Mark Levin noted that, “The Democrats got what they wanted, ladies and gentlemen, making his announcement of the appointment of Mueller as special prosecutor / executioner to target President Trump in the hunt for a Russian witch.
Levin read the statement by Rosenstein, who Levin says buckled but some of us believe had a mission from the beginning. It would be interesting to learn the process by which he was selected for the position of Deputy Attorney General and who made the recommendation. Too much power and prominence has been placed into the hands of this nobody that we didn’t elect to be the minder for our President and AG Sessions.
He points out that despite all of the scandals and corruption of the Obama regime, including the “‘Iran Contra’ deal, the Hillary Clinton emails, the IRS or Fast and Furious,” to name a few. “The media in Washington are wetting themselves. The Democrats in Washington are wetting themselves but they won’t show it. They’ll find another reason to attack.”
Levin says, “They will definitely continue to attack with the Comey memo and keep claiming potential obstruction of justice and this has nothing to do with the appointment of a special counsel and this, that and all the rest.” He notes how it was “Just a matter of time, wasn’t it,” before the Democrats got their way. “
Levin recognizes the unusual nature of an address to the entire US Senate by the Deputy Attorney General that was set for the following day, saying, “I’ve never seen anything like that before. On the firing of Comey, he’s to brief all of the United States Senators, can you remember the last time that happened?”
His analysis continues, saying, “So all of this is to create a sort of breathtaking, environment of ‘lawlessness’ and ‘constitutional crisis.’ Now we have a special council, the Democrats will do fundraising into the ‘Russia Matter,’ unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.”
He warns that it’s going to take awhile, cause what happens here is, he’s got to get a budget, he’s got to staff his office, he has to come up to speed on what’s already been done. He will essentially be answerable to nobody. And so the Democrats have succeeded on this Russia issue, which they’ve been talking about now for months, to politically force the appointment of a special counsel less than four months into this presidency. Just think about that, less than four months into this presidency. The reporting leading up to this has been a disgrace, an absolute disgrace.”
Levin is right and this is a very big deal. Republicans and the President, it appears, never knew what hit em. We Americans have certainly been trying to warn them. We’ve got a major stake in this too, Mr. President. Remember us, the American people, the forgotten man that seems to be being forgotten again? What good is it to win elections when the enemy staffs the White House and that enemy plants another of their agents in a position to intimidate and control the President? Coups don’t always involve a change in the government, sometimes they involve preventing that change from ever taking place.
By Rick Wells
Congressman Jim Jordan shares the concerns of many who don’t trust either Robert Mueller or James Comey any further than they can throw them. The meat of the interview with Jordan starts at about the 1:52 mark in thevideo, with him asked if Mueller was the best choice for a special prosecutor. The questioner makes quite an assumption that there is any legitimacy to any special prosecutor being appointed to conduct this witch hunt. It’s a point that doesn’t escape Jordan.
He replies, “Look, I have an open mind, we’ll see, he’s had an outstanding career serving our country.” With the compulsory niceties out of the way, Jordan follows by saying, “I will tell you the one major interaction I had with former Director Mueller was, frankly, kind of disappointing from my standpoint. It was about four years ago, when the IRS targeting scandal broke. It had been in the news for several weeks and we happened to have Director Mueller in front of the Judiciary Committee. And I asked him a series of questions and he couldn’t answer anything about the investigation.”
Jordan notes, “It was at that time the most important story in the country. You had an agency with the power and the might of the IRS systematically targeting people for exercising their First Amendment free speech rights and he couldn’t tell me who the lead investigator was, how many agents were on the case, did he put his best agents on the case, a case of this magnitude that the ‘president’ at the time had said was critically important, that then-Attorney General Holder said ‘we’re going to get to the bottom of this,’ and the FBI Director couldn’t tell me anything about it?”
Kennedy asks the obvious question, “Ok do you think that was obstruction or incompetence because I think there’s an important distinction there.” Jordan says he doesn’t know the answer to that question but he does know that he wants to get all of the information. He says, “I want to get the full memo that was the Comey memo, but not just that memo, what took place around it. I’d like to know did Mr. Comey also memorialize conversations he had with key Justice Department officials, maybe the day after Loretta Lynch meets with Bill Clinton on the tarmac.”
