Help
hrothgar, on 2018-January-09, 23:45, said:
thanks
Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?
#8841
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,288
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2018-January-10, 10:03
thanks
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#8842
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,496
- Joined: 2006-February-24
Posted 2018-January-10, 10:14
From North Carolina Congressional Map Ruled Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered by Alan Blinder and Micahel Wines at NYT:
Quote
A panel of federal judges struck down North Carolina’s congressional map on Tuesday, condemning it as unconstitutional because Republicans had drawn the map seeking a political advantage.
The ruling was the first time that a federal court had blocked a congressional map because of a partisan gerrymander, and it instantly endangered Republican seats in the coming elections.
Judge James A. Wynn Jr., in a biting 191-page opinion, said that Republicans in North Carolina’s Legislature had been “motivated by invidious partisan intent” as they carried out their obligation in 2016 to divide the state into 13 congressional districts, 10 of which are held by Republicans. The result, Judge Wynn wrote, violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
The ruling and its chief demand — that the Republican-dominated Legislature create a new landscape of congressional districts by Jan. 24 — infused new turmoil into the political chaos that has in recent years enveloped North Carolina. President Trump carried North Carolina in 2016, but the state elected a Democrat as its governor on the same day and in 2008 supported President Barack Obama.
The unusually blunt decision by the panel could lend momentum to two other challenges on gerrymandering that are already before the Supreme Court — and that the North Carolina case could join if Republicans make good on their vow to appeal Tuesday’s ruling.
In October, the court heard an appeal of another three-judge panel’s ruling that Republicans had unconstitutionally gerrymandered Wisconsin’s State Assembly in an attempt to relegate Democrats to a permanent minority. In the second case, the justices will hear arguments by Maryland Republicans that the Democratic-controlled Legislature redrew House districts to flip a Republican-held seat to Democratic control.
The Supreme Court has struggled without success for decades to develop a legal standard for determining when a partisan gerrymander crosses constitutional lines. The court once came close to ruling that such cases were political matters beyond its jurisdiction. But the rise of extreme partisan gerrymanders in the last decade, powered by a growing ideological divide and powerful map-drawing software, has brought the question back to the justices with new urgency. A Supreme Court ruling outlawing at least some such gerrymanders could reshape the political landscape.
Fights over voting rights and election procedures have often taken center stage in Raleigh, North Carolina’s capital, and Tuesday’s ruling noted that “partisan advantage” had been a criterion lawmakers used when mulling how to map the state.
Republican officials in the General Assembly said Tuesday evening that they intended to appeal the ruling, which many elected officials and political strategists were still scrambling to digest. Dallas Woodhouse, the executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, criticized Judge Wynn and accused him of “waging a personal, partisan war on North Carolina Republicans.”
In a separate post on Twitter, Mr. Woodhouse argued that Judge Wynn had concluded that North Carolina’s Republicans “should not be allowed to draw election districts under any circumstances under any set of rules,” an effort he called “a hostile takeover” of the General Assembly and legislatures nationwide. Republicans could ask the Supreme Court to stay the decision and allow the disputed map to be used this year.
But critics of the congressional map welcomed a decision that was notable for its tartness and urgency.
“Clearly, the courts have realized that they do need to step in and police extreme partisan gerrymanders, and the court recognized that North Carolina’s gerrymander was one of the most extreme in history,” said Ruth Greenwood, senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center and a lawyer representing some of the map’s challengers.
The chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, Wayne Goodwin, said the decision was “a major victory for North Carolina and people across the state whose voices were silenced by Republicans’ unconstitutional attempts to rig the system to their partisan advantage.”
The judges issued their decision fewer than 24 hours before the General Assembly was to convene in Raleigh for a special session. The ruling unmistakably placed lawmakers on the clock, giving them two weeks to present a “remedial plan” and declaring that the court would institute its own map if it finds the new district lines unsatisfactory.
“Politically, this gives hope to Democrats,” said J. Michael Bitzer, a professor of political science at Catawba College, which is near Charlotte. “I can imagine the Republicans being furious, but they have to see political reality, and it’s not just in the next two weeks: It’s come November.”
