Trump releases his tax returns

Update:

Does anybody really believe that a reporter, who nobody ever heard of, "went to his mailbox" and found my tax returns? @NBCNews  FAKE NEWS!



WASHINGTON — One of the most closely guarded secrets in politics — Donald Trump’s income taxes — became a little bit less mysterious late Tuesday as prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston and MSNBC published a partial copy of the president’s 2005 federal filing. The two-page disclosure shed little light on the entrepreneur’s complex financial dealings, showing he paid about $38 million on income of roughly $150 million, an effective tax rate of 25 percent.

The documents, whose publication drew howls of outrage from the White House, did not include the most important financial data that might be collected from Trump’s full returns, including the sources of his income, his partners, to whom he paid interest, and other relationships that might feed concerns that he faces unprecedented conflicts of interest.

While the disclosure that the super-rich have mechanisms for reducing their tax burden was hardly explosive, the revelations were notable because of Trump’s ironclad refusal to release his returns. Throughout the 2016 campaign, the entrepreneur falsely implied that he could not release them because he was under audit.

The documents — just two pages of his filing — showed Trump would personally have paid about $5.3 million in federal taxes on income of over $150 million, after a write-down of about $103 million. But he paid another $31 million or so because of the alternative minimum tax — which he has proposed eliminating.

Johnston said the documents appeared in his mailbox at home, unsolicited. The pages posted by MSNBC were unsigned and stamped “Client Copy,” implying they may have been leaked by someone with access to Trump’s files — rather than the Internal Revenue Service.

In a statement released before the broadcast, the White House savaged the disclosure.

“Before being elected President, Mr. Trump was one of the most successful businessmen in the world with a responsibility to his company, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required,” a White House official said. “That being said, Mr. Trump paid $38 million dollars even after taking into account large scale depreciation for construction, on an income of more than $150 million dollars, as well as paying tens of millions of dollars in other taxes such as sales and excise taxes and employment taxes and this illegally published return proves just that.”

The publication of the return is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, but the person who provided the documents could be in legal jeopardy if he or she inappropriately obtained or released the filings.

Trump’s undisclosed tax returns have been a kind of holy grail of political reporting. Because the president and immediate family members have retained interests in his businesses, career ethics lawyers of both parties have warned of the potential for conflicts of interest. They have also said that the president is in violation of the Constitution’s prohibition on receiving foreign payments while in office.

It was not the first time that Trump’s 2005 returns drew scrutiny.

The Wall Street Journal reported in March 2016 that Trump was able to deduct $39.1 million from his 2005 federal income taxes by promising not to build houses on a New Jersey golf course he owns.

In 2005, the top federal income-tax rate was 35 percent, so Mr. Trump could have shaved more than $14 million off his tax bill and claimed a state income-tax deduction.

Read more from Yahoo News:

• Breitbart posts audio of Paul Ryan pre-election: ‘I am not going to defend Donald Trump’
• ‘Robin Hood in reverse’: CBO report on GOP health care plan supports Democrats’ charges
• After killing TPP, Trump to meet Xi, reassure allies
• Explaining Trump: How the White House cleans up after a tweetstorm
• Photos: Winter storm Stella pounds East Coast: Blizzard dumps snow on mid-Atlantic and Northeast

One of Obama's Last Prominent US Attorneys Fired By Attorney General Jeff Sessions

The most prominent U.S. attorney in the nation, Preet Bharara, announced Saturday that he was "fired" after he did not resign.

"I did not resign," Preet Bharara, who was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, tweeted Saturday afternoon. "Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life."

Bharara's tweet came close to 24 hours after the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday asked all U.S. attorneys remaining as holdovers from the Obama administration to step down.

By Friday night, many who had been asked to leave — including the U.S. attorneys in New Jersey, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Arkansas — had publicly announced their departure.

But Bharara, who had said in November that President Trump had asked him to stay on, had still not resigned as of midday Saturday.

It is not unusual for U.S. attorneys, who are appointed by presidents, to be asked to resign when a new president takes office, especially when there is a change of party at the White House.

Bharara said after meeting with then-President-elect Trump in November that he had been asked to remain in his post.

“The president-elect asked, presumably because he's a New Yorker and is aware of the great work that our office has done over the past seven years, asked to meet with me to discuss whether or not I'd be prepared to stay on as the United States attorney to do the work as we have done it, independently, without fear or favor for the last seven years,” Bharara told reporters after meeting with Trump at Trump Tower on Nov. 30. "I have already spoken to Sen. Sessions, who is as you know is the nominee to be the attorney general. He also asked that I stay on, and so I expect that I will be continuing to work at the Southern District.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, said in a statement Friday that he was "troubled" to learn of the resignation requests, especially for Bharara.

