Politics

Critical Race Theory's Opponents Are Sure It's Bad. Whatever It Is.

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=60003">Samuel Hoadley-Brill, The Washington Post</a>

Sunday, 04 July 2021 12:49

Hoadley-Brill writes: "Attacks on critical race theory are everywhere these days: Its detractors claim that the academic movement is 'planting hatred of America in the minds of the next generation' and 'advocating the abhorrent viewpoint that Blacks should forever be regarded as helpless victims,' and say that it might even qualify as 'child abuse.'"

Signs opposing critical race theory line the entrance to the Loudoun County school board headquarters in Ashburn, Va., on June 22. (photo: Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

Critical Race Theory's Opponents Are Sure It's Bad. Whatever It Is

By Samuel Hoadley-Brill, The Washington Post

04 July 21

The movement�s critics demonize it, then dismiss it.

ttacks on critical race theory are everywhere these days: Its detractors claim that the academic movement is �planting hatred of America in the minds of the next generation� and �advocating the abhorrent viewpoint that Blacks should forever be regarded as helpless victims,� and say that it might even qualify as �child abuse.�

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) held up the Senate confirmation of one of President Biden�s nominees �because of her history promoting radical critical race theorists,� Hawley�s spokeswoman said. Delivering a speech in June pretty clearly aimed at bolstering his political prospects, former vice president Mike Pence said that �critical race theory teaches children as young as kindergarten to be ashamed of their skin color.�

Wrong.

�The critical race theory (CRT) movement,� explain legal scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, �is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power.� Its most direct academic origins can be found in the work of the late Harvard law professor Derrick Bell, who rigorously challenged mainstream liberal narratives of steady racial progress, illustrating how landmark legislation � the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 � failed to deliver liberty and justice for Black Americans.

The concept is certainly left-leaning, and it shakes up the traditional story of America as the unalloyed land of the free. But its central contention isn�t particularly radical or difficult to grasp. Far from preaching anti-Whiteness or Black victimhood, or rejecting individual rights, critical race theorists seek to explain how our laws and institutions � colorblind in theory � continue to circumscribe the rights of racial minorities. In the post-Jim Crow, post-Brown v. Board era, they ask, why and how do race and racism continue to play a constitutive role in America?

What developed as a framework for interrogating racial dynamics in American legal institutions influenced academics in neighboring disciplines, notably including sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva�s conceptualization of �color-blind racism,� philosopher Charles W. Mills�s notion of a �racial contract� and education scholar Gloria Ladson-Billings�s analysis of the racial achievement gap. These works helped reinforce the insight that our country�s severe racial inequities are deeply embedded in social structures, so any serious attempts to rectify our racist history will necessarily involve structural reform; diversity seminars are not reparations.

Today, elite law schools across the country offer courses in critical race theory. Yale Law regularly hosts a critical race theory conference, and UCLA Law�s critical race studies program organizes an annual symposium with speakers from various disciplines. Contrary to critics who�ve portrayed the idea as mere leftist folderol, these are scholarly efforts to assess the impact of race in the law and society. As an academic school of thought, you can take critical race theory or leave it � and many do.

For some, the idea that American justice isn�t completely colorblind, or that �racism� can mean more than explicit, individual hatred, is simply a bridge too far. But often, rather than constructively engaging critical race theorists� core argument, many conservatives have preferred to contort the theory in order to claim that it is itself racist, applying their trumped-up definition to nearly any kind of discussion of racial injustice in America. And then they attack that as un-American � or worse.