Professor Bitzer, though, cautioned that the ultimate political fallout would not become clearer until the courts settled what could be a cascade of appeals and injunctions.
The ruling left little doubt about how the judges assessed the Legislature’s most recent map. Judge Wynn, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and was a member of a special panel considering the congressional map, said that “a wealth of evidence proves the General Assembly’s intent to ‘subordinate’ the interests of non-Republican voters and ‘entrench’ Republican domination of the state’s congressional delegation.”
Most federal lawsuits are first heard by a district court, and later — if needed — by an appeals court and the Supreme Court. But under federal law, constitutional challenges to the apportionment of House districts or statewide legislative bodies are automatically heard by three-judge panels, and appeals are taken directly to the Supreme Court.
In addition to Judge Wynn, an appointee of Mr. Obama’s, Senior Judge W. Earl Britt of the Federal District Court in Raleigh joined the opinion. Judge Britt was appointed by President Jimmy Carter.
Judge William L. Osteen Jr., who was appointed by President George W. Bush and sits on the federal bench in Greensboro, said he agreed that the existing map violated the 14th Amendment, but he disputed other parts of Judge Wynn’s opinion, including the decision to appoint an independent expert to begin preparing an alternative map.
The ruling was the first time that a federal court had blocked a congressional map because of a partisan gerrymander, and it instantly endangered Republican seats in the coming elections.
Judge James A. Wynn Jr., in a biting 191-page opinion, said that Republicans in North Carolina’s Legislature had been “motivated by invidious partisan intent” as they carried out their obligation in 2016 to divide the state into 13 congressional districts, 10 of which are held by Republicans. The result, Judge Wynn wrote, violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
The ruling and its chief demand — that the Republican-dominated Legislature create a new landscape of congressional districts by Jan. 24 — infused new turmoil into the political chaos that has in recent years enveloped North Carolina. President Trump carried North Carolina in 2016, but the state elected a Democrat as its governor on the same day and in 2008 supported President Barack Obama.
The unusually blunt decision by the panel could lend momentum to two other challenges on gerrymandering that are already before the Supreme Court — and that the North Carolina case could join if Republicans make good on their vow to appeal Tuesday’s ruling.
In October, the court heard an appeal of another three-judge panel’s ruling that Republicans had unconstitutionally gerrymandered Wisconsin’s State Assembly in an attempt to relegate Democrats to a permanent minority. In the second case, the justices will hear arguments by Maryland Republicans that the Democratic-controlled Legislature redrew House districts to flip a Republican-held seat to Democratic control.
The Supreme Court has struggled without success for decades to develop a legal standard for determining when a partisan gerrymander crosses constitutional lines. The court once came close to ruling that such cases were political matters beyond its jurisdiction. But the rise of extreme partisan gerrymanders in the last decade, powered by a growing ideological divide and powerful map-drawing software, has brought the question back to the justices with new urgency. A Supreme Court ruling outlawing at least some such gerrymanders could reshape the political landscape.
Fights over voting rights and election procedures have often taken center stage in Raleigh, North Carolina’s capital, and Tuesday’s ruling noted that “partisan advantage” had been a criterion lawmakers used when mulling how to map the state.
Republican officials in the General Assembly said Tuesday evening that they intended to appeal the ruling, which many elected officials and political strategists were still scrambling to digest. Dallas Woodhouse, the executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, criticized Judge Wynn and accused him of “waging a personal, partisan war on North Carolina Republicans.”
In a separate post on Twitter, Mr. Woodhouse argued that Judge Wynn had concluded that North Carolina’s Republicans “should not be allowed to draw election districts under any circumstances under any set of rules,” an effort he called “a hostile takeover” of the General Assembly and legislatures nationwide. Republicans could ask the Supreme Court to stay the decision and allow the disputed map to be used this year.
But critics of the congressional map welcomed a decision that was notable for its tartness and urgency.