Jordan continues, “I’d like to know did he memorialize conversations he had with key Justice Department officials the day they decided to give Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson immunity deals. I’d like to know if those things took place too.”
Jordan expects Comey to testify before the Oversight Committee next week. Stressing the importance of context and consistency, Jordan asks, “Did Mr. Comey only memorialize conversations in and about President Trump or did he also memorialize conversations about other, equally or certainly big, important issues like the Clinton investigation, like the [IRS]. How about the fact that when they made the decision not to prosecute Lois Lerner or anyone in the IRS targeting scandal, were there conversations that were memorialized about those decisions? That’s something we need to know, because if there weren’t, and it was only about conversations he had with President Trump, then that should tell us something. And that’s something that we as a Congress and the American people need to know.”
Published on May 11, 2017
Find More @ http://www.DailyRushbo.com
By Naomi Jagoda
With the deadline for tax reform slipping, some prominent conservatives are pressing President Trump and congressional Republicans to change course.
Trump and the GOP have been pushing forward with efforts to make tax changes to both the individual and corporate tax systems in a single bill, with a goal of enacting them by August.
But the late summer target looks increasingly unlikely, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin admitting this week that the timeline has become “highly aggressive to not realistic.”
With Republicans are desperate to notch a big legislative win under Trump, several voices in the conservative world are pushing for a new approach.
In a New York Times op-ed on Wednesday, Steve Forbes, Larry Kudlow, Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore — cofounders of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity and advisers to Trump’s campaign — argued that a business-only tax cut bill would be the easiest way for Trump to score a legislative achievement early in his presidency.
They said that Trump shouldn’t tackle comprehensive tax reform in one pass. Instead, Republicans should first work on a bill that makes tax changes for businesses and includes infrastructure funding to make it attractive to Democrats. They then could tackle individual income tax reform in 2018.
“Republicans need to act with some degree of urgency. The financial markets and American businesses are starting to get jittery over the prospect that a tax cut won’t get done this year,” the campaign advisers wrote. “A failure here would be negative for the economy and the stock market and could stall out the ‘Trump bounce’ we have seen since the president’s election.”
The influential conservatives have been making the case for Trump to start with business tax cuts for a while. But their op-ed in the Times is their most high-profile effort to date and could catch Trump’s attention as he seeks to get his agenda back on track after the failure of healthcare legislation last month.
In an interview with The Hill, Moore said that one purpose of the op-ed was to “focus the White House on what we can get done.”
Moore said that Democrats don’t have much interest in signing onto a comprehensive tax-reform bill, and “it’s almost impossible to do broad-based tax reform with just one party signing on to it,” since there will be pushback from interest groups.
Laffer told The Hill that cutting the corporate tax rate “would stimulate the economy enormously.” While tax changes for individuals will take a while to negotiate, “this corporate thing can be done in minutes,” he said.
Moore said that he’s discussed his ideas with the White House and lawmakers and received mixed feedback. The White House isn’t on board yet, but some lawmakers think that perhaps “the narrow focus gets you the most votes,” he said.
Trump and leading congressional Republicans have sought to pass a comprehensive tax bill. House Republicans are working on a comprehensive tax-reform bill based off a plan they released in June, and the White House is planning to release its own tax reform plan to benefit both businesses and the middle class.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), the point man for tax legislation in the House, this week said he hopes Congress doesn’t begin by only cutting taxes for businesses.
“There’s growth on the family and individual side as well,” he said on Fox News Tuesday.
Brady added that the American public has a great interest in a simpler, fairer tax code and that tax changes for individuals “can help us move the tax cuts and reforms forward on the business side.”
But the House GOP plan faces significant hurdles, since one of its central elements — a border-adjustment proposal to tax imports and exempt exports — has encountered opposition from retailers and many senators.
Forbes, Kudlow, Laffer and Moore said House Republicans need to abandon border adjustability because it’s too controversial.
“It divides the very business groups that the party needs to rally behind tax reform,” they wrote in the Times.