On Newsmax TV, former Bill Clinton adviser Dick Morris suggested that for biracial kids with a White father and a Black mother, critical race theory might �reinforce the Oedipal notion all kids have of wanting to kill their father and marry their mother.� Televangelist Pat Robertson asserted that CRT declares �people of color have to rise up and overtake their oppressors� and �instruct their White neighbors how to behave.� Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) tweeted, �Critical Race Theory destroys unit cohesion necessary to win in combat and defend this nation.�

Some of this traces back to the work of the Manhattan Institute�s Christopher Rufo, whose influence on the right has waxed as he pursues a self-declared �one-man war against critical race theory,� publishing a raft of articles this year alone. In May, Rufo boasted of his new influence, tweeting that his D.C. trip itinerary included a speech to House Republicans and meetings with the staffs of GOP Sens. Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton and Hawley. He has suggested that the ideology of the Ku Klux Klan is �a simple transposition of critical race theory�s basic tenets.�

The goal seems to be to banish, if not to ban, all critical discussion of the impact of race in American life today. Consider Rufo�s insistence in a recent tweet that any school district material invoking the concepts of �Whiteness, White privilege, White fragility, Oppressor/oppressed, Intersectionality, Systemic racism, Spirit murder, Equity, Antiracism, Collective guilt [or] Affinity spaces� is guilty of teaching critical race theory.

He�s among the culture warriors whose vilifications of critical race theory rarely make an effort to grapple with a straightforward proposition: that our facially neutral system of laws can and does produce unjust racial disparities, such as those we see in sentencing and in police violence. And his crusade has trickled down. In December, Turning Point USA�s Charlie Kirk, an activist who once toured with Donald Trump Jr., defined critical race theory as the belief that �racism is in the air, it�s in our bones, it�s in our DNA�; the idea, in his words, that �no progress has been made whatsoever� on race; one that is taking �the racism that once existed in the American South, and now weaponizing it against people that looked like the people that used to be the terrorists,� pushing the �belief that there are no individuals� and �trying to destroy� Western civilization; and �the most racist thing that is being spread in popular life in America � it is no different than the teaching of the KKK.�

For most, the moral panic around critical race theory isn�t that intense, but the phrase can still be a stand-in for those who chafe at even the notion of systemic racism. Think of the aggrieved letter written by a parent at New York�s Brearley School, and published by polemicist Bari Weiss, ripping the school for �adopting critical race theory� and shrinking systemic racism to this definition: �Systemic racism, properly understood, is segregated schools and separate lunch counters. It is the interning of Japanese and the exterminating of Jews. .?.?. We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s.�

No critical race theorist denies that there is a debate to be had about the contours of systemic racism; none would dispute that debates about systemic or institutional racism have moved beyond law school classrooms. But having those discussions isn�t planting anti-White hatred or resigning people of color to perpetual status as victims of it. And teaching the history of racial movements, tensions and atrocities � and why their impact is still felt today � isn�t indoctrination; it�s part of a basic introduction to American history, which should take place before a fruitful conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of critical race theory can get off the ground.

No one on the right can credibly say �racism is a thing of the past� or �America is a colorblind society� because that kind of blanket statement rings hollow when the last hundred years have been bookended by the Tulsa massacre and the murder of George Floyd. Nor can they flatly submit that difficult conversations about race are out of bounds. Instead, they aim their objections at an academic-sounding theory that connotes patriotically incorrect elitism.

�Critical race theory� has become familiar enough for figures on the right to use it as an almost comically broad catchall: In a two-minute span on the Senate floor, Hawley said the theory �appears to have become the animating ideology� of Biden�s administration and that anti-racist scholar Ibram X. Kendi advocates �state sanctioned racism.� But the phrase remains just unfamiliar enough to excuse most of its critics from articulating their specific objections: When Kendi says, �The heartbeat of racism is denial,� instead of offering good-faith counterarguments, many of his skeptics write him off as an anti-White race hustler. They�re less apt to point out that he devotes a chapter of his book �How to Be an Antiracist� to criticizing anti-White racism. Or to note that Kendi, who acknowledges critical race theory�s influence, doesn�t identify as a critical race theorist.

