1848 replies to this topic

[LFC]

Since they're are already laying the groundwork to investigate all kinds of financial crime by Trump we might as well have one thread for it. I suspect that this will be an active thread for the next two years.

Quote

Beyond trying to get their hands on the Holy Grail of President Donald Trump’s business dealings — his tax returns — House Democrats are prepared to use their newfound majority and subpoena power to go after all manner of financial records that could back up their claims that he’s using his presidency to enrich himself and his family.

After two years of being blocked by the White House and the Trump Organization at every turn, Democrats hope the new year brings a new day on such issues as foreign government spending at Trump properties, Trump’s foreign licensing deals, Trump administration ties to lobbyists and special interests, and spending by Trump’s charitable foundation.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the Maryland Democrat who is poised to take charge of the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement to The Associated Press that he intends to use the panel as “a check on the executive branch — not merely for potential criminal violations, but for much broader concerns, such as conflicts of interest, emoluments violations and waste, fraud and abuse.”

While Democrats taking over key House committees have not specifically telegraphed their targets, Cummings’ committee would likely seek Trump’s business tax returns and other company-related financial records, according to two Democratic congressional staffers who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss post-election plans.

Trump’s personal income taxes, which he withheld during the 2016 campaign and in his two years in office, are expected to be the purview of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Internal Revenue Service law allows House and Senate tax-writing committees to request federal returns, and the ranking Ways and Means Democrat, Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, has signaled publicly he would ask for them — a move the White House might fight.

[D. C. Sessions]

LFC, on 08 November 2018 - 03:15 PM, said:

I suspect that this will be an active thread for the next two years.

Optimist.

[gmat]

Now we need a black Speaker. Who better to check the excesses of a bigot President? I think Clyburn’s just too godddamn old, but what do I know? The CBC can figure it out. Forget Pelosi and Hoyer.

[LFC]

gmat, on 09 November 2018 - 04:15 PM, said:

Now we need a black Speaker. Who better to check the excesses of a bigot President? I think Clyburn’s just too godddamn old, but what do I know? The CBC can figure it out. Forget Pelosi and Hoyer.

I posted elsewhere that Pelosi has already telegraphed that she'd come in, help set things up, and pass the baton come the next election. That allows her to drive the wingnuts insane for two years but then become a lame duck.

[gmat]

“next election” meaning 2020?

Why wait? Do it now.

I’d rather see Clyburn take over now, then pass the baton after 2020.

Or get a 50-something black congessman in there now. All these 78 year olds are getting on my nerves.

[AnBr]

Cummings?

[gmat]

AnBr, on 09 November 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

Cummings?

Sure, Cummings, Jeffries, Richmond, Fudge.

But if Clyburn wants it, the CBC will back him 100%. They all love and respect, if not revere, Clyburn.

I will be profoundly disappointed if the next two years is not dramatically different from the last two years. I expect a battle between the House and Trump, and I want the face of the House to be the first black Speaker in US history.

Come 2020, I want to see the young, the poor, and/or non-whites ready to run that asshole out of Washington.

[JackD]

Not a good idea to abandon the whites. For the present they remain the largest group in the country and their political power will be felt for a number of decades.

[AnBr]

JackD, on 10 November 2018 - 09:30 AM, said:

Not a good idea to abandon the whites. For the present they remain the largest group in the country and their political power will be felt for a number of decades.

This is making the assumption that all whites fall within the rural white with lower levels of education demographic. It maybe a larger percentage of whites than what I am comfortable with, but that demographic is in the minority, even if with disproportionate over representation. I point to DC's linked Krugman article: http://www.talkradio...post__p__178271

[D. C. Sessions]

AnBr, on 10 November 2018 - 10:23 AM, said:

This is making the assumption that all whites fall within the rural white with lower levels of education demographic.

