FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 139 of 148 < 1 2 ... 137 138 139 140 141 ... 147 148 >
Topic Options
#1533598 --- 09/03/19 01:49 PM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 13049
Loc: Above ground
LOL, here it is September and he talks about April, I guess a fool is only honored in the month of April though. laugh
Cwjga, do you have a grasp tax preparation? Long form or short form? What write off do you take advantage of? Any IRA, stock, bonds....seeing that you have no knowledge, simply tell us about the tax cut you receive and it's impact on your last filing in 2018? 100 to one, you're making talking points you overheard on a dark web site. NO knowledge whatsoever that the rich guy took your tax cut. Hell.... even me because of my tax bracket and business write offs.

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1533599 --- 09/03/19 01:52 PM Re: More winning... [Re: Ben444]
Ben444 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 7689
Loc: Seneca County
https://www.newsweek.com/conservatives-c...ax-cuts-1454024

TRUMP, REPUBLICANS RIDICULED AS FEDERAL DEFICIT, $3.7 TRILLION SPENDING HIT RECORD HIGHS
_________________________
TRUMP AND HIS WHOLE FAMILY WILL BE IN JAIL BY 2020 election

Top
#1533604 --- 09/03/19 02:59 PM Re: More winning... [Re: Ben444]
Ben444 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 7689
Loc: Seneca County
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/03/politics/donald-trump-golf-hurricane/index.html

Here's the real problem with Trump golfing while Dorian churned


Trump's abandonment of the idea of the presidency as a position of moral leadership -- the whole leading-by-example thing -- will be, along with his assault on the idea of facts and truth, the most dangerous (and lasting) element of his tenure.

If we no longer can look to a president to lead in moments of crisis, who can -- and will -- we look to?
_________________________
TRUMP AND HIS WHOLE FAMILY WILL BE IN JAIL BY 2020 election

Top
#1533620 --- 09/04/19 05:18 AM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 11856
Loc: NY
The Tax Foundation 1 – New York Times 0
May 26, 2013 by Dan Mitchell

Whether it’s American politicians trying to extort more taxes from Apple or international bureaucrats trying to boost the tax burden on firms with a global corporate tax return, the left is aggressively seeking to impose harsher fiscal burdens on the business community.

A good (or “bad” would a more appropriate word) example of this thinking can be found in the New York Times, where Steven Rattner just wrote a column complaining that companies are using mergers to redomicile in jurisdictions with better tax law.*

He thinks the right response is higher taxes on multinationals.

While a Senate report detailing Apple’s aggressive tax sheltering of billions of dollars of overseas income grabbed headlines this week, …the American drug maker Actavis announced that it would spend $5 billion to acquire Warner Chilcott, an Irish pharmaceuticals company less than half its size. Buried in the fifth paragraph of the release was the curious tidbit that the new company would be incorporated in Ireland, even though the far larger acquirer was based in Parsippany, N.J. The reason? By escaping American shores, Actavis expects to reduce its effective tax rate from about 28 percent to 17 percent, a potential savings of tens of millions of dollars per year for the company and a still larger hit to the United States Treasury. …Eaton Corporation, a diversified power management company based for nearly a century in Cleveland, also became an “Irish company” when it acquired Cooper Industries last year. …That’s just not fair at a time of soaring corporate profits and stagnant family incomes. …President Obama has made constructive proposals to reduce the incentive to move jobs overseas by imposing a minimum tax on foreign earnings and delaying certain tax deductions related to overseas investment.

But Mr. Rattner apparently is unaware that American firms that compete in other nations also pay taxes in other nations.

Too bad he didn’t bother with some basic research. He would have discovered some new Tax Foundation research by Kyle Pomerleau, which explains that these firms already are heavily taxed on their foreign-source income.

Tax Foundation - Overseas Corporate Tax Burden…the amount U.S. multinational firms pay in taxes on their foreign income has become a common topic for the press and among politicians. Some of the more sensational press stories and claims by politicians lead people to believe that U.S. companies pay little or nothing in taxes on their foreign earnings. Last year, even the president suggested the U.S. needs a “minimum tax” on corporate foreign earnings to prevent tax avoidance. Unfortunately, such claims are either based upon a misunderstanding of how U.S. international tax rules work or are simply careless portrayals of the way in which U.S. companies pay taxes on their foreign profits. …According to the most recent IRS data for 2009, U.S. companies paid more than $104 billion in income taxes to foreign governments on foreign taxable income of $416 billion. As Table 1 indicates, companies paid an average effective tax rate of 25 percent on that income.