Arguably the greatest success of this disinformation campaign has been its ability to convince parents across the country that critical race theory poses a real threat in the classroom. (As if grade-schoolers nationwide are suddenly unpacking the relationship between redlining and today�s racial wealth gap.) Loudoun County, Va., parent Shawntel Cooper�s characterization of the theory as �a tactic that was used by Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan� secured her an interview with Fox News�s Tucker Carlson. Tatiana Ibrahim, a parent in Carmel, N.Y., accused the school district there of implementing �Black Panther indoctrination,� �teaching our children to go out and murder our police officers,� and �demoralizing� students �by teaching them communist values.� She, too, landed a Fox interview.

Some people see it as their duty to defend a stock American narrative against the complicating realities of racism and inequality � fair enough. But there�s a difference between rejecting an analytical framework and wholly misrepresenting it. And between intellectual criticism and race-baiting demagoguery.

By this point, the campaign against the theory, and the phrase, isn�t even camouflaged. In March, Rufo tweeted: �We have successfully frozen their brand � �critical race theory� � into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category.� �To win the war against wokeness,� he wrote in April, �we have to create persuasive language. From now on, we should refer to critical race theory in education as �state-sanctioned racism.� That�s the new weapon in the language war.� (This past week, he dialed the idea back in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, making the narrower case that the �Battle Over Critical Race Theory� isn�t about some �exercise in promoting racial sensitivity or understanding history,� but rather, he says, about shunning a �radical ideology.�)

It�s plain. Today�s attacks on critical race theory aren�t meant to rebut its main arguments. They�re meant to paint it with such broad brushstrokes that any basic effort to reckon with the causes and impact of racism in our society can be demonized and dismissed.

2 comments

Americans Are More Open to Socialism Than Ever

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50468">Luke Savage, Jacobin</a>

Sunday, 04 July 2021 12:49

Savage writes: "The formation of political identity is ultimately a lot more complicated than what's implied by the oft-assumed trajectory from youthful idealism to hardheaded maturity."

Democratic socialists on the march. (photo: Alice Bacon/DSA)

Americans Are More Open to Socialism Than Ever

By Luke Savage, Jacobin

04 July 21

Socialism is now a real part of the political landscape � while �capitalism� has never been more unpopular.

f you�re not a liberal when you�re twenty-five, you have no heart. If you�re not a conservative by the time you�re thirty-five, you have no brain.� Winston Churchill never actually said these words. But, if they continue to live on as a popular slogan, it�s probably because they capture a common attitude about the correlation between political idealism and age. The young, or so this story goes, are invariably drawn to the novelty and transgression of progressive or even radical ideas � a disposition that usually dissipates with age. There�s a decidedly unsubtle, patronizing implication here, the idea being that conservatism is arrived at through experience and is thus synonymous with maturity.

Anecdotally, at least, there are real reasons for people to assume politicization works this way � among them the trajectory of the generation that began to come of age in the 1960s. The actual empirical evidence, however, suggests a lot more variation in the political values (and voting habits) of the young, old, and middle-aged alike. In 1980, Ronald Reagan basically drew even with Jimmy Carter when it came to voters between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine � winning the same demographic in a landslide upon reflection four years later. Margaret Thatcher actually got more support in her 1983 electoral rout from those between thirty-five and forty-four than from people over sixty-five and also won more than 40 percent of first-time voters.

The formation of political identity is ultimately a lot more complicated than what�s implied by the oft-assumed trajectory from youthful idealism to hardheaded maturity. The collective experiences of particular generations and groups of people can make them more or less radical or conservative depending on the circumstances. In this respect, the findings of a new Axios/Momentive survey are striking but in many ways unsurprising.

Conducted in mid-June among more than two thousand adults over the age of eighteen, the poll�s topline finding is that just half of Americans (49 percent) ages eighteen to thirty-four now hold a positive view of capitalism � a precipitous drop from only two years ago, when the figure was some 20 points higher. Among those eighteen to twenty-four, only 42 percent now have a positive view of capitalism, while 54 percent hold a negative view. Even Republicans in the same age bracket exhibited a similar trend: the share who currently view capitalism in a favorable light is now 66 percent (down from 81 percent in January 2019).

