'Panama Papers' Group Strikes Again with 'Paradise Papers' (theguardian.com) 402
Long-time Slashdot reader Freshly Exhumed tipped us off to a new document leak that's just revealed massive tax havens used by the world's most wealthy and powerful people. An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian:
The material, which has come from two offshore service providers and the company registries of 19 tax havens, was obtained by the German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung and shared by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with partners including the Guardian, the BBC and the New York Times. The project has been called the Paradise Papers.
It's the same group responsible for the Panama Papers, and the Guardian reports that in these 13.4 million new files, journalists have discovered:
It's the same group responsible for the Panama Papers, and the Guardian reports that in these 13.4 million new files, journalists have discovered:
- "How Twitter and Facebook received hundreds of millions of dollars in investments that can be traced back to Russian state financial institutions."
- "Aggressive tax avoidance by multinational corporations, including Nike and Apple."
- "Extensive offshore dealings by Donald Trump's cabinet members, advisers and donors, including substantial payments from a firm co-owned by Vladimir Putin's son-in-law to the shipping group of the US commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross."
- "The tax-avoiding Cayman Islands trust managed by the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau's chief moneyman."
"The publication of this investigation, for which more than 380 journalists have spent a year combing through data that stretches back 70 years, comes at a time of growing global income inequality," reports the Guardian. "Meanwhile, multinational companies are shifting a growing share of profits offshore -- €600 billion in the last year alone -- the leading economist Gabriel Zucman will reveal in a study to be published later this week. "Tax havens are one of the key engines of the rise in global inequality," he said."
We should all avoid taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that tax avoidance is proven to work we should all do it. It's irresponsible to pay money when you don't have to. You don't send an extra $100 to your cable provider just because, do you?
Re:We should all avoid taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Technically true, but still though, there's something to be said lobbying so that the definition of those terms is in your favor. If the wealthy shuffling profits to the Caymans or wherever isn't tax evasion, then the rest of us should be able to do the same thing with our taxes by sticking our W-2s under large rock. Somehow, laws are written such that only one of those, the option afforded the wealthy, is acceptable, and I think that's what people take issue with.
Re:We should all avoid taxes (Score:5, Informative)
Using cash to avoid payment of taxes is in fact evasion.
And the IRS pays finders fees to folks who assist them in obtaining evidence of the act.
Re: (Score:3)
And they keep increasing the bounty every year. I'm honestly just waiting 'til the bounty is higher than the fine to see how people start cheating on their taxes and then turn themselves in because it makes them pay less.
Failing to report income is evasion. 401k/FSA is (Score:5, Informative)
> i avoid with cash payments. i don't evade, unless TurboTax does.
You're not just guilty of evasion, but the *felony* variety.
If you accept cash payments and intentionally don't file a return showing those payments, that's misdemeanor tax evasion. When you file a return which says "total income... Under penalty of perjury" which you know does not accurately include those cash payments, that's FELONY tax evasion.
https://www.irs.gov/compliance... [irs.gov]
Common tax avoidance methods include 401k, IRA, HSA, and FSA.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that tax avoidance is proven to work we should all do it
Tax avoidance has always worked.
It's irresponsible to pay money when you don't have to.
It actually is, or else the rules will never be changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not doing the right thing unless compelled is pretty much the definition of irresponsibility.
Re: (Score:3)
It's always struck me as odd that people think quotes are some kind of evidence. Anyway, here are a few for you:
"Taxes are the lifeblood of government and no taxpayer should be permitted to escape the payment of his just share of the burden of contributing thereto." - Arthur Vanderbilt
"Taxation is the price which civilized communities pay for the opportunity of remaining civilized." - Albert Bushnell Hart
“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” - John F.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: We should all avoid taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
The only tax shelters the non rich have seem to involve giving money to rich people. Hmmmmm
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only tax shelters the non rich have seem to involve giving money to rich people.
Not true at all. You can set up a corporation in the Cayman Islands for $200. Assign it copyrights to all your code. Then pay deductible license fees to use it, into a bank in the Cayman Islands. For living expenses, you take out loans from the corporation, which are not taxable income.
The loopholes were designed by the rich to benefit the rich, but there is nothing to prevent normal people from taking advantage of them. You just need to educate yourself, and put in a little effort.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And of course you have to drop the rest of your decency first. Or at least not shave with a straight razor because you might feel the urge to off the asshole.