“Clearly, the courts have realized that they do need to step in and police extreme partisan gerrymanders, and the court recognized that North Carolina’s gerrymander was one of the most extreme in history,” said Ruth Greenwood, senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center and a lawyer representing some of the map’s challengers.
The chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, Wayne Goodwin, said the decision was “a major victory for North Carolina and people across the state whose voices were silenced by Republicans’ unconstitutional attempts to rig the system to their partisan advantage.”
The judges issued their decision fewer than 24 hours before the General Assembly was to convene in Raleigh for a special session. The ruling unmistakably placed lawmakers on the clock, giving them two weeks to present a “remedial plan” and declaring that the court would institute its own map if it finds the new district lines unsatisfactory.
“Politically, this gives hope to Democrats,” said J. Michael Bitzer, a professor of political science at Catawba College, which is near Charlotte. “I can imagine the Republicans being furious, but they have to see political reality, and it’s not just in the next two weeks: It’s come November.”
Professor Bitzer, though, cautioned that the ultimate political fallout would not become clearer until the courts settled what could be a cascade of appeals and injunctions.
The ruling left little doubt about how the judges assessed the Legislature’s most recent map. Judge Wynn, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and was a member of a special panel considering the congressional map, said that “a wealth of evidence proves the General Assembly’s intent to ‘subordinate’ the interests of non-Republican voters and ‘entrench’ Republican domination of the state’s congressional delegation.”
Most federal lawsuits are first heard by a district court, and later — if needed — by an appeals court and the Supreme Court. But under federal law, constitutional challenges to the apportionment of House districts or statewide legislative bodies are automatically heard by three-judge panels, and appeals are taken directly to the Supreme Court.
In addition to Judge Wynn, an appointee of Mr. Obama’s, Senior Judge W. Earl Britt of the Federal District Court in Raleigh joined the opinion. Judge Britt was appointed by President Jimmy Carter.
Judge William L. Osteen Jr., who was appointed by President George W. Bush and sits on the federal bench in Greensboro, said he agreed that the existing map violated the 14th Amendment, but he disputed other parts of Judge Wynn’s opinion, including the decision to appoint an independent expert to begin preparing an alternative map.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
#8843
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,288
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2018-January-10, 14:01
y66, on 2018-January-10, 10:14, said:
From North Carolina Congressional Map Ruled Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered by Alan Blinder and Micahel Wines at NYT:
My question is at the SC level - will Neil Gorsuch prove to be only a social conservative or will he be a true political partisan hack?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#8845
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,497
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2018-January-10, 17:41
Good piece in todays NYT talking about Trump's authoritarians tendencies:
https://www.nytimes....pe=sectionfront
https://www.nytimes....pe=sectionfront
Quote
Two political scientists specializing in how democracies decay and die have compiled four warning signs to determine if a political leader is a dangerous authoritarian:
1. The leader shows only a weak commitment to democratic rules. 2. He or she denies the legitimacy of opponents. 3. He or she tolerates violence. 4. He or she shows some willingness to curb civil liberties or the media.
“A politician who meets even one of these criteria is cause for concern,” Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, both professors at Harvard, write in their important new book, “How Democracies Die,” which will be released next week.
“With the exception of Richard Nixon, no major-party presidential candidate met even one of these four criteria over the last century,” they say, which sounds reassuring. Unfortunately, they have one update: “Donald Trump met them all.”
...
It matters when Trump denounces the “deep state Justice Department,” calls Hillary Clinton a “criminal” and urges “jail” for Huma Abedin, denounces journalists as the “enemy of the American people” and promises to pay the legal fees of supporters who “beat the crap” out of protesters. With such bombast, Trump is beating the crap out of American norms.
1. The leader shows only a weak commitment to democratic rules. 2. He or she denies the legitimacy of opponents. 3. He or she tolerates violence. 4. He or she shows some willingness to curb civil liberties or the media.
“A politician who meets even one of these criteria is cause for concern,” Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, both professors at Harvard, write in their important new book, “How Democracies Die,” which will be released next week.
“With the exception of Richard Nixon, no major-party presidential candidate met even one of these four criteria over the last century,” they say, which sounds reassuring. Unfortunately, they have one update: “Donald Trump met them all.”
