[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

what a freakin' insane asylum

Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax

"No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability"

RIP Ozzy

"Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return"

"Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign"

"We Hate Communism!!"

"Mamdani and the Democratic Schism"

"The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death"

"President Badass"

"Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster"

"How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran"

There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined.

"This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like"

America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets

AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996]

Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment?

Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit

"The Addled Activist Mind"

"Don’t Stop with Harvard"

"Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?"

"Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF"

"'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal"

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Robert Mueller Stocks Staff with Democrat Donors
Source: Lifezette
URL Source: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/ ... -stocks-staff-democrat-donors/
Published: Jun 13, 2017
Author: Brendan Kirby
Post Date: 2017-06-13 07:57:18 by HomerBohn
Keywords: None
Views: 4468
Comments: 45

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sparked a mini-meltdown in the media Monday with a tweet challenging the fairness of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Gingrich, who also appeared on “The Laura Ingraham Show,” pointed to the early hires special counsel Robert Mueller has made.

“Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair,” he tweeted. “Look who he is hiring.check fec [sic] reports. Time to rethink.”

He's not wrong about the donations. Four top lawyers hired by Mueller have contributed tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump's 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.

One of the hires, Jeannie Rhee, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist's attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity.

Campaign-finance reports show that Rhee gave Clinton the maximum contributions of $2,700 in 2015 and again last year to support her presidential campaign. She also donated $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,500 in 2011. While still at the Justice Department, she gave $250 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp.

Rhee also has contributed to a trio of Democratic senators: Mark Udall of New Mexico, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

James Quarles, who worked on the Watergate investigation as a young prosecutor, has an even longer history of supporting Democratic politicians. He gave $1,300 to Obama in 2007 and $2,300 in 2008. He also gave $2,700 to Clinton last year.

He has supported a number of other Democratic candidates, including Van Hollen, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), former Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), former Vice President Al Gore, 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and Colorado congressional candidate Gail Schwartz.

In addition, Quarles gave money to former Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.) and three current Democratic senators — Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. He chipped in $300 to the DNC Services Corp. $300 in 2012.

Quarles did donate to a couple of GOP politicians — $250 to then-Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) in 2006 and $2,500 to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) in 2015.

Andrew Weissmann, a former Justice Department lawyer who now is at Jenner & Block, contributed $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,000 to the DNC Services Corp. in 2006. Weissmann served as chief of the Justice Department's criminal fraud section and worked on the Enron fraud case.

A fourth lawyer on Mueller's staff, Michael Dreeben, donated $1,000 to Clinton 2006 and $250 to Obama in both 2007 and 2008. He was deputy solicitor general and has appeared many times before the Supreme Court.

Media pundits generally dismissed concerns over the Democratic Party ties of the staff Mueller is building. Several Trump critics noted that Gingrich previously had tweeted that Mueller was a "superb choice to be special counsel" and that his reputation was "impeccable for honesty and integrity."

Journalist Paul Vale, who has written for the Huffington Post and The Times of London, tweeted, "Boiled cabbage Gingrich lays out the White House plan to discredit career lawman Mueller — all in the service of his babbling paymaster."

CNN anchor John King on Monday asked the network's chief congressional correspondent, Manu Raju, if it should be a concern.

"No, because Bob Mueller is the one who's in charge of this investigation and will ultimately decide how to proceed, and there is some oversight over him by [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein, even though there is a special counsel," he said.

.


Poster Comment:

Looks like a potential enemy or enemies will be delving into the phony Russian hacking away to give the election to Trump rather than the more deserving Hillary.

This can't fly! Larding up the staff with Clintonians should be enough to cry foul and dissolve the investigators.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

#1. To: HomerBohn (#0)

This can't fly! Larding up the staff with Clintonians should be enough to cry foul and dissolve the investigators.

But, you see, it WILL fly. Democrats FIGHT. They are brave - wrong, but brave. They ALWAYS fight. They never, ever quit. Like rust, they don't sleep. They press on. If they win, they impose. If they lose, they obstruct. But they never, never, never quit.

Republicans, by contrast, don't fight for anything except a very few things. Republicans will fight over anything that redistributes the wealth of the super rich. Not you and me, but the economic alphas. They will fight for them. Anything else? They treat it as politics and bargain and shift.

They don't like Trump, because he's a populist, so they view the investigation of Trump as weakening him, so they can get their way.

Democrats fight all the time. I suppose Republicans do too, in their way, but what they are fighting for is not what they SAY they are fighting for when they run for office.

Republicans could stop the Special Prosecution instantly, by refusing to fund it. They won't do it. And therefore Democrats will run amok with it, because the Republicans refuse to do the one thing that will stop them.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-13   8:11:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

Republicans will fight over anything that redistributes the wealth of the super rich. Not you and me, but the economic alphas.

These economic alphas are subject to a progressive tax system which forces them to pay a higher tax rate on their income. I don't see you complaining about that unfair system.

