it’s foundation, which is also named for Chao’s mother.

At first glance, this seems like an extremely generous gesture.  But dig a little deeper, and the truth isn’t as pretty.  Millions of dollars have been funneled to the Ruth Mulan Chu Chao Foundation from offshore tax havens.

Two of the entities which have transferred funds to the foundation are incorporated in the Marshall Islands, which is “known as one of the world’s most secretive offshore havens for firms seeking to avoid taxes and a preferred foreign locale for the Foremost Group, the Chao family’s New York-based shipping business.”

Basically, the Chao family was donating funds that would have been in the public treasury, if the funds had stayed in the US and been taxed accordingly.

Chao has been a vociferous supporter of President Donald Trump, particularly his economic policies, including the rewrite of the tax code.  Passage of that legislation, which is probably the high point of her husband’s career, shifted the corporate tax code to a territorial system.  That move is expected to reward firms which use offshore tax havens such as the Cayman and Marshall Islands.

Imagine that.  A Republican supporting a tax code which further lines their pockets while keeping money out of the United States.  Its almost like they’re not even trying to hide their greed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmazonGrace

So, Lindsey is saying that Trump is an asshole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GreyhoundFan

Well, Lindsey has been far up Dumpy's backside for some time, so he should know whereof he speaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.