Re: We should all avoid taxes (Score:5, Informative)
I am a tax attorney. What you have described will not work. You evidently need to educate yourself a wee bit more and put in a little more effort. Under the scheme you describe, the license fees received by the Cayman company would be Subpart F income, fully taxable in the U.S. to the individual who owns the controlled foreign corporation. You'd also need to worry about IRC Section 367(d) on transferring your intellectual property offshore. Also, although loan receipts are generally not taxable income, there are rules under which a cross-border loan may be re-classed as a dividend or subject to withholding on the interest payments.
International tax is not an area where it is wise to dabble. Advising people do engage in transactions like this without understanding the rules is irresponsible at best.
Re: We should all avoid taxes (Score:5, Informative)
Hate to say it, but there's not all that much much a regular W-2 employee can do- certainly nothing using offshore companies that would be beneficial. This is especially the case if you are not itemizing deductions. The thing is, most middle class people don't pay that much federal income tax at the end of the day, so there's just not that much in the way of savings to be had (payroll taxes are another story).
Make sure you are maxing out all of your tax advantaged savings space- Roth IRA, 401k, Health Savings Account, and 529 (if you have children and paying for college). If you are over the income limit for a Roth IRA, you can look into the backdoor Roth, and if you work for a company with a really god 401k plan - the mega backdoor Roth. In some cases, you can get almost $100k annually into investment accounts either tax-free, or with tax-free gains on the investments.
In order to do fancier tax planning you need to be in business of some sort. Real estate investing can be very tax favored. However, it makes little sense to change careers solely for tax purposes. Only do it if you really want to run the business- not because you want to save on taxes.
This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine if the US put hefty tariffs on everything that was imported to "even" the playing field...many of the world's economies would suffer. Taxes aren't a one-size fits all. Ever wonder how many jobs would be eliminated if everything was simplified? Complexity==jobs
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine if the US put hefty tariffs on everything
VATs are not tariffs. Chinese companies pay VAT on products sold in China, but not on exports. American companies pay income tax on all their sales.
China taxes consumption. America taxes production. So they build, we buy. This is a major reason why we have massive deficits and debts.
Corporate income taxes should be abolished and replaced with a VAT and a border adjustment tax [investopedia.com].
Re: This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax (Score:4, Interesting)
apply a 20% vat on everything esp imported goods/parts/services
You're describing a universal tariff right here, and we have tons of tariffs already. Ever wonder why cheese is so expensive in the US? 100% tariff on foreign cheese, to "protect" the American cheese industry. The new steel tariffs are killing automobile production in the US and making all the cars that we buy significantly more expensive.
The universal tariff that you're suggesting is a little different than these per-product tariffs, easier to manage and less abusable. So that's something. But it would still raise the cost of goods and make us poorer in aggregate. It's also a regressive tax, just like all consumption taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
By simply dropping our corporate taxes on American-made goods/services, and replacing with a VAT, it makes sure that we collect the tax that we would have collected with corporate taxes.
And automobile pr
Re: (Score:2)
You're describing a universal tariff right here, and we have tons of tariffs already.
Yeah but the idea is that it's a lot simpler instead of hundreds of different tariffs/tax/duties/levies, each with their own loophole. With just one it makes audit and compliance a lot easier, hence cheaper, hence greater benefit to the public purse.
The universal tariff that you're suggesting is a little different than these per-product tariffs, easier to manage and less abusable. So that's something. But it would still raise the cost of goods and make us poorer in aggregate.
I've lived in three different countries during the implementation of a VAT/GST so have heard all the FUD before. In each case it never eventuated. Some things went up slightly, some came down, but there's a reason everyone else has implemented it, it's a net gai
Re:This is why America needs VATs not Corp. Tax (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW Britain, France, and plenty of other places use VATs and hey look at all the tax avoidance while Apple's profits go to Ireland! You are on top of the Dunning-Kruger effect in economics if you think VATs or Tarrifs have anything to do with tax avoidance or evasion.
Re: (Score:3)
The EU has a simple and effective plan: companies pay corporation tax where they do business. If Starbucks sells one of their foul coffees to some unlucky Frenchman, it doesn't matter if they have to pay crippling licencing fees to an Irish parent company and end up losing money. The French tax authority just looks at the profit that the Irish company made on a sale in France, and charges the French subsidiary tax based on that amount.