They also argued, in contrast to congressional GOP leaders, that tax changes don’t need to be revenue-neutral. But there are procedural challenges to passing tax cuts that increase the deficit.
Congressional Republicans have expressed interest in passing tax-reform legislation through budget reconciliation, which would allow the bill to pass the Senate with only Republican votes. However, bills passed through reconciliation cannot increase the deficit outside of the 10-year budget window.
A bill that did not offset the cost of the tax cuts would have to expire after 10 years, unless Republicans could win the support of at least eight Senate Democrats — a difficult task that could prove impossible.
Moore said that including infrastructure funding in a corporate tax bill would be a way to get Democrats on board, though he’s not sure the bill could get support from eight Democratic senators. That would depend on whether Democrats simply want to reject anything that Trump wants to do, he said.
Moore also said that he would prefer permanent tax cuts to cuts that expire, but “a 10-year tax cut would stimulate the economy a lot” and it would be “very unlikely” that Congress would let the current 35 percent corporate tax rate return after 10 years.
Leaders of the House Republicans’ tax-reform effort have argued that tax changes should be permanent. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a February interview with “PBS NewsHour” that a temporary business tax cut “produces a lot of uncertainty for businesses.”
Alan Cole, an economist at the Tax Foundation, said that a temporary cut to the corporate tax rate would do little to encourage businesses to make long-term investments in the U.S.
“If the higher rate is still there in the future, you don’t have that incentive to embark in a long-term project,” he said.
Cole also said that it would be tricky to cut taxes for “pass through” businesses whose income is taxed through the individual tax code without making other changes to the individual code.
“It’s really awkward to separate pass-through businesses from the rest of the individual income tax,” he said.
17 Apr 2017Washington, D.C.
While Americans are scrambling to meet the 2016 tax filing deadline, the number of illegal immigrants submitting their returns in the present climate are reportedly down significantly. Also, a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report exposing significant refund fraud has “most certainly contributed to it,” says the taxpayer advocate department within the IRS.
The Internal Revenue Service stated that millions of people who do not have Social Security numbers (SSN), most of these illegal aliens, filed federal tax returns last year, reported NPR the day before the tax deadline. Many of those who are ineligible for SSN use “ITIN,” or Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers when filing.
The Taxpayer Advocate Service, an independent organization within the IRS, reports that “Without ITINs, approximately 4.6 million taxpayers would not be able to comply with their annual tax filing and payment obligations, or receive tax benefits to which they are legally entitled.”
The advocate service states that ITIN applications and “associated return filings” “have dropped precipitously, down 58 percent between 2011 and 2014.” They write that the “general economic climate and immigration trends” explain part of this drop, but the “IRS ITIN procedures have most certainly contributed to it.”
After the TIGTA report “alleging significant refund fraud connected to ITINS,” in 2012 the IRS made what its independent advocacy service calls “sweeping changes that require applicants to submit original identification documents (subject to a few alternatives).”
The IRS has also continued its policy of requiring applicants to apply for an ITIN with a paper tax return.
The new requirements led to delays for the ITIN applicants and associated large backlogs, the Taxpayer Advocate Services says. The independent arm charges that “While concerns about refund fraud are legitimate, the IRS’s solutions do not effectively target the fraud nor do they balance the anti-fraud regime with the taxpayer’s need for a process no more intrusive than necessary, part of a taxpayer’s right to privacy.”
Moreover, NPR reported that tax preparers in the sanctuary city San Francisco area told them there is approximately a 20 percent decline in the number of people filing with ITIN numbers. A tax law professor at the University of Nevada said that tax preparers in other parts of the United States are making similar claims.
“Sending in a tax return with your current address and information is very unnerving to a population that wants to comply with the law and is actually leaving significant refunds on the table by not filing tax returns,” educator Francine Lipman said.
The IRS is barred from giving information it has obtained to other United States agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security. They may share information only under “limited circumstances” NPR reported. The professor says that those bearing ITIN numbers must decide “whether to trust that firewall.”
“Many of our clients are telling us that in years past they felt more hope and more of ability to have a pathway toward citizenship and lately there’s a lot less hope,” Max Moy-Borgen, the head of a tax program at the Mission Economic Development Agency told NPR.