Unfortunately, the New York Times either is short of fact checkers or has very sloppy editors. Here are some other egregious errors.

Asserting that government schools are “starved of funding” when taxpayer subsidies actually have skyrocketed.
Claiming that budget-cutting austerity nations are doing worse than “stimulus” nations, but getting the numbers backwards.
Accidentally confirming that tax competition is needed to control the greed of the political class.
Writing that the sequester will mean “deep automatic spending cuts” when the budget actually will climb by $2.4 trillion.
Claiming that Italy is more prosperous than the United States and that there is less poverty.
Urging a tax-increase budget agreement based on a chart showing that the only successful budget deal was the one that cut taxes.
And none of this counts Paul Krugman’s mistakes, which are in a special category (see here, here, here, here, and here for a few examples).

*There is an important lesson to be learned when American companies redomicile overseas. Unfortunately, the New York Times wants to make a bad system even worse.
_________________________
Liberal heads are exploding, so easy. Betty and Tommy sure got triggered.

Top
#1533621 --- 09/04/19 05:28 AM Re: More winning... [Re: Ben444]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 13049
Loc: Above ground
Originally Posted By: Ben444
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/03/politics/donald-trump-golf-hurricane/index.html

Here's the real problem with Trump golfing while Dorian churned


Trump's abandonment of the idea of the presidency as a position of moral leadership -- the whole leading-by-example thing -- will be, along with his assault on the idea of facts and truth, the most dangerous (and lasting) element of his tenure.

If we no longer can look to a president to lead in moments of crisis, who can -- and will -- we look to?


Here we are day 4 and the idiot is hiding in the Oval office while devastation swirl around us.

Top
#1533622 --- 09/04/19 05:30 AM Re: More winning... [Re: Formermac]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 13049
Loc: Above ground


Only trump dullards make the argument in regard to tax codes that actually takes money out of their pockets.

Top
#1533623 --- 09/04/19 05:39 AM Re: More winning... [Re: Formermac]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 13049
Loc: Above ground
https://catalyst.independent.org/2018/09...boaAkpAEALw_wcB

Remember a time when education for children was at the top of our priority list...well something happen once Trump came on the scene, now we have supporters that make the claim of having done well without education...need we say more? wink

Top
#1533624 --- 09/04/19 05:46 AM Re: More winning... [Re: Formermac]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 13049
Loc: Above ground


Jethro would have been a Trump supporter,NAUGHT NAUGHT equal TWO

Top
#1533625 --- 09/04/19 05:52 AM Re: More winning... [Re: Formermac]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 13049
Loc: Above ground
Name a group of people that encourages the government to take their health care from them, their education funding, infrastructure funding and support a president that golf and lies every day? Worse yet, states that he's in their corner. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN for whom? They've haven't figured out the mass killings, a record federal deficit and hate crime in the United States as of yet.

Top
#1533626 --- 09/04/19 06:03 AM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 11856
Loc: NY
The Sad Decline of Economic Literacy at the New York Times
August 10, 2017 by Dan Mitchell

Every so often, I mock the New York Times for biased or sloppy analysis.

Claiming Medicaid cuts in a piece that shows rising outlays for the program.
Asserting that government schools are “starved of funding” when taxpayer subsidies actually have skyrocketed.
Claiming that budget-cutting austerity nations are doing worse than “stimulus” nations, but getting the numbers backwards.
Writing that the sequester will mean “deep automatic spending cuts” when the budget actually will climb by $2.4 trillion.
Claiming that Italy is more prosperous than the United States and that there is less poverty.
Asserting that U.S. multinationals pay little tax on foreign-source income, but forgetting to include the taxes paid to foreign governments.
Now there’s a new column by David Leonhardt that cries out for correction.

He’s very upset that upper-income people are enjoying higher incomes over time.

A…team of inequality researchers…has been getting some attention recently for a chart… It shows the change in income between 1980 and 2014 for every point on the distribution, and it neatly summarizes the recent soaring of inequality. …the very affluent, and only the very affluent, have received significant raises in recent decades. This line captures the rise in inequality better than any other chart or simple summary that I’ve seen. …only very affluent families — those in roughly the top 1/40th of the income distribution — have received…large raises. …The basic problem is that most families used to receive something approaching their fair share of economic growth, and they don’t anymore.