...
It matters when Trump denounces the “deep state Justice Department,” calls Hillary Clinton a “criminal” and urges “jail” for Huma Abedin, denounces journalists as the “enemy of the American people” and promises to pay the legal fees of supporters who “beat the crap” out of protesters. With such bombast, Trump is beating the crap out of American norms.
Alderaan delenda est
#8846
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,529
- Joined: 2008-December-02
Posted 2018-January-11, 03:34
hrothgar, on 2018-January-10, 17:41, said:
Good piece in todays NYT talking about Trump's authoritarians tendencies:
https://www.nytimes....pe=sectionfront
https://www.nytimes....pe=sectionfront
Like Obama except Obama was a different sort of authoritarian- one who signed illegal treaties, one who empowered government authorities to do all sorts of illegal stuff.
#8847
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,497
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2018-January-11, 04:44
cloa513, on 2018-January-11, 03:34, said:
Like Obama except Obama was a different sort of authoritarian- one who signed illegal treaties, one who empowered government authorities to do all sorts of illegal stuff.
First of all, did you see the part where "authoritarian" is defined as sharing all four tendencies.
You're talking about one. So, no, Obama is not "Like Obama".
Second, you believe that Obama signed treaties that were illegal and that he did all sorts of illegal stuff.
Interesting opinion. Not one that I share.
Luckily, we have a way to break the tie...
The US judiciary is the ones who get to decide this sort of thing and, as I recall, they don't agree with you.
Why not talk about the actual case that the authors make about Trump rather than trying to distract by throwing mud?
Alderaan delenda est
#8848
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,497
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2018-January-11, 06:38
Alderaan delenda est
#8849
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,525
- Joined: 2009-March-30
- Gender:Male
Posted 2018-January-11, 08:07
cloa513, on 2018-January-11, 03:34, said:
Like Obama except Obama was a different sort of authoritarian- one who signed illegal treaties, one who empowered government authorities to do all sorts of illegal stuff.
A wild Whataboutism appears! Incredible insight into a fascinating topic, cloa!
OK
bed
bed
#8850
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,288
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2018-January-11, 08:25
jjbrr, on 2018-January-11, 08:07, said:
A wild Whataboutism appears! Incredible insight into a fascinating topic, cloa!
Sure, Alex Jones has incredible insights, don'tcha know?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#8851
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,288
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2018-January-11, 18:19
Quote
President Donald Trump on Thursday said FBI agent Peter Strzok committed “treason.” Trump told The Wall Street Journal that the former investigator on Robert Muller’s team, who was removed from the probe after Mueller discovered that Strzok had disparaged Trump in text messages, committed a “treasonous act.”
Listen *****-for-brains, someone calling an asshole an asshole in a text message is not treasonous, and this is not the WWF where the idea is to outrage the viewers, so why don't you dummy up and resign.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#8852
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,613
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2018-January-12, 06:38
I wonder how many new anchormen were happy that Trump allowed them to say "shithole" on the air yesterday?
#8853
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,525
- Joined: 2009-March-30
- Gender:Male
Posted 2018-January-12, 08:13
Verified WaPo account weighed in on this.
I am reminded of Dir. Comey's reasoning for taking notes of every meeting he had with Trump due to the "nature of the person" he was dealing with.
Quote
IIRC, it's a Washington Post first to have a curse word in a headline.
In general, we would only publish swear words in rare cases when they are necessary to the understanding of a person or situation, such as a prominent official. Like if the president or pope said a swear word. In this case, it's the president.
This is much like our decision to publish Trump's words in the Access Hollywood tape, or Scaramucci's choice quotes from last year.
In general, we would only publish swear words in rare cases when they are necessary to the understanding of a person or situation, such as a prominent official. Like if the president or pope said a swear word. In this case, it's the president.
This is much like our decision to publish Trump's words in the Access Hollywood tape, or Scaramucci's choice quotes from last year.
I am reminded of Dir. Comey's reasoning for taking notes of every meeting he had with Trump due to the "nature of the person" he was dealing with.