Companies can either comply or go bust.
And what did the Panama Papers result in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck all.
Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in? (Score:5, Informative)
I seem to recall the Prime Minister of India being ousted as a result of the Panama Papers. So, not exactly nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I know they all look alike ;-) but it was actually the PM of Pakistan in this case. A couple of famous film stars were smacked around by the Indian media for offshoring a bunch of their investments. The panama papers also took down Iceland's PM and had Cameron suffering from foot-in-mouth disease for a while.
Re: (Score:3)
They not only look alike, they're also very obviously fully fungible. Or did you notice any kind of difference when this one got tossed out and that one posed as the drop-in replacement?
Granted, that has little to do with being Indian or Pakistani, that's more a feature of politician. That's also why political murder has gone out of fashion. Why bother putting a hole in this sock puppet, it's the same as the sock puppet replacing it.
Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in? (Score:5, Informative)
They badly damaged Marine Le Pen, the far-right candidate in France's last election.
The Icelandic government lead by Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson was brought down by information in those leaks.
We learned a lot about how Russia's leaders and their friends hide wealth and funnel it covertly overseas, to interfere in the democratic processes of other nations.
The investigation of FIFA was aided by the release, resulting in raids on their offices in Switzerland. A lot of the bribery that was going on was only proven by these papers becoming available.
Ukraine's government fell apart due to the leaks.
The impeachment of Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff was in no small part due to the Panama Papers, and several members of her government and the Brazilian state have been prosecuted.
That's all I can remember off the top of my head, but Wikipeida has a really, really long list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the correction, rude as it may have been. I actually did search for it, but finding nothing (since I was apparently barking up the wrong tree with my searches), I went ahead and posted a quick response, figuring that if I was mistaken someone would be along to correct me. So, again, thank you for the correction.
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go:
http://bfy.tw/Erz6 [bfy.tw]
Perhaps you should not have included "India" in your searches?
Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in? (Score:5, Insightful)
More seriously though, the problem is that they're all dirty. Republicans, Democrats, everyone. That makes it easy for any side to ignore the misdeeds of their own and sling mud at the other side. That's why nothing really comes of it, because they all know that they're all dirty, so they can't really go after each other in any serious manner.
Even more seriously though, what the fuck did everyone expect. No one wants to pay high taxes. The people that make most of the money realize how much the government sucks at doing most (not all, just most) of things it tries to do, and the people who are wealthy and okay with high taxes because they can accomplish some good would probably be just as well (if not better) off taking their money and doing it themselves. If you want companies to pay taxes, apply market principles to this situation as well and assume that people will shop around for better deals. Lower tax rates to make it less profitable for companies to try to off shore profits and they'll gladly take the path of least resistance.
Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lower tax rates to make it less profitable for companies to try to off shore profits and they'll gladly take the path of least resistance.
Lower them to what? People keep saying that, but nobody offers a number. Where's that sweet spot that gets the government more money in taxes and saves these large corporations money? Does it even exist? Advocates simply assume that it must, but nobody seems to care to know.
Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lower them to what? People keep saying that, but nobody offers a number. Where's that sweet spot that gets the government more money in taxes and saves these large corporations money? Does it even exist? Advocates simply assume that it must, but nobody seems to care to know.
Like smaller government. Non-one seems to offer up a suitable number of smallness, but it sounds great to shout that phrase around at every opportunity.
Apparently if the Government was reduced to 1 person, and tax was 0.1%, we'd all be better off somehow...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The previous President of Iceland [wikipedia.org] would beg to differ.
Re:And what did the Panama Papers result in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean you can't do something about it.
Like, for instance, making it illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Take the popular game H1Z1, made by Daybreak games, owned by 'Columbus Nova', owned by... a Russian mining and petroleum company?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And? (Score:5, Funny)
Wake me when we will actually do something about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gun control will happen when the wealthy fear for their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Christian.
380 journalists (Score:2, Interesting)
Are they going to release the source material to the public so that we can find anything that the 380 journalists "accidentally" missed or forgot to report in their zeal to be completely unbiased and impartial while on the payroll of major news organizations?
Re:380 journalists (Score:5, Informative)
Are they going to release the source material to the public so that we can find anything that the 380 journalists "accidentally" missed or forgot to report in their zeal to be completely unbiased and impartial while on the payroll of major news organizations?