Or look at the results from NM-2 this week, broken down by county (NM, like AZ, has counties that would swallow some Eastern States.) NM-2 covers most of the southern half of the State, but the voting is very uneven. Most of NM-2 is fairly moderate, with the exception of the eastern slice between the mountains and Texas, which is the only part of the State where there are very few Latinx or native Americans. Where there are even a large minority of non-Anglos, their neighbors start voting differently.

That, more than the bulk demographics, is what I expect to tip Texas -- the Latinx, black, Indian, east Asian, etc. minorities are creating diversity and the rural Texans' children are growing up with them. That changes them.

Oh, and BTW: a lot of the farms out there in nowhere are without heirs -- the kids grew up, got educated, and left for somewhere they could make a living different from their ancestors. Even if their parents had invested in million-dollar farm equipment to keep competitive. Bit by bit, quite a few are going to immigrants (including Somali refugees) who don't have much but are farmers who drool at the prospect of working a few sections of modern farm in the USA. And they're brown. Muslim even. Worst of all, they're hard working and good neighbors.

[JackD]

Understood, but with respect to the electoral college and the senate, they punch way above their weight as Krugman also points out.

[George Rowell]

gmat, on 09 November 2018 - 04:15 PM, said:

Now we need a black Speaker. Who better to check the excesses of a bigot President? I think Clyburn’s just too godddamn old, but what do I know? The CBC can figure it out. Forget Pelosi and Hoyer.

Beto O'Rourke. He called for an end to “smallness and meanness and paranoia and anxiety and hatred”, urging the state and the nation to slice through partisan rancour, “come together” and develop a more civil discourse.

America is fighting itself internally and for regime change externally and the president is a bigot. It is one sad mess. It is good to see a new face. Now we need 100 more like him.

[JackD]

Children changing: that is, indeed, the hope but it's going to take a while.

[LFC]

George Powell, on 10 November 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

Beto O'Rourke. He called for an end to “smallness and meanness and paranoia and anxiety and hatred”, urging the state and the nation to slice through partisan rancour, “come together” and develop a more civil discourse.

America is fighting itself internally and for regime change externally and the president is a bigot. It is one sad mess. It is good to see a new face. Now we need 100 more like him.

It doesn't matter. There could be a million more like him. When one side's grasp on political power depends entirely on "partisan rancor", and political power is much more important than patriotism to them, they have absolutely no incentive to "come together." Open learned that lesson the hard way.

[George Rowell]

Hope is all you have got.

[George Rowell]

LFC, on 10 November 2018 - 11:02 AM, said:

It doesn't matter. There could be a million more like him. When one side's grasp on political power depends entirely on "partisan rancor", and political power is much more important than patriotism to them, they have absolutely no incentive to "come together." Open learned that lesson the hard way.

That sort of of supports the view that they will support their financial backers first and foremost. Their backers do not like 'coming together' because that bypasses their influence. The more money they throw into the ring the less parties will think about any accommodation.

[D. C. Sessions]

LFC, on 09 November 2018 - 04:27 PM, said:

I posted elsewhere that Pelosi has already telegraphed that she'd come in, help set things up, and pass the baton come the next election.

I didn't see the "next election" part, and in any case the House can change Speakers when it pleases. I'd be a whole lot happier if she promised to step down by autumn or sooner.

[D. C. Sessions]

George Powell, on 10 November 2018 - 11:08 AM, said:

That sort of of supports the view that they will support their financial backers first and foremost. Their backers do not like 'coming together' because that bypasses their influence. The more money they throw into the ring the less parties will think about any accommodation.

Their owners don't really care about 'coming together' except that it's a fear that overrides their serfs' other interests. Including their childrens' survival.

[gmat]

JackD, on 10 November 2018 - 09:30 AM, said:

Not a good idea to abandon the whites. For the present they remain the largest group in the country and their political power will be felt for a number of decades.

No, no need to abandon anybody. That group of “poor, young, and/or not white” includes plenty of white people

[baw1064]

gmat, on 10 November 2018 - 04:43 PM, said:

No, no need to abandon anybody. That group of “poor, young, and/or not white” includes plenty of white people

Don't forget "had more than 12 years of schoolin'".