Overall, there has been a small uptick in the percentage of Americans with a favorable view of socialism � one powered, according to Axios�s survey, primarily by black Americans and women. Here, the picture is a bit more textured and ambiguous:

While perceptions of capitalism have changed rapidly among young adults, perceptions of socialism have changed more incrementally among all age groups. Slightly fewer young adults now than in 2019 say they have a positive view of socialism (51% now vs. 55% in 2019). But that dip is offset by slight increases in the number of adults ages 35-64 and 65+ who say they have a favorable view of socialism.

Despite an overall increase, favorable perceptions of socialism remain in the minority (41 percent positive versus 52 percent negative). However, the picture again gets more complicated when broken down into specific questions. This should come as no surprise, given the stigma successfully attached to the word during the Cold War. For example, 66 percent of Americans agree that the federal government should legislate policies that aim to reduce the gap between the poor and the wealthy (once again, there�s been a startling shift among younger Republicans here: two years ago, only 40 percent favored such policies. Today, the figure is 56 percent.) This is consistent with other polls showing majority levels of support for policies like Medicare for All and various new taxes on the rich � even those not inclined toward �socialism� as a broad signifier are perfectly amenable to many of the things socialists these days advocate.

Across every age group, but especially among the young, it�s easy to see why Americans� general views of capitalism have been deteriorating amid a renewed interest in both social democratic policies and socialism as a broad alternative. The coronavirus pandemic, much like the 2008�9 financial crisis, has underscored yet again how hierarchical, unfair, and often brutal the current political and economic consensus really is. Millions are drowning in student debt while facing bleak job prospects. Rents are soaring. As millions more face a brutal and precarious job market, billionaire wealth has spiked dramatically.

When the system around them is so obviously dysfunctional, people intuitively look for alternatives. The bottom line, according to Axios�s Felix Salmon: �Politicians looking to attack opponents to their left can no longer use the word �socialist� as an all-purpose pejorative. Increasingly, it�s worn as a badge of pride.�

3 comments

FOCUS: The Rest of the World Is Worried About America

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58811">Ezra Klein, The New York Times</a>

Sunday, 04 July 2021 11:51

Klein writes: "This weekend, American skies will be aflame with fireworks celebrating our legacy of freedom and democracy, even as Republican legislature after Republican legislature constricts the franchise and national Republicans have filibustered the expansive For The People Act. It will be a strange spectacle."

Trump supporters storm the grounds of the US Capitol on 6 January. (photo: Michael Reynolds/EPA)

The Rest of the World Is Worried About America

By Ezra Klein, The New York Times

04 July 21

his weekend, American skies will be aflame with fireworks celebrating our legacy of freedom and democracy, even as Republican legislature after Republican legislature constricts the franchise and national Republicans have filibustered the expansive For The People Act. It will be a strange spectacle.

It is hard to view your own country objectively. There is too much cant and myth, too many stories and rituals. So over the past week, I�ve been asking foreign scholars of democracy how the fights over the American political system look to them. These conversations have been, for the most part, grim.

�I�m positive that American democracy is not what Americans think it is,� David Altman, a political scientist in Chile, told me. �There is a cognitive dissonance between what American citizens believe their institutions are and what they actually are.�

6 comments

FOCUS: How Much Jail Time Is Allen Weisselberg Facing if He Doesn't Flip on Trump?

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=60002">Martin J. Sheil, Slate</a>

Sunday, 04 July 2021 10:47

Sheil writes: "Trump's 'eyes and ears' took a pounding in court on Thursday with a 15-count indictment that spanned tax fraud, grand larceny, conspiracy, and more."

Allen Weisselberg leaves his hearing at the criminal court in lower Manhattan on Thursday. (photo: Timothy A. Clary/Getty Images)

How Much Jail Time Is Allen Weisselberg Facing if He Doesn't Flip on Trump?