And here’s the chart that ostensibly shows that the economy is broken.



And what is the solution for this alleged problem? Class-warfare taxation and bigger government, of course.

…there is nothing natural about the distribution of today’s growth — the fact that our economic bounty flows overwhelmingly to a small share of the population. Different policies could produce a different outcome. My list would start with a tax code that does less to favor the affluent, a better-functioning education system, more bargaining power for workers and less tolerance for corporate consolidation.

Whenever I see this type of data, I’m automatically suspicious for two reasons.

The people at various income levels in 1980 aren’t the same as the people at those income levels in 2014. In other words, there is considerable income mobility, with some high-income people falling to the middle of the pack, or even below, and some low-income people climbing the middle of the income distribution, or even higher. At the very least, this type of chart exaggerates the degree to which “the rich are getting richer.”
Moreover, rich people getting rich doesn’t imply that poor people are losing income. This chart shows that all income percentiles generally enjoy more income with each passing year, so it isn’t grossly misleading like the charts that incorrectly imply income gains for the rich are at the expense of the poor. Nonetheless, a reader won’t have any way of knowing that more inequality and poverty reduction can go hand in hand.
But I think this chart from the New York Times inadvertently shows something very interesting.

As shown in the excerpt above, Mr. Leonhardt wants us to look at this data and support bigger government and class warfare.

Yet look at the annual data. The chart above has the numbers for 1980 and 2014. To the right, I’ve put together the numbers for 1987, 1996, and 2004.

One obvious conclusion is that prosperity (as shown by rising income levels) was much more broadly and equally shared in the 1980s and 1990s, back when the economy was moving in the direction of free markets and smaller government under both Reagan and Clinton.

But look at what happened last decade, and what’s been happening this decade. Government has been expanding (as measured by falling scores from Economic Freedom of the World).

And that’s the period, thanks to Bush-Obama statism, when lower-income people began to lag and income gains were mostly concentrated at the top of the income redistribution.

As the very least, this certainly suggests that Leonhardt’s policy agenda is misguided. Assuming, of course, the goal is to enable more prosperity for the less fortunate.

I’ll add another point. I suspect that big income gains for the rich in recent years are the result of easy-money policies from the Federal Reserve, which have – at least in part – pushed up the value of financial assets.

The bottom line is that Leonhardt seems motivated by ideology, so he bends the data in hopes of justifying his leftist agenda.

What makes this sad is that the New York Times used to be far more sensible.

Back in 1982, shortly after the Professors Hall and Rabushka unveiled their plan for a flat tax, here’s what the New York Times opined.

Who can defend a tax code so complicated that even the most educated family needs a professional to decide how much it owes? …President Reagan’s tax package will eventually roll back rates to the level of the late 1970’s, but it will not simplify the code or rid it of provisions that penalize hard work and reward unproductive investment. …the income base that is taxed has been so eroded by exceptions and preferences that the rates on what is left to tax must be kept high. Thus, the tax on an extra dollar of income for a typical family earning $20,000 is 28 percent and progressively higher for the more affluent. …The most dramatic fresh start, without changing the total amount collected, would be a flat-rate tax levied on a greatly broadened income base. Senator Helms of North Carolina would rid the law of virtually every tax preference and tax all income at about 12 percent. Representative Panetta of Cali-fornia would retain a few preferences and tax at a flat 19 percent. Either approach would greatly improve the efficiency of the system, simplifying calculations and increasing the incentive to earn.

And here’s what the editors wrote about Governor Jerry Brown’s modified flat tax in 199s. They started by praising the core principles of the flat tax.

Taking Jerry Brown seriously means taking his flat tax proposal seriously. Needlessly, he’s made that hard to do. By being careless, the former California Governor has bent a good idea out of shape. …Mr. Brown’s basic idea — creating a simplified code that encourages saving — is exactly right. …The present tax code is riddled with wasteful contradictions and complexity. For example, profit from corporate investment is taxed twice — when earned by the corporation and again when distributed to shareholders. That powerfully discourages savings and investment — the exact opposite of what the economy needs to grow. The remedy is, in a word, integration, meshing personal and corporate codes so that the brunt of taxes falls on consumption, not saving. …there is a reform that achieves all these objectives. Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka, economists at the Hoover Institution, have proposed an integrated code that applies a single rate to both personal and corporate income. Their plan wipes away most deductions and exemptions, permitting a low tax rate of 19 percent. …Under the Hall-Rabushka plan, individuals would pay taxes on earnings and corporations would pay tax on interest, dividends and profits. That way, every dollar of income would be taxed once and only once.