OK
bed
bed
#8854
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,613
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2018-January-12, 10:20
And now the Liar in Chief claims that he never said it. I'll bet there are recordings that would corroborate the account, but we probably won't be able to get them released until after Trump is out of office.
BTW, speaking of Trump's lies, he hasn't actually signed more bills into law than other presidents. The exact opposite: he's actually ranked last among all post-WWII presidents in first-year legislation enacted. From Pollitifact:
He did set a record during his first 100 days, but couldn't maintain that pace, slid to 7th place 2 months later, and reached last place by the end of the year.
BTW, speaking of Trump's lies, he hasn't actually signed more bills into law than other presidents. The exact opposite: he's actually ranked last among all post-WWII presidents in first-year legislation enacted. From Pollitifact:
President Bills signed in year one John F. Kennedy 684 Dwight Eisenhower 514 George H.W. Bush 242 Jimmy Carter 241 Richard M. Nixon 211 Bill Clinton 209 Barack Obama 118 Ronald Reagan 108 George W. Bush 102 Donald Trump 94
He did set a record during his first 100 days, but couldn't maintain that pace, slid to 7th place 2 months later, and reached last place by the end of the year.
#8855
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,496
- Joined: 2006-February-24
Posted 2018-January-12, 11:39
From the ugly part of The good, the bad and the ugly of H.R. McMaster’s national security advice by Daniel W. Drezner:
Just slip out the back Mac. Slink even.
Quote
The Washington Post ran a long story last month about Trump’s failure to check Russian threats to the United States. It included a disturbing anecdote involving Trump, McMaster and Fiona Hill, the NSC director for Russia:
In one of her first encounters with the president, an Oval Office meeting in preparation for a call with Putin on Syria, Trump appeared to mistake Hill for a member of the clerical staff, handing her a memo he had marked up and instructing her to rewrite it.
When Hill responded with a perplexed look, Trump became irritated with what he interpreted as insubordination, according to officials who witnessed the exchange. As she walked away in confusion, Trump exploded and motioned for McMaster to intervene.
McMaster followed Hill out the door and scolded her, officials said. Later, he and a few close staffers met to explore ways to repair Hill’s damaged relationship with the president.
Every time I read this anecdote, I try to figure out why McMaster initially scolded Hill rather than explain who she was to the president. Perhaps McMaster surmised that once Trump perceived insubordination, persuasion would have been difficult. Still, acting like Hill made the mistake in this situation was poor leadership on McMaster’s part. Pleasing superiors is important, but so is protecting underlings. He appears to have failed in the latter task.
I can only imagine the pressure McMaster has faced with a mercurial president who needs lots of “Executive Time” to manage. Still, some of what the national security adviser is thinking and doing remain inexplicable.
In one of her first encounters with the president, an Oval Office meeting in preparation for a call with Putin on Syria, Trump appeared to mistake Hill for a member of the clerical staff, handing her a memo he had marked up and instructing her to rewrite it.
When Hill responded with a perplexed look, Trump became irritated with what he interpreted as insubordination, according to officials who witnessed the exchange. As she walked away in confusion, Trump exploded and motioned for McMaster to intervene.
McMaster followed Hill out the door and scolded her, officials said. Later, he and a few close staffers met to explore ways to repair Hill’s damaged relationship with the president.
Every time I read this anecdote, I try to figure out why McMaster initially scolded Hill rather than explain who she was to the president. Perhaps McMaster surmised that once Trump perceived insubordination, persuasion would have been difficult. Still, acting like Hill made the mistake in this situation was poor leadership on McMaster’s part. Pleasing superiors is important, but so is protecting underlings. He appears to have failed in the latter task.
I can only imagine the pressure McMaster has faced with a mercurial president who needs lots of “Executive Time” to manage. Still, some of what the national security adviser is thinking and doing remain inexplicable.