Last time they did release a complete searchable database of the leak - https://panamapapers.icij.org/... [icij.org], https://offshoreleaks.icij.org... [icij.org] - so there's every reason to believe they'll do the same this time.
Indeed, last time after the full release there was no indication that the journalists had failed to be unbiased or impartial in their initial reporting. So there's zero grounds for you to be suspicious this time.
Everybody is dirty. (Score:2, Insightful)
How can we have good government if every fucking official is dirty? Clinton, Podesta, Trumps crew, all filthy. Whatâ(TM)s a responsible citizen who wants reasonable government to do?
It's a crooked world (Score:2)
Yeah! (Score:3)
Yeah! Canada!
Wait... what?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Oh no! Those slimeballs!
2. Aha! Trump is mentioned! More proof he's basically the worst person ever!!
3. (Finally reading the line you quote) Well, this is just a rogue individual and doesn't reflect on how awesome Trudeau is.
Difference between avoid and evade (Score:3, Insightful)
Aggressive tax avoidance by multinational corporations, including Nike and Apple.
It is legal in the US to avoid paying a tax. It is not legal to evade a tax, however.
What's the difference?
Burger King was "bought" by Horton's, a Canadian company, and licenses back all the Burger King IP from Horton. If this consumes effectively most of the profit, Burger King can legally not pay US taxes on it's income. (Previous statement is opinion, assuming facts I have not verified.) This is why I don't go to Burger King anymore.
It is my understanding that Apple does that as well, but again, I have not verified it to be factual, and is thus to be considered opinion. This is why I don't purchase Apple products.
This would appear to be completely allowed within the US tax code. (I am not a tax professional, if you want to do this, you should purchase an opinion from a licensed tax professional.)
What is not legal is for company Blah to use false accounting to evade a tax. That will get you an orange jumpsuit and those fetching chrome bracelets.
Hmmm. (Score:2)
So what, exactly, is "offshore" for a multinational? The moon? Another planet?
Re: (Score:3)
Offshore is a small shithole country that does virtually nothing but run a bank with low taxes, but is recognized as a country.
The Cook islands, despite only having 17 thousand people, likely stores many hundreds of millions to several billions worth of US dollars, despite requiring several million/year in foreign aid to keep its residents at a reasonable standard of living.
An estimated 1 teradollars is hiding around places like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Offshore is a small shithole country that does virtually nothing but run a bank with low taxes, but is recognized as a country.
Sort of like Delaware is recognized as a state?
Enough with the "tax avoidance is good" bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are one of those who praises tax avoidance as a laudable life goal, you are a freeloading, coat-tail riding maladroit.
The biggest value of the data dump is that an otherwise closed doorway into a strange world in which the 1%ers exist is suddenly thrown open to show that monetary enrichment dissolves any and all notions of patriotism and shared values.
Sociopaths will continue to praise their own legal proprietary, and imbeciles will continue to cheer on their beloved sociopaths, but those who try to live and excel while doing their share to make their own lives and the world they live in better get chumped again and again by an evil breed. This data dump helps to see this much clearly.
It is not about some phoney notion that tax avoidance is somehow laudable; it is about exposing corruption.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tax avoidance being a problem means the tax laws need to be rewritten. Expecting people not to keep as much of their wealth as possible within the law is foolish. You 'avoid' taxes every time you claim a deduction... go ahead, tell me you never claim a deduction on your taxes...
Tax evasion, on the other hand... that's effectively treason, since you're not giving your share as required by the laws of the society within which you generated your wealth in the first place. Tax evasion makes you a parasite.
Th
Re: (Score:3)
"Expecting people not to keep as much of their wealth as possible within the law is foolish."
No, that's incorrect. Expecting people not to pay their fair share as possible within the law is foolish. No freeloaders, no coat-tail-riders, no overgrown babies who never learned that sharing is critical to their own existence. No excuses.
Re: (Score:3)
The law defines what your fair share is; you're setting an overriding, undocumented, vague 'standard' and then complaining when people don't meet it.
Russia and other strawmen (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the thing that most people don't get:
The modern elites are not nation-bound anymore. They live on yachts in international waters, fly around the world in private planes (or state-owned ones) and have their money in several different tax heavens and jurisdictions so that no amount of sanctions or other problems can shut them down.