And they rightly criticized Governor Brown for violating those principles.

Jerry Brown borrowed some of the elements of Hall-Rabushka. He too would eliminate wasteful exemptions, adopt a single rate and favor saving by exempting corporate investment. But at that point, he turns glib. He would impose on corporations a value-added tax, similar to a national sales tax. That eliminates the elegant symmetry of Hall-Rabushka. Indirectly, Mr. Brown’s variation would tax some income twice — which is why his supposed 13 percent rate would collect revenue equal to about 20 percent of total income.

Wow, this isn’t what I would write, but it’s within shouting distance.

The editors back then understood the importance of low marginal tax rates and they recognized that double taxation is a bad thing.

Now check out what the New York Times believes today about tax reform.

First and foremost, the editors want more money taken from the productive economy to expand the D.C. swamp.

Real reform would honestly confront the fact that in the next decade we will need roughly $4.5 trillion more revenue than currently projected to meet our existing commitment…. Even more would be needed if the government were to make greater investments.

And even though class-warfare taxation is unlikely to generate much revenue, the editors want both higher tax rates and more double taxation.

…it would make sense to increase the top rates on them and eliminate a break on income from investments. …the richest 1 percent pay 33 percent of their total income in taxes; if rates were changed so they paid 40 percent, it would generate $170 billion of revenue in the first year.

The editors want to take one of the most anti-competitive features of the current system and make it even worse.

It would also be a good idea to scale back accelerated depreciation allowances that let businesses write off investments faster than assets actually wear out. Speedy write-offs for luxuries like corporate jets could be eliminated altogether.

They also want to further undermine the ability of U.S. companies to compete on a level playing field in foreign markets.

…they should agree to close…the ability of corporations to defer tax on profits earned abroad.

In a display of knee-jerk statism, the editors also want new tax burdens to finance an ever-larger burden of government. Such as an energy tax.

New forms of taxation are also needed. Even prominent Republicans like James Baker III, George Shultz and Henry Paulson Jr. support a carbon tax imposed on emissions to reduce greenhouse gases. …revenue generated by carbon taxes could be used for other purposes as well, including investments in renewable energy and public transportation.

And a tax on financial transactions.

Revenue can also be raised by imposing a tax on the trading of stocks, bonds and derivatives. …Estimates show that a financial transaction tax of even 0.01 percent per trade ($10 on a $100,000 trade) could raise $185 billion over 10 years, enough to finance prekindergarten for 3- and 4-year olds, with money left over.

But the granddaddy of new taxes would be the value-added tax, a money machine for bigger government.

A value-added tax would be akin to a national sales tax, but harder to evade than traditional sales taxes and thus an efficient revenue raiser.

I’m genuinely curious whether there is any type of tax increase the NYT wouldn’t support.

But that’s not really the point of this column. The real lesson is that it’s sad that the editors have gone from being rationally left to being ideologically left.

P.S. I confess that I especially enjoy when the New York Times inadvertently publishes pieces that show the benefits of free markets and personal liberty.

Accidentally showing the superiority of funded private retirement systems.
Revealing how feminist policies backfire against women.
Unintentionally showing the folly of gun control.
Which is sort of what happened with Leonhardt’s data, which shows more broadly shared prosperity when economic liberty was increasing.
_________________________
Liberal heads are exploding, so easy. Betty and Tommy sure got triggered.

Top
#1533627 --- 09/04/19 06:30 AM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 13049
Loc: Above ground
Proud of you man, copy and paste is a lot more mature than memes and cartoons. Now.....if you can post some articles relevant to 2019 adverse to 2 years ago seeing that there has been such a decline in terms of education, healthcare, morality, hate crime and lastly , a record number of White White House Staff(A huge lack of diversity) committing crimes and going to prison.