By Martin J. Sheil, Slate

04 July 21

rump�s �eyes and ears� took a pounding in court on Thursday with a 15-count indictment that spanned tax fraud, grand larceny, conspiracy, and more. The 73-year-old accountant who, it has been said, knows essentially where every penny goes regarding the Trump Organization, took a beating and will now have some big decisions to make that will impact how he chooses to live the rest of his life and how other members of his family may live theirs. And then there is the matter of Allen Weisselberg�s loyalty to the head of the Trump Organization, the entity that was also indicted yesterday, and the potential impact the chief financial officer�s full cooperation may have on the public life of former President Donald Trump.

Undoubtedly, after seeing the indictment filed by the Manhattan district attorney and New York state attorney general, Weisselberg�s first question to his legal defense team was: How much jail time am I looking at? It is that question that may shape the future of all of the associated individuals and organizations. It requires peering not only into the current charges and the language of the indictment, however. It also requires knowing what the indictment may signal about prosecutors� next steps in ratcheting up their pressure.

While the number of counts in the indictment (15) sounds menacing, the only real numbers that count are those that drive the sentencing guidelines calculations. And that is why there are a surplus of numbers referenced in the indictment. The amounts of income that Weisselberg received and evaded reporting to the taxing authorities and included in the indictment charges are one thing. The cumulative totals of income received and unreported plus the total taxes evaded on the federal, state, and New York City level will be counted and then referenced in the sentencing guidelines to arrive at a baseline sentencing exposure level, usually calculated in months to serve in prison for discussion at the sentencing hearing.

Whatever the baseline figure is will then be adjusted upward and downward and therein lies the rub and why Weisselberg has a difficult hand. He has three options:

(1) fight the charges and risk conviction after trial (most likely two to six years or higher in state prison),

(2) plead guilty but do not cooperate with the prosecutors (likely as much as a year in state prison),

(3) plead guilty and cooperate (likely probation and payment of civil fines).

Under option 2, Weisselberg can obtain a pretty significant reduction if he falls on his sword and makes a full admission�acceptance of responsibility. But that still likely leaves him with some jail time to serve, which is why the prosecutors charged him with what they did.

The only other substantive reduction to sentence left Weisselberg would then be through door No. 3: full cooperation with the ongoing investigation and prosecution of all crimes associated with the Trump Organization and by those officials associated with it. Should the erstwhile CFO choose this option and in fact fully and truthfully testify as to where all the bodies are located, then the accountant might skate in terms of jail time. He would still likely be on probation and would also be looking at significant back taxes and penalties, but he and his family would have avoided any risk of Rikers�something that other Trump executives may well have to endure.

A leading expert and former federal and New York state prosecutor, Daniel R. Alonso, told us:

These are the kinds of dollar amounts that ordinarily carry jail time in Manhattan courts. If he pleads guilty and cooperates, he has an excellent chance of a probationary sentence. If he goes to trial and is convicted, it is very likely that he would be sentenced to state prison time�at least a term of 1�3 but more likely 2�6 years or higher. And if he pleads guilty without cooperating, it will depend on the judge, but I would think any judge would be hard-pressed not to mete out at least some incarceration on a case involving $900,000 in fraud. If he�s able to persuade the judge that the amount really shouldn�t be that high, then perhaps he has a better chance. The DA�s decision to charge fraud against the IRS was brilliant in that it made the case about much higher dollar figures, and therefore, much higher likelihood of incarceration.

What are other factors that Weisselberg must now consider?

Strength of Case Going to Trial

Count if you will the number of times the indictment uses the word �conceal� up unto the final sentence. Concealment is the embodiment of intent when it comes to tax fraud. The prosecution must be able to provide evidence of intent�that Weisselberg willfully acted in a manner to evade the tax laws. Evidence of intent is found in overt acts taken by the tax evader to conceal or secrete, and are defined in a seminal federal criminal tax case called Spies v. United States (pronounced �Speez�). The Supreme Court found in that case that overt acts of intent such as maintaining a double set of books and records, submitting false invoices, falsifying records, disguising payments off the books, and the like make up what has become known as �Spies type� evasions of intent.