Now if we had a flat tax on every dollar earned, then the economic alphas would benefit no more from a tax cut than the economic omegas. Would that finally please you?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13   8:39:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: misterwhite (#2)

The problem, of course, is that we have an $18.5 trillion economy, but we have a total government spending in the United States of $7 trillion per year.

Right now, tax revenues at the federal, state and local level take in only $5.7 trillion dollars. So right now we have to borrow $1.3 trillion per year as a nation to pay the cost of government. And right now we tax property. We tax houses and cars, planes and boats, and estates. If we went to a straight flat tax on earnings, with no wealth tax, we would need to collect all $7 trillion from the current active economy.

The flat tax rate would be 37.8%.

Currently, below-$100,000 income earners pay an average of 35% of their taxable income in taxes (income and payroll), while those above pay an average of 30% (thanks to the payroll phaseout).

So to go to a straight flat tax on earnings with no deductions means that everybody would pay a lot more in taxes than they currently do. The only way to avoid that would be to continue to borrow money, or to continue to tax wealth as we do (real estate in particular).

37.8% of current earnings is too high. And we cannot continue to pile up debt forever, as the interest on it further exacerbates our problem year upon year.

My answer is completely fair. It recognizes that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, and that a new dollar earned is just a dollar of wealth, no different from an old dollar. All taxation ultimately taxes wealth.

Philosophically, some people see a difference between a new dollar and an old dollar. I myself do not see a genuine distinction: a dollar is a dollar is a dollar.

In any case, as we have plainly seen above, we cannot fund the government at all levels in the USA through a flat tax just on earnings: a nearly 38% flat tax would be a massive tax increase on everybody and would crush the economy.

That government is too large and spends too much is a given. We have ALREADY outstripped the revenue we raise through our taxation of the economy. Governments borrow every year. Currently, there is $23.4 trillion in total government debt (all levels), at an average interest rate of about 2.85%.

We cannot raise enough revenue to pay our existing obligations without taxing wealth. Property taxes are the third greatest source of government revenue in America, after Income taxes and Social Security/Medicare taxes. State and local government are primarily funded through real estate taxes, but it is unfair to only tax THAT form of wealth (on its total gross value too, not its net value). If we're going to tax properly, ALL property should be taxed, at a flat rate.

To be fair and consistent, each dollar of wealth, whether newly earned or already accumulated, should be taxed at the same flat rate each year.

American's total net worth is $84.9 trillion. Total American assets are $225 trillion.

So, if we add together the total wealth of the nation of $225 trillion, and the $18.5 trillion gain through economic activity each year, that gives us a total of $240.5 trillion.

To pay for government would require a 2.9% gross wealth tax that hits everything - all assets, new or old. That would pay for the government without new borrowing. Over time, that would mean retirement of the $23.4 billion in debt, and reduction in the cost of operating government each year of .67 billion. So the flat tax rate could come down.

Likewise, if we stop with the foreign adventures and get illegal immigration and crime down, our cost of government will decline. It's always going to be expensive, but it doesn't have to be as expensive as it is.

That, then, is what we ought to be doing.

And that's fair and equitable and even handed.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-13   9:22:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

"It recognizes that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar, and that a new dollar earned is just a dollar of wealth, no different from an old dollar."

Tax the dollar when it's earned, then butt out. You have no business looking over my shoulder to see how I spend the money I earned and paid taxes on. If I chose to blow it, that's my decision. Likewise, if I choose to invest it, that's also my decision.

If my investment fails, that's my loss. If it succeeds, it's my gain ... and mine alone.

If you're not going to share my risk, you have no claim to my gain.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13   10:17:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#7)

Tax the dollar when it's earned, then butt out. You have no business looking over my shoulder to see how I spend the money I earned and paid taxes on. If I chose to blow it, that's my decision. Likewise, if I choose to invest it, that's also my decision.

If my investment fails, that's my loss. If it succeeds, it's my gain ... and mine alone.

The dollars you earn on your investment are also income and have to be taxed.

The problem remains: the active economy is only $18 trillion, and the cost of government is $7. If you don't tax accumulated wealth and only tax the active economy, you will be hitting every new dollar at nearly a 40% rate. People howl NOW over a much LOWER rate.

It can't be done. Government is too expensive to fund it on active taxation alone. We have to tax property - we need the money.

Obviously I'd prefer to shrink the government. But we cannot rapidly shrink it enough to be able to fund it through just taxing new dollars. It would still crush the economy.

I suppose we could just go to zero taxation and outright print new money for the government to spend. The economy would be stimulated like nobody's business, and inflation would go through the roof.

Many choices, none of them work all that well.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-06-13   13:41:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 10.

#12. To: Vicomte13 (#10)

"The dollars you earn on your investment are also income and have to be taxed."

Not if you want to encourage investment.

"The problem remains: the active economy is only $18 trillion, and the cost of government is $7."

Federal spending is $3.5 trillion, not $7 trillion. You can get by with less than a 20% tax. With some cuts to spending, maybe down to 15%.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-06-13 14:42:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com