Just slip out the back Mac. Slink even.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
#8856
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,288
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2018-January-12, 19:53
At least we've hit upon a fitting nomenclature for the Trump presidency: *****-gate.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#8857
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,228
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2018-January-12, 22:21
If we needed a further indication of just how bizarre things have become, try this:
https://www.pbs.org/...arges-of-racism
For example:
Yep, it's just snowflake Ken that has a problem. Trump had all of this military experience when he was young. And Real Estate experience.
That explains it all. A snowflake like me just doesn't understand the world of real men.
If I had just gone to military boarding school I would understand the genius of Donald Trump.
I am feeling a bit ill. We snowflakes just can't take it.
https://www.pbs.org/...arges-of-racism
For example:
Quote
Billy Shreve, a county councilmember in Maryland, chalked the comments up to Trump’s past as a real estate developer and his years at a military boarding school as a teenager.
“You got the fact that he grew up in the construction business and went to military school,” said Shreve, who has a background in construction and said he related to Trump’s word choice. “It’s just common language. The snowflakes aren’t used to it.”
“You got the fact that he grew up in the construction business and went to military school,” said Shreve, who has a background in construction and said he related to Trump’s word choice. “It’s just common language. The snowflakes aren’t used to it.”
Yep, it's just snowflake Ken that has a problem. Trump had all of this military experience when he was young. And Real Estate experience.
That explains it all. A snowflake like me just doesn't understand the world of real men.
If I had just gone to military boarding school I would understand the genius of Donald Trump.
I am feeling a bit ill. We snowflakes just can't take it.
Ken
#8858
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,497
- Joined: 2003-February-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:Natick, MA
-
Interests:Travel
Cooking
Brewing
Hiking
Posted 2018-January-13, 03:03
kenberg, on 2018-January-12, 22:21, said:
[size="2"]If we needed a further indication of just how bizarre things have become, try this:
https://www.pbs.org/...arges-of-racism
https://www.pbs.org/...arges-of-racism
Its as if he thinks that the fundamental problem is using the word "shithole" rather than the underlying racism...
Alderaan delenda est
#8859
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,228
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2018-January-13, 09:09
hrothgar, on 2018-January-13, 03:03, said:
Its as is he thinks that the fundamental problem is using the word "shithole" rather than the underlying racism...
Trump's comment is certainly racist. But there is a surrealism to the way things are going. Last night on the PBS Newshour they were interviewing the Ambassador from Haiti to get his views. Just stop and think about this. A news program is asking an ambassador what he thinks about having his country described as a shithole by the president of our country. It seems, or would have seemed, beyond belief. I was waiting for him to say something such as "Obviously your president has his head firmly up his ass, this is far more of a problem for the United States than it is for Haiti". Something like that is no doubt what he was thinking. But he is paid to be a diplomat.
That's quite a guy we have elected.
Ken
#8860
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,288
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2018-January-13, 10:04
Yes, quite the guy.
BuzzFeed looks at Trump property sales.
Were buyers from shithole countries allowed?
BuzzFeed looks at Trump property sales.
Quote
Records show that more than 1,300 Trump condominiums were bought not by people but by shell companies, and that the purchases were made without a mortgage, avoiding inquiries from lenders.
Those two characteristics signal that a buyer may be laundering money, the Treasury Department has said in a series of statements since 2016. Treasury’s financial-crimes unit has, in recent years, launched investigations around the country into all-cash shell-company real-estate purchases amid concerns that some such sales may involve money laundering. The agency is considering requiring real-estate professionals to adopt anti-money-laundering programs.
Those two characteristics signal that a buyer may be laundering money, the Treasury Department has said in a series of statements since 2016. Treasury’s financial-crimes unit has, in recent years, launched investigations around the country into all-cash shell-company real-estate purchases amid concerns that some such sales may involve money laundering. The agency is considering requiring real-estate professionals to adopt anti-money-laundering programs.
Quote
Trump condo sales that match Treasury’s characteristics of possible money laundering totaled $1.5 billion, BuzzFeed News calculated. They accounted for 21% of the 6,400 Trump condos sold in the US. Those figures include condos that Trump developed as well as condos that others developed in his name under licensing deals that pay Trump a fee or a percentage of sales.
Were buyers from shithole countries allowed?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."