"I'm troubled to learn of reports of requests for resignations from the remaining U.S. attorneys, particularly that of Preet Bharara, after the president initiated a call to me in November and assured me he wanted Mr. Bharara to continue to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District," Schumer said in the statement Friday.

The Justice Department has 93 U.S. attorneys covering 94 districts. About half of those from the Obama administration had already resigned before Friday, leaving 46 still in place.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked Friday for the prompt resignations of the 46 U.S. attorneys who remain from President Obama’s administration.

On Friday night, President Trump called two of them -- Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein -- to inform them he has declined to accept their resignations, a senior administration official told ABC News.

Boente is the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and the acting U.S. deputy attorney general. Rosenstein, the U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland, is Trump’s nominee for deputy attorney general.

“As was the case in prior transitions, many of the United States attorneys nominated by the previous administration already have left the Department of Justice,” agency spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement Friday. “The attorney general has now asked the remaining 46 presidentially appointed U.S. attorneys to tender their resignations in order to ensure a uniform transition.”

Until new U.S. attorneys are confirmed, Flores said career prosecutors in the 94 districts will continue overseeing cases. The Trump administration has not yet nominated any new U.S. attorneys.

Summarized by Maven Stark



Follow @mavenstark


Mavenvision Stock Imagery Featuring high quality, royaltie-free images available for purchase on Bigstock

Mavenvision Stock
Mavenimagery
Mavenmantes EyeEm collection

TRILLIUM LAKE, OREGON

Madeira Beach, Florida

Photopia Products and Image Storage available for purchase We currently offer a number of print products for shipment to addresses in the United States. Shipping to addresses outside of the US is currently not supported. The basic membership is free of charge. This provides you with storage for 100 images that may be included in Photopia as products at any one time. Photopia is a new way to share and sell your photographs and digital images.

Presidential Executive Orders And The Constitution: What Can Trump Really Do?

What is an executive order and what can presidents such as Trump do with them? Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution describes the process for how a bill becomes a law. The process requires both houses of Congress to pass legislation with identical language and for it to be signed by the president.
 In the alternative, Congress by two-thirds majorities in both Houses can override a presidential veto to make something a law, and in some cases bills the president has not signed but not vetoed and returned to Congress may also become a law (if the president refuses to return a bill adopted in the last 10 days of a session, the president has exercised what is known as a pocket veto).
Once a bill becomes a law it is legally binding, enforceable by the executive branch. Yet the congressional route is not the only way law is created. Orders by the courts become binding and enforceable as law by the courts. In some circumstances, orders issued by the President of the United States too carry the force of law.
 These executive orders have been issued by presidents since the time George Washington became president, and over time they have been used by almost every president, often either with support or controversy. The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has several sources.
 The first is in Article II, Section I, Clause 1, which vests in the president the executive power, and Article II, Section 3, which requires that presidents “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
 While lacking precise definition, the executive power gives presidents broad enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive department. Second, executive orders have a legal basis in power delegated by Congress to the president or executive department agencies. Congress may delegate to the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, authority to make determinations about what constitutes clean air or water under the Clean Water Act of 1972 or Clean Air Act of 1973.

This delegation power is subject to the constitutional limits outlined by a host of Supreme Court decision. Third, since the adoption of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in 1946, there is a complex process and structure for how administrative agencies and members of the executive branch can make rules and have then become legally binding. Taken together, these constitutional clauses, specific congressional delegation, and the rule-making process of the APA form the legal basis of presidential executive orders. With the exception of President William Henry Harrison, who died barely a month after being sworn into office, every president has issued executive orders. George Washington issued the first one, directing officers of the Articles of Confederation government to compose a report for his administration on the status or state of affairs of America. Other famous orders included Thomas Jefferson ordering the Louisiana Purchase, James Knox Polk ordering the annexation of Texas, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Franklin Roosevelt ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and John Kennedy creating the Peace Corps. The numbering of executive orders began in 1907, and not until the Federal Registration Act of 1936 was there a formal process for recording executive orders. Prior to 1936 and 1907 executive orders were issued less formally. From 1789 to the end of the Obama presidency there have been nearly 14,000 executive orders. Franklin Roosevelt holds the record with 3,721 orders, with second place going to Woodrow Wilson at 1,803, and third place to Calvin Coolidge with 1,203. Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton issued 364, George Bush 291, and Barack Obama 276. The American Presidency Project at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php maintains a list of all executive orders. In the last several years, partisan and political gridlock between Congress and the president has led the latter into using executive orders as a way of addressing issues or creating rules of laws in the absence of explicit congressional action. The Obama Administration through the EPA issued rules regulating carbon emissions. Yet in Murray Energy Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.;136 S.Ct. 999; 194 L.Ed.2d 18 (2016) in a suit brought by more than two dozen states and several utility companies, the Supreme Court in a 5-3 vote issued a stay on the rules pending review by the Court of Appeals. In United States v. Texas, U.S.; 136 S.Ct. 2271 (2016), the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and issued a per curiam decision that upheld a lower decision that issued an injunction to prevent enforcement of an executive order or program entitled Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would provide legal presence for illegal immigrants who were parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents. This decision effectively ended President Obama’s effort to use an executive order to effect immigration reform. The lower court decision is provided in this book.

