The details of this NY Times story are bananas. So let's review, and imagine Kamala Harris reacting, shall we?
2014: "After tabulating all the profits and losses from Mr. Trump’s various endeavors on Form 1040, the accountants came to Line 56, where they had to enter the total income tax the candidate was required to pay. They needed space for only a single figure.
Zero."
America First? "In 2017, the president’s $750 contribution to the operations of the U.S. government was dwarfed by the $15,598 he or his companies paid in Panama, the $145,400 in India and the $156,824 in the Philippines."
"Also hanging over him is a decade-long audit battle with the Internal Revenue Service over the legitimacy of a $72.9 million tax refund that he claimed, and received, after declaring huge losses. An adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million."
On write-offs: "Likewise the cost of haircuts, including the more than $70,000 paid to style his hair during 'The Apprentice.'"
"he is personally responsible for loans and other debts totaling $421 million, with most of it coming due within four years. Should he win re-election, his lenders could be placed in the unprecedented position of weighing whether to foreclose on a sitting president.
"Ultimately, Mr. Trump has been more successful playing a business mogul than being one in real life."
Worth reading the entire article to understand what a cluster of national security risk and theft is swirling around Donald Trump.
January 6th Committee Hearing 7 - Chairman Thompson is gaveling in
"When I think about the most basic way to explain the importance of elections in the United States, there's a phrase that always comes to mind...we settle our differences at the ballot box." - Rep. Thompson
"When you're on the losing side...you can protest, you can organize, you can get ready for the next election...but you can't turn violent. You can't try to achieve your desired outcome through force or harassment or intimidation." - Rep. Thompson
Jacobson v. Mass is a Supreme Court case from 1905. Massachusetts had a law stating that the board of health or a city or town could “require and enforce the vaccinations and revaccination of all inhabitants thereof.”
The fine for noncompliance was $5. Physicians could certify certain children as “unfit subjects for vaccination.”
Agree with Branden that the language around this has been imprecise. It is a sweeping action, AND testing is an alternative to vaccination. And, there's a lot of other stuff in this plan that isn't getting much coverage:
The administration is using the Defense Production Act to increase the availability of testing. Rapid, at-home tests will be sold at cost for 3 months via Walmart, Amazon, Kroger. The administration is sending 25 million rapid tests fo community health centers and food banks.
The free testing program is expanding to 10,000 pharmacies. Basically, a lot of money and resources are being aimed at expanding the availability, convenience, and discipline around testing (editorial comment: hallelujah. I wish we had done this 2 years ago -b).
Tomorrow on the podcast, my friend Brian (in Sarah's absence-enjoy the vacation, Sarah!) & I briefly discuss the corporate fallout from Georgia's elections legislation. I have a little more I would like to say about this, with help from America's favorite pastime.
I've read so many "is it really voter suppression?" takes over the past few days. I would so much like to exit the Take Economy.
As we've said before, there are elements of this (big ole) bill that are desirable... Like allowing officials to start processing absentee ballots earlier.