Top
#1533628 --- 09/04/19 06:44 AM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 13049
Loc: Above ground
https://www.thenation.com/article/tom-dispatch-trump-is-accelerating-americas-decline-china-russia/


We note consistent and recurring statement, our economy is striving yet at the same time every other fine quality adherent to American value has decline tremendously. I'm reminded of TV series from the 80s, very rich and powerful families but corrupted as hell. JR Ewing being a character of crime and corruption was void of compassion, empathy and love for his family is eerily just like Donald Trump.......it's sad when poor White voters are willing to stay in poverty because a crook and con man has convince them that he will be their savior, while the that are better off are sch hoarder and greedy, they can't envision people outside their circle having anything, thus support a man who promises to take it away from the chosen....the fools haven't figure out the logistic though....how do you take from a select few and not harm yourself in the mean time.

Top
#1533634 --- 09/04/19 02:12 PM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 11856
Loc: NY
Fake Poverty Data from the European Commission and New York Times
July 17, 2018 by Dan Mitchell

If you look at the top of your screen on my home page, you’ll notice that I have a collection of special pages such as the Bureaucrat Hall of Fame and examples of what happens when you mix government and sex.

I’m thinking of creating a new page, but I need a pithy way of describing leftists who lie about poverty. And there are plenty of them.

The United Nations.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
The Equal Welfare Association.
Germany’s Institute of Labor Economics.
The Obama Administration.
Today, we identify some additional members who are eligible for this disreputable club.

And we’ll start with the European Commission.

Here’s a chart from a recent report that supposedly shows poverty rates in various European nations.



If you compare the “at-risk-of-poverty rate” for various nations, you’ll notice some very odd outcomes.

For instance, the tiny tax haven of Luxembourg is one of the world’s wealthiest nations, yet it supposedly has more poverty than Hungary. And super-rich Switzerland has more poverty than Slovakia. And oil-rich Norway has more poverty than the Czech Republic.

Are all those rich nations in Western Europe really suffering from higher poverty rates than some of the Eastern European countries still recovering from communist rule?

Of course not. The chart is based on a big, fat lie.

And I know it’s a lie because if you look in the glossary at the end of the long report, you’ll see that the bureaucrats openly admit that their so-called poverty chart has nothing to do with poverty and nothing to do with living standards (I’ve underlined the most important parts).

Interestingly, the bureaucrats in Brussels included a chart in the study revealing the level of inaccuracy for each country.

Here’s a look at the dishonest poverty rate (the blue diamond) compared to a measure of “severe material deprivation” that presumably does a better job of showing the real number of poor people (the red diamond).



By the way, I’m not a huge fan of the European Commission’s measure of “severe material deprivation” since it includes variables such as having a car, a color TV, and the money to take a one-week vacation.

But that’s a separate story.

Let’s look at other new members of our club.

An Eduardo Porter column in the New York Times also used the dishonest definition of poverty.

How can it be that the United States spends so much money fighting poverty and still suffers one of the highest child poverty rates among advanced nations? One in five American children is poor by the count of LIS, a data archive tracking well-being and deprivation around the world. …the United States tolerated more child poverty in 2012 than 30 of the 35 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a grouping of advanced industrialized nations. The percentage of children who are poor is more than three times as high in the United States as it is in Norway or the Netherlands. America has a larger proportion of poor children than Russia.

And here’s a chart from the article that definitely makes the United States look bad.



But, unless you read the column carefully, you would have missed this all-important detail.

…international standards that set the poverty line at one-half the income of families on the middle rung of the income ladder.

In other words, everything in the article, and all the numbers in the chart, have nothing to do with actual poverty. Instead, we’re simply looking at an indirect measure of income distribution.

And the United States is made to look bad because our median income is generally much higher than it is in other nations.

How absurd.

You’ll think I’m joking, but you can dramatically reduce “poverty,” based on this dishonest definition, if you randomly kill rich people.

Let’s conclude by looking at the U.K.-based Guardian‘s article about supposed poverty in Hong Kong.

A record number of Hong Kong residents live in poverty, with one fifth of the population falling below the poverty line despite economic growth, according to new government figures. The number of people living below the poverty line rose to 1.35 million in 2016, about 20% of the city’s population. The number is the highest number of poor since the government began publishing statistics in 2009. Despite opulent wealth, Hong Kong is a deeply unequal society. …The number of poor rose despite the government raising the poverty line last year. For single person households it is set at HK$4,000 (£388). It is HK$9,000 (£873) for a two person home and HK$15,000 (£1,455) for a family of three.