 While many criticize executive orders as a way to circumvent Congress and the separation of powers process, there is no question that these orders are a major part of federal executive power that is unlikely to disappear in the future. However, as should be clear, presidents are not kings and do not have any inherent power to issue orders.

 Their authority must come from the Constitution or law, subject to limits. Nor are presidents like Captain Picard able simply to say “make it so” and it will happen. Once presidents do issue executive orders they carry the binding force of law and they are hard to repeal or undue. This will make it difficult for Trump to undo except a very few of Obama’s recent executive orders. Conversely, moving forward, any of Trump’s orders will have to follow a specific process to have the force of law, and there are many things he simply cannot order. Finally, when one looks at the executive orders Trump has already issued, they really are so vague and general that they really do not do anything. His first on Obamacare did not really order anyone to do anything, and the executive order on the Mexican wall too was vacuous and could not really command anything, especially when it required an appropriation of money that Trump did not have. In many cases, these “executive orders” seem more like press releases or public relations than real legally-binding executive orders.



Follow @mavenstark


Mavenvision Stock Imagery Featuring high quality, royaltie-free images available for purchase on Bigstock

Mavenvision Stock
Mavenimagery
Mavenmantes EyeEm collection

TRILLIUM LAKE, OREGON

Madeira Beach, Florida

LA vs Trump: City creates $10 million legal defense fund for immigrants

Los Angeles is creating a $10
million fund to provide legal aid to residents who face deportation under a Trump administration. The announcement of the legal fund, one of a number created by Democratic strongholds in recent days, pits cities like Los Angeles and Chicago against President-elect Donald Trump’s promises to build a wall and deport undocumented immigrants.

 Advocates of the funds say they will provide the “right to counsel” to undocumented immigrants who often lack the legal representation that has been shown to improve their chances of succeeding in court.

 “We don’t know how far the new administration will go when it comes to our nation’s immigration policy, but we’ve all heard the rhetoric, the dangerous rhetoric of the election,” said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. “And we are ready to support people who can’t afford or who don’t realize they might need a lawyer.” But opponents, including lawmakers and anti-illegal immigration groups, argue the funds are drawing tax dollars away from American citizens in need. “I’m not a hater,” said Nicholas Sposato, an alderman from a Chicago district with strong Trump support, during the city council vote. “Any given day, 1,000 homeless veterans [are] out there. What are we doing for them?” Los Angeles joins a number of cities and states that are either already creating legal funds or mulling similar proposals. According to the proposal, the Los Angeles Justice fund, as it is known, would receive $5 million total from the city and county governments, reports the Los Angeles Times. Philanthropic groups are expected to donate the remaining half of the money, with the California Endowment, the state’s largest private healthcare foundation, planning to provide $2 million, according to a foundation spokeswoman.

 The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council are scheduled to vote on the allocation of the funds in the coming days. Chicago has already approved $1.3 million for a legal fund to help the city’s estimated 150,000 undocumented immigrants. The money will be divided between two nonprofits, one that focuses on poor immigrants facing deportation and another that plans to deploy 200 “community navigators” to network via churches, schools, and community events to identify undocumented immigrants and help them figure out if they have legal grounds to stay in the US. The cities of San Francisco and Santa Clara, as well as California and New York states, are considering similar funds.

 Such actions are a response to Mr. Trump’s campaign promises to build a wall and deport all of the 11 million undocumented immigrants. He has since indicated he will scale back these promises, but hasn’t detailed his plans. But the rhetoric has created profound fear among immigrants and those who support them. Funding legal services is one concrete step that has been shown to make a significant difference for undocumented immigrants. Immigrants aren’t guaranteed a lawyer in immigration court, and only about 37 percent of those in deportation proceedings have legal representation, according to a September report from the American Immigration Council. But some opponents of the legal funds note that deportations are exempt from the constitutional promise of a right to counsel. Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that advocates for restrictions on immigration, told the Los Angeles Times she questioned the “dubious use of scarce taxpayer dollars.”
 ”Immigration proceedings are a civil matter, not criminal, and no Americans who are defending themselves in civil proceedings are entitled to taxpayer-funded representation,” Vaughan said.