If you honestly think any of them care about your country or my country or whatever todays "axis of evil" is, you are a complete idiot. The only thing they care about is money and power, which is why they have it. If you focus your entire life around the question of "how do I get more money?" then you have a much higher chance of making it than us normal people who are burdened with ethics, friends (real friends, not just useful contacts) and a soul or whatever you want to call that piece of humanity inside of you.
We have a brilliant example in my home country, which has been ruled for over a decade now by a person whose only demonstrated skill is how to get and keep power.
Really, all of this is so clear to anyone with three working brain cells, as they're not even trying to hide anything anymore. The only question we all should be asking ourselves is how to shut down this global robbery.
Re:Russia and other strawmen (Score:4, Insightful)
have their money in several different tax heavens and jurisdictions so that no amount of sanctions or other problems can shut them down
To be fair, that's just common sense. Diversify to avoid undue risk in any specific market or locale.
The Russian bots here should love this... (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA: "Ross, a billionaire and close friend of Trump, retained holdings in Navigator after taking office this year. The relationship means he stands to benefit from the operations of a Russian company run by Putin's family and close allies, some of whom are under US sanctions.
Of course the Commerce Secretary wouldn't have much say in trade regulations, would he?
Does "conflict of interest" mean anything anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA mentions that Donald Trump's close friend and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross "stands to benefit from the operations of a Russian company run by Putin's family and close allies, some of whom are under US sanctions."
The link it provides is also pretty damning: https://www.theguardian.com/ne... [theguardian.com]
I suspect real Americans take a dim view of a high administration official who maintains financial ties to companies being sanctioned by the US government.
Conflating Different Things (Score:5, Informative)
I am a tax corporate attorney. My job is to ensure that a Fortune 500 company does not pay more tax than legally owed. When operating internationally, half the game is just making sure you don't get hosed and end up getting double-taxed by two different jurisdictions or not being allowed to use a big loss you have suffered to offset a gain elsewhere- so when I say more than "legally owed" I do not mean more than technically owed after some complected scheme is executed.
These stories tend to confuse tax evasion, tax avoidance, and money laundering. While an offshore company may be used for any of those things, the mere use of an offshore company doesn't necessarily mean a company or person is engaging in any of them.
In my business, we use offshore companies as neutral third locations. For example, if we need to operate in a dodgy part of Africa, we likely don't want to form a subsidiary in that country because such countries often lack robust corporate law and because it can be very administratively burdensome to form a new company there. The Caymans offers robust corporate law, a functioning court system, quick setup, and quick dissolution. There are both tax and non-tax reasons not to use a U.S. company for that purpose. If we were to sell that subsidiary, a foreign buyer may not want to purchase a U.S. company with all of the administrative and legal burden that comes with owning one. Tax-wise, using a non-U.S. entity prevents that company from being taxed in both the U.S. and the operating country. It would still be subject to U.S. tax if it sends money to the U.S. parent, but it's usually possible to manage tax attributes and cash so that's not necessary.
A tax avoidance motive might be something like an earnings-stripping transaction where intellectual property is licensed to a low-tax country. However, the tax code hardly allows carte-blanche for doing transactions like this, and the time has long passed when you could just set up a Cayman company with no employees that holds all of your intellectual property. Large companies are audited every single year or are under a continuous audit program the IRS runs- nobody in the world of big business "gets away" with something- everything must be legally justified. As a result, the most aggressive tax avoidance transactions tend to be seen from medium sized privately held businesses and high net worth individuals- not large public companies.
For individuals without extensive business operations, offshore companies rarely offer any legal tax benefit. As an individual, you are still subject to worldwide taxation. Rules such as the personal foreign holding company rules in the tax code are specifically designed to prevent offshore companies from being used for personal tax avoidance.
You will find individuals who use offshore company for straight-up tax evasion. This is one of the things Paul Manefort was indicted for. Legally, you must declare offshore accounts- and he allegedly did not. Laws such as FATCA and foreign equivalents are making this strategy tougher to pull off because they require tax withholding on transfer to an offshore location if the individual refuses to provide information necessary to report the transaction to the tax authorities.