There’s a small problem and big problem with this article. The small problem is that it states that the number of poor people increased “despite” an increase in the poverty line.

Huh?!?

If the government raises the threshold, of course it will seem like more people are poor. The article should replace “despite” with “because.”

Tom Worstall, writing for CapX, explains the big problem in the article.

One of the great injustices of our age is, as The Guardian reported…, that 20 per cent of the people in Hong Kong, one of the richest places on the planet, live in poverty. …The Guardian [is] waxing indignant over things it doesn’t understand. …there’s an important underlying point: inequality – not poverty – is being measured here. The international definition of poverty is less than $1.90 a day. There’s no one in Hong Kong on this at all, therefore there’s no poverty. …we’re told that the poverty line in Hong Kong is HK $4,000 per month (roughly £380) for an individual which certainly doesn’t seem like much. Yet when we plug that into a comparison of global incomes we find that, accounting for price differences across geography, it’s firmly in the top fifth of all global incomes. In other words, the poorest 20 per cent in Hong Kong are still find themselves in the richest 20 per cent of all humans.

Given the praise I’ve heaped on Hong Kong, I also can’t resist sharing this excerpt even though it’s a separate topic.

As Hong Kong so vividly demonstrates, the…economy in which the poverty line is defined as being rather rich by global standards must have something going for it. According to the World Bank’s figures, back in 1960 Hong Kong was at around the average level of income for the planet, with GDP per capita at a little over $400 (in 1960 dollars). Today the figure is slightly over $40,000 per head while the global average has only struggled up to $10,000 or so. An over performance by a factor of four isn’t that bad over half a century, is it?

Amen.

If we actually care about reducing genuine poverty, there’s no substitute for the miracle of compounding growth.

Which is why our friends on the left, if they actually cared about poor people (and I think most of them genuinely do care), should focus on growth rather than being fixated on redistribution.
_________________________
Liberal heads are exploding, so easy. Betty and Tommy sure got triggered.

Top
#1533635 --- 09/04/19 02:35 PM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 13049
Loc: Above ground
Promise, I won't laugh.....I lied, Forgot to give your source of data did you? Mainstream education at it's best.


http://freedomandprosperity.org/2018/blo...new-york-times/

Top
#1533640 --- 09/04/19 03:50 PM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 11856
Loc: NY
Yes, Comey Did Leak Classified Information
Byron York · Sep. 4, 2019

The new report from the Justice Department inspector general proves beyond any doubt that fired FBI Director James Comey leaked sensitive law enforcement material in the Trump-Russia investigation. Doing so set a “dangerous example” for the bureau’s other employees, Inspector General Michael Horowitz wrote.

Still, Comey’s supporters have claimed exoneration on one front: that Comey did not leak classified information. Some reacted angrily when President Trump tweeted that Comey had done so.

But Comey did, in fact, leak classified information. It’s right there in the report. It wasn’t much classified information, and it was perhaps not terribly important, and Justice Department officials concluded it was not worth prosecuting. But the fact is, Comey leaked classified material.

Comey implicitly recognized as much even as he claimed vindication. In a tweet, Comey quoted the report, saying: “DOJ IG ‘found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the memos to members of the media.’” To that, Comey added, “I don’t need a public apology from those who defamed me, but a quick message with a ‘sorry we lied about you’ would be nice.”

But the portion of the report Comey highlighted said he did not release classified information to members of the media. That’s true; Comey, through his friend and lawyer Daniel Richman, leaked sensitive but unclassified law enforcement material to the media. But it’s also true that Comey leaked classified information to his lawyers. Comey gave classified information to people who were not authorized to receive it.

Comey wrote seven memos about his interactions with President Trump. In June 2017, the month after Comey was fired, the FBI checked the memos to see if any contained classified information. From the report: “The FBI determined that Memos 1 and 3 contained information classified at the ‘SECRET’ level, and that Memos 2 and 7 contained small amounts of information classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level. The FBI designated Memos 4, 5, and 6 as unclassified ‘For Official Use Only.’”

Memo 4 was the one Comey leaked, through Richman, to The New York Times with the hope of setting off a firestorm that would result in the appointment of a special counsel. The inspector general concluded the leak violated Justice Department and FBI policy, as well as Comey’s terms of employment. But it had no classified material in it.