The New York indictment appears to cover many of these examples of intent. What is particularly damaging in my opinion is the reference to an internal set of spreadsheets or records that document the actual total receipt of compensation not captured by the wage statements (W-2 forms) prepared and issued to the employee and the tax agencies. This recording of off-the-books compensation that is then omitted from the W-2 occurs time and time again: the use of Mercedes-Benz vehicles by both Mr. and Mrs. Weisselberg, the rent-free apartment in Manhattan, the payment of utilities and garage space for parking, the purchase of big-screen television sets, carpeting and furniture for the Weisselbergs� personal residences, and the payment of private school tuition in the hundreds of thousands of dollars from the coffers of the Trump Organization as well as from Donald Trump�s personal account for the Weisselbergs� grandchildren.

Allen Weisselberg not only received off-the-books compensation in the hundreds of thousands of dollars as part of his annual salary of $940,000, but he was also the person responsible for the preparation of the Trump Organization books, records, and payroll accounting to track all compensation. The free apartment, for example, was not booked in the Trump Organization�s general ledger as employee compensation but was instead labeled and deducted as �rent expense� in the general ledger. The indictment pinpoints one occasion where Weisselberg directed a staff member in the accounting department to remove the notation �Per Allen Weisselberg� from the entries in Donald J. Trump�s Detail General Ledger relating to tuition payments paid on Weisselberg�s behalf for tuition to a private school.

In short, this kind of evidence suggests a very strong case for the prosecution.

Potential Criminal Cases Against Other Weisselberg Family Members

Prosecutors conspicuously made references throughout the indictment to other Weisselberg family members who received what appears to be untaxed benefits. This includes Weisselberg�s wife who was provided her own Mercedes-Benz as well as furniture and carpeting for private residences. Did she know that these benefits were untaxed? Did she willfully and knowingly sign a false joint tax return? Does Allen want to take a chance that his wife will not be prosecuted?

What about Weisselberg�s son Barry who ran the Trump Wollman skating rink and whose son was the beneficiary of the private school tuition payments? Did Barry report the benefits on his tax return? What about his rent-free apartment? Does he have some criminal exposure? Does Allen want to take a chance on that too? He would be well advised to avoid those risks especially after the prosecutors have now issued these public signals.

Potential Additional Charges That Could Be Brought in Superseding Indictment(s)

What if the initial indictment is just the tip of the iceberg? Prosecutors obviously have witnesses that can bring the internal records of true compensation to life in the courtroom. Are witnesses also available to testify about the rumored doctoring of Trump Organization financial statements wherein assets were inflated or minimized depending on the circumstances, such as application of a business loan, where it would be helpful to maximize the value of the asset, or the reporting of property taxes, where the lower the property value, the lower the taxes?

A strong indication that prosecutors may have that kind of weapon is the indictment�s reference to �Unindicted Co-Conspirator #1,� who CNN reports is Jeff McConney, the Trump Organization�s longtime controller. McConney reportedly testified before the special grand jury, for which he was granted immunity under New York state law.

What�s the potential risk to Weisselberg from any such additional charges? Submission of false financial statements to a financial institution for the purposes of obtaining a business loan could provide the basis for bank fraud charges, which contain significant sentencing exposure. Submission of false property values to artificially lower property taxes could bring mail or wire fraud charges, which also contain significant sentencing exposure.

What if prosecutors determine the entire Trump Organization operated as a criminal enterprise and brought racketeering charges against those responsible, which could come with that category of charges? Such counts, under New York�s �little RICO� law, contain a maximum statutory exposure of 25 years and have weakened the knees of many a Mafia capo!

Superseding indictments will seriously raise the sentencing guidelines baseline, and the enticing plea deal available to Allen Weisselberg now will vanish. Little RICO charges, for example, come with a mandatory minimum of one to three years. The longer Weisselberg delays on copping a plea, the greater the cost to him in terms of potential jail time. He�d be well advised to plea and cooperate now, rather than after any such indictment is entered.