 Also at issue is the effect deportations would have on the economies of cities and states with large populations of undocumented immigrants. Immigrants, regardless of legal status, work and pay taxes.

California, for instance, is thought to have the largest undocumented immigrant population, with estimates of up to 1 million, according to the Los Angeles Times. Supporters of the legal funds point to some precedents for states and local governments providing legal services to undocumented immigrants.

In 2013, Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that allocated $3 million to provide legal services to children that crossed the border, fleeing violence in Central America. That same year, New York City piloted a program to fund public defender offices to represent detained immigrants, with 70 percent of attorneys winning their 1,500 cases, according to the most recent statistics available. When Arizona passed its controversial anti-immigration law in 2010, it also created a legal defense fund to fight several lawsuits, including one from the US Justice Department The state received an influx of donations totaling $3.6 million from about 41,000 sympathizers across the country, The Christian Science Monitor reported at the time.


Maven's note: Immigration Law is very complex. You can have the best lawyer that money can hire but if you don't qualify for a immigration relief (or
"Avoiding Removal". When an alien is determined to be removable, if eligible, they can apply for one or more forms of relief to avoid having to leave the United States (otherwise known as "deportation"). The types of relief are generally divided into two categories: discretionary relief and administrative/judicial relief...) according to immigration benefits law in Immigration Benefits in EOIR Removal Proceedings, you will be deported. The $10 million dollars will be a gift to lawyers and alike.


Follow @mavenstark

Follow @mavenstark
Mavenvision Stock Imagery Featuring high quality, royaltie-free images available for purchase on Shutterstock

Mavenvision Stock Imagery
Mavenimagery
Mavenmantes EyeEm collection

TRILLIUM LAKE, OREGON

Madeira Beach, Florida 

                             

The Fake News Conundrum and Facebook

         

                                              The spread of fake news on Facebook became a focal point of discussion after Donald Trump was elected president, drawing comments from the likes of President Obama, and had Hillary won the presidency, the hypocrite and the stuck up-for-Hillary-media, would have not only ignored fake-news, but it would have had upheld them.

A Twitter cofounder nailed the scope of Facebook's 'fake news' problem with one screenshot

On Tuesday, Twitter cofounder Ev Williams neatly pointed out how big Facebook's fake-news problem is with one screenshot.

Williams was reading Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's November 18 Facebook post, which updated the world on Facebook's progress and goals in tackling the spreading of fake news, when he noticed some suspicious posts on the side. Both turned out to be fake news.
Here is the screen shot:

"Despite appearances, the first one doesn't point to espn.com," Williams wrote in a Medium post. "It goes to espn.com-magazine.online and attempts to sell a muscle-building supplement using ESPN branding and a fake news story. The CNN-branded ad goes to less work. It just takes you to a site called Fine the Racers with an exclusive offer for a 12-week program to strengthen your toes. 

Though Facebook has already pledged to ban fake-news sites from its ad network, both of the posts that Williams highlighted were ads.
But, they do. 

"We do not integrate or display ads in apps or sites containing content that is illegal, misleading or deceptive, which includes fake news," Facebook said in a statement to Reuters on November 15.

The spread of fake news on Facebook became a focal point of discussion after Donald Trump was elected president, drawing comments from the likes of President Obama. A recent 46 by BuzzFeedshow showed that in the lead-up to the election, the top fake-news stories on Facebook outperformed legitimate news stories shared by some of the most popular media companies. One fake-news writer even said

 he thought he might have helped Trump win the election.

Facebook has said it's working on fixing the problem. Zuckerberg wrote on Friday (in the post cited by Williams) a few things that Facebook was working on to try to combat fake news. Here's a summary:

• Stronger detection: better technical systems to detect what people will flag as false before they do it themselves.
• Making it much easier for people to report stories as fake to catch more misinformation faster.
• Third-party verification via "respected fact-checking organizations."
• Warnings: labeling stories that have been flagged as false by third parties and the Facebook community, and showing warnings when people read or share them.
• Working with journalists and others in the news industry to get input and better understand their fact-checking systems and learn from them.

But it seems that Facebook has a long way to go.

Williams does have a bit of a bias here, however, as he founded both Medium, a publishing platform that in some ways competes with Facebook, and cofounded Twitter. But his point is certainly still well-taken.