The problem for Comey was Memo 2, which he sent to Richman and also to Comey’s two other lawyers, Patrick Fitzgerald and David Kelley. “Of the memos Comey shared with his attorneys, Memo 2 contained six words that the FBI determined in June 2017 to be classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level,” the inspector general report said. In a footnote, the report added: “Four of the six words in Memo 2 that the FBI determined were classified were the names of foreign countries being discussed by the president. … The president referenced the countries when he conveyed his personal views on the relative importance of promptly returning telephone calls from the leadership of the named countries.”

Comey, who as director was something known as an OCA, or Original Classification Authority, had the power to classify material on his own. He did not classify Memo 2 at the time he wrote it, but an FBI team later determined it should have been classified. When the document was released to the public, portions were blacked out to reflect that classification.

Another indication of the material’s status as classified was that the FBI took extensive steps to remove it from the computers and devices of the three lawyers who received it. In June 2017 the FBI dispatched agents to Richman’s home to take away his desktop computer, returning it nine days later “after taking steps to permanently remove the memos from it,” the report said. Later, the FBI took steps to clean the other lawyers’ email accounts.

It was a lot of work. “The FBI wouldn’t have wasted time deleting copies of Memo 2 from Comey’s lawyers’ email accounts if it didn’t contain classified information,” a source familiar with the interactions between the FBI, the inspector general’s office, and oversight committees on Capitol Hill about the classified cleanup efforts told me. “There is no doubt Comey leaked that classified memo to his counsel, and oversight committees have known about the clean-up operation since it first occurred.”

Comey’s defenders can argue that just a few words on Memo 2 were classified. They can argue, as Comey apparently believes, that even those words should not have been classified. But the fact is, they were classified, and Comey sent them to unauthorized recipients, and after the FBI learned about it, the bureau took steps to clean up what it called a “spill” of classified material.

In the end, the Justice Department decided that given the small amount of classified material involved, and given that it was formally classified after Comey sent it, and given the difference of opinion on whether it should be classified at all, prosecuting Comey was not warranted. That’s the kind of judgment prosecutors make. But it doesn’t change the fact: Comey leaked classified information.

COPYRIGHT 2019 BYRON YORK
_________________________
Liberal heads are exploding, so easy. Betty and Tommy sure got triggered.

Top
#1533641 --- 09/04/19 03:53 PM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 13049
Loc: Above ground
Question son, how many crimes have Trump committed? Yet you GOP protect him while Comey states that the only reason trump wasn't arrested because he's a sitting president.

Top
#1533642 --- 09/04/19 03:55 PM Re: More winning... [Re: cwjga]
Formermac Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 13049
Loc: Above ground

Top
#1533643 --- 09/04/19 04:22 PM Re: More winning... [Re: Formermac]
Ben444 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 7689
Loc: Seneca County
Why is cwjga so afraid to provide a link? I assume he knows how to do it? Or is he as stupid as Trump?
_________________________
TRUMP AND HIS WHOLE FAMILY WILL BE IN JAIL BY 2020 election

Top
#1533644 --- 09/04/19 04:26 PM Re: More winning... [Re: Formermac]
Ben444 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/12/18
Posts: 7689
Loc: Seneca County
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Question son, how many crimes have Trump committed? Yet you GOP protect him while Comey states that the only reason trump wasn't arrested because he's a sitting president.
Trump lies many times a day and breaks laws almost daily. How in the hell can cwjga support such a person? I just don't understand it.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/did-tru...riking-alabama/

Did Trump just violate a federal law to avoid admitting he was wrong about Hurricane Dorian striking Alabama?
_________________________
TRUMP AND HIS WHOLE FAMILY WILL BE IN JAIL BY 2020 election

Top
#1533649 --- 09/04/19 07:02 PM Re: More winning... [Re: Formermac]
The Mechanic Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/24/11
Posts: 1198
Loc: NY
I actually paid less in taxes and ended up keeping more of the money I earned. Win-win! People with children saw their child credit doubled. A win-win for single parents. Many of them in the lower income bracket.

You lose, Bobby. People don't believe your lies. Trump has shown Barry Barack where the bear craps in the woods.
_________________________
Build the Wall! Trump 2020!

Top
Page 139 of 148 < 1 2 ... 137 138 139 140 141 ... 147 148 >