Prosecutors may also extract a price for Weisselberg to pay for his procrastination, since, among other things, there is a cost to them in terms of trial preparation. Of course, the closer the trial becomes, the greater the anxiety level, as Weisselberg nears an iron bars destiny.

Potential Federal and IRS Penalties

The indictment contains multiple references to the amounts of federal taxes evaded by Weisselberg and to the false W-2 statements submitted to the IRS by Weisselberg and the Trump Organization where substantive fringe benefits were omitted despite the existence of internal documentation that contained the true compensation figures. Could Weisselberg be looking down the barrel of federal tax fraud charges?

Never say never.

There could be residual issues left over from the Southern District of New York immunity granted Weisselberg from the Michael Cohen caper involving hush money reimbursements paid to Cohen by Trump Organization executives. But the real issue is that the resource-strained IRS will not likely spend valuable manpower on a tax case that has already been successfully prosecuted at the state level. It would be ordinary practice for the IRS to let the state prosecution stand for the individual�s criminal liability. The fact that established practices would be for the IRS to exercise restraint does not mean the IRS won�t pile on with another criminal indictment, but the IRS chief counsel will not likely authorize prosecution, and the Criminal Investigation chief won�t likely expend valuable resources on Weisselberg that could be better invested elsewhere. The IRS does not want to be perceived as persecuting in lieu of prosecuting tax thieves. That goes against its mission, which is to encourage voluntary compliance with the tax law.

But the IRS has another weapon at its disposal, and it is very likely to wield it in Weisselberg�s case. There is no statute of limitations in the IRS tax code with regard to pursuit of �civil fraud� penalties, which can climb to as much as 75 percent of the tax evaded. That figure could easily total six figures and may very well climb into seven figures for the Trump Organization�s chief accountant. Something to think about.

In short, Weisselberg had a terrible day and will have more of those in the foreseeable future. The DA�s case against him appears strong. His family may come under further attack. While his loyalty to his longtime boss is clearly being severely tested with the initial indictment filed, the CFO must know that he could be looking at spending the rest of his life in jail, should he spurn cooperation and provoke the prosecutors into filing superseding indictments containing very steep jail time.

Donald Trump exclaimed to the media prior to the unveiling of the indictment that his company�s actions were �standard practice throughout the U.S. business community, and in no way a crime.� Should this case actually go to trial, it will be fascinating to see not only if Weisselberg will testify, but just how many corporate chieftains Mr. Trump can bring to court to testify in support of his statement that the tax frauds delineated in the New York indictment are standard practice. How many real estate moguls and hotel honchos will want to take the stand and acknowledge that their companies do not tax fringe benefits of their executives and falsify their corporate records to conceal such fraud? The question answers itself.

The very fact that Trump can make such statements highlights the need for federal, state, and local prosecutors to vigorously enforce the tax law in order to induce voluntary compliance. Business leaders need to be deterred from thinking they are entitled or above the law or that they can negotiate some sort of deal that precludes jail time for executives guilty of tax fraud.

Trump and other corporate executives of the Trump Organization should be concerned about incurring their own legal trouble as the machines of the Manhattan DA�s office and the New York state attorney general�s office have now fired what appears to be just an initial salvo. Knowing how such tax crime investigations and prosecutions work in stages, I anticipate there is more to come. So should Mr. Weisselberg, if he listens to his attorneys.

5 comments

Democrats Have 1 Option Left

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51556">Ronald Brownstein, The Atlantic</a>

Sunday, 04 July 2021 08:25

Brownstein writes: "Today's Supreme Court decision further weakening the Voting Rights Act affirmed that the only way Democrats can reverse the wave of restrictive voting laws in GOP-controlled states is to pass new federal voting rights by curtailing the Senate filibuster."

Voting rights rally. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

Democrats Have 1 Option Left

By Ronald Brownstein, The Atlantic

04 July 21

Today�s 6�3 Supreme Court decision is a hinge point for American democracy.

oday�s Supreme Court decision further weakening the Voting Rights Act affirmed that the only way Democrats can reverse the wave of restrictive voting laws in GOP-controlled states is to pass new federal voting rights by curtailing the Senate filibuster.

Congressional action has long seemed the only realistic lever for Democrats to resist red states� surge of voter-suppression laws, which are passing, as I�ve written, on an almost entirely party-line basis. In the state legislatures, Democrats lack the votes to stop these laws. And while the John Roberts�led Supreme Court�which opened the door to these restrictions by eviscerating another section of the Voting Rights Act in his 2013 Shelby County decision�always seemed unlikely to restrain the Republican-controlled states, today�s ruling from the six GOP-appointed justices eliminated any doubt.

Republicans will understandably view Justice Samuel Alito�s majority opinion upholding two disputed Arizona statutes as a green light to pass voting restrictions that could disproportionately limit the ability of minority groups to vote: �Even if the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate a disparate [racial] burden caused by [the Arizona laws], the State�s �compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election procedures� would suffice to avoid [VRA] liability,� Alito wrote. Republican legislators will likely interpret Alito�s repeated emphasis in his decision on the importance of stopping �fraud� and his somewhat gratuitous swipes at voting by mail, both of which echo themes from former President Donald Trump, as much more than a wink and a nod of approval for the laws that are proliferating across red states. (�Fraud is a real risk that accompanies mail-in voting even if Arizona had the good fortune to avoid it,� Alito insisted at one point.) If anything, Alito�s decision, which all the other GOP-appointed justices joined, underscores how thoroughly the determination to restrict voting access in the name of combatting illusory �fraud� has permeated every corner of the GOP. (Even the rare GOP critics of Trump�s discredited fraud claims, such as Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, have also defended the restrictive new state laws.)

While the ruling signals long odds for the Justice Department�s effort to challenge those laws (starting with Georgia�s) in court, civil- and voting-rights advocates might welcome the clarity the decision provides. It makes plain that if Congress doesn�t establish new federal standards, the nation is headed toward a two-tier voting system, with red states imposing ever-tightening restrictions that especially burden Democratic-leaning constituencies�young, minority, and lower-income voters.

It�s no coincidence that red states are imposing these restrictions precisely as Millennials and Gen Zers, who represent the most racially diverse generations in American history, are rapidly increasing their share of the total vote, as I wrote earlier today. The rise of those younger generations especially threatens the GOP hold on Sun Belt states such as Georgia, Texas, and Arizona, which Republicans now control through their dominance of older and non-urban white voters; in that way, the voting restrictions Republicans are enacting amount to stacking sandbags against a rising tide of demographic change.

After a Republican filibuster blocked their sweeping voting-rights bill, Senate Democrats are working to unify behind a more limited plan�and to persuade holdout Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (and perhaps others) to change the filibuster rules to pass it. Following today�s decision, the demands from civil-rights groups on Senate Democrats and Biden to change the rules will grow even more intense.

�Our elected leaders need to wake up and start acting like the house is on fire�because it is, and this ruling pours more gasoline on the flames,� Ns� Ufot, the CEO of the New Georgia Project, said today in a statement that was echoed widely by other groups. �Black and Brown communities gave Democrats federal power to protect the vote and passing bills like the For the People Act is what we both expect and deserve.�

With more measured (though no less passionate) language, the fierce dissent from Justice Elena Kagan and the other Democratic-appointed justices seemed to be sending the same message. They obviously never endorsed any legislation, but their tone reminded me of the pleas to the Senate majority (particularly Manchin and Sinema) from Democratic legislators in the states passing these restrictive laws. We�ve done all we can here, the justices seemed to be saying: Now it�s up to Congress whether to protect democracy at what Kagan called �a perilous moment for the Nation�s commitment to equal citizenship.�

3 comments

More Articles...

<< Start < Prev 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Next > End >>

Page 63 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Confirm password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.