Finally, you will find offshore accounts used for money laundering. That is a very different type of operation from multinationals using them for a legal benefit. It's worth noting that not all offshore locations are created equal in this regard. Jurisdictions like the Caymans and Bermuda have extensive anti-money laundering laws that they do their best to enforce. As a result, most Cayman and Bermuda companies are subsidiaries of legitimate business. By contrast, a fortune 500 company would almost never use Panama for a subsidiary unless it was actually doing business in-country.
TLDR: Articles like this talk about offshore companies as if they are always illegitimate and treat tax avoidance, tax evasion, and money laundering as the same thing. There are both legitimate and illegitimate uses of offshore companies, and each of these things are separate phenomena.
Re: (Score:3)
I would argue my company never intends to defeat the intent of the law, though I understand that there are companies with more aggressive tax groups that will if they think they can. It's also worth noting that the tax code actually has various provisions intended to defeat tax planning that defeats the intent of the law even if the planning satisfies the letter.
To clarify my Africa example: the offshore company is paying taxes in Africa- exactly the same as it would if it were incorporated there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody cares. He's gonna be reelected anyway, along with over 95% of congress. The country's fallen! And it can't get up!
Re: (Score:2)
http://fallenrave.ytmnd.com/ [ytmnd.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As usual, Trump idiots and Alex Jones idiots are the exact same idiots, and debating them prima facie would be similarly idiotic.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh where are my mod points...
Re:the real dirty birds (Score:4, Funny)
Someone get this person points stat! Jones folks are the most hilarious group on forums because of the clear lack of introspection on their part. "Everything is this big cover up made to fool you sheeple!" says the guy who's show literally exists for him to hock BS products on people with loose wallets. The best statement about the truth of Alex Jones I have ever heard is, "Alex Jones is like what would happen if Jerry Springer had to broadcast on QVC with the former X Files writing staff."
Re: the real dirty birds (Score:5, Insightful)
The Rep control both houses and the white house. But yet I keep reading how the US is supposidely run by leftist liberals and that they somehow keep the right from doing reforms.
Explain how that works.
Re:the real dirty birds (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging from the size and scope of Donald Trump & Family's dealings with shady overseas "investors" and "stakeholders", it seems like he may be the real globalist among recent presidents. I mean, he's surrounded himself with people who either straight up lie (Sessions, etc) or have terrible memories (Sessions, etc) when it comes to meetings with oligarchs, Russian con men, pro-Kremlin "lawyers", etc.
Has there been a single member of the Trump cabinet who does NOT have some shady business deal or a history of meetings with Russians? Maybe Betsy DeVos, but her brother is a war criminal who can't set foot in the United States and maybe Rick Perry, who may be the stupidest man ever to set foot in the White House.
Re: (Score:3)
It's like they cloned a clone of a clone of a clone of G.W. Bush and got Rick Perry. I swear they even look alike from certain angles.
Maybe I'm the only one but I definitely get an uncanny valley vibe between him and W. The glasses definitely help to offset it; I think he started wearing them just to throw off suspicion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But don't mind me. I'm still pissed at Lincoln for wiping out all the vampires.
Your comment makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
You actually think Julian Assange, who is an Australian, living in the U.K., inside the Ecuadorian embassy under Ecuadorian asylum, and has been holed up there without being able to leave for nearly five years, and is a world-famous individual, is a Russian spy?
Literally none of those things indicates either Russian OR spy.
Not to mention the fact that almost everything Wikileaks published is of undisputed authenticity. Even the Clinton e-mails had DKIM signature verification.
Even if Assange were a Russian operative, despite there being literally 0 evidence whatsoever, none of that has anything to do with the fact that the things Wikileaks has published about U.S. politics are real. You want to focus on the messenger to ignore the message.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not spy, stooge.
Re:the real dirty birds (Score:5, Insightful)
Leaks indicating that a democratic country that has a government accountable to its public is corrupt and is using the security apparatus to spy on its own citizens or destabilise nominally friendly foreign regimes: News.
Leaks indicating that a corrupt oligarchy run by the former head of the security apparatus who uses intimidation as a tool to keep himself in power is using the security apparatus to spy on its own citizens or destabilise nominally friendly foreign regimes: Not news.
If your defence is 'Russia is as bad as us!' then you're in a pretty depressing place.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Meanwhile (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Monica only came to light because of rape accusations from Juanita Broaderick and Gennifer Flowers...allegations Clinton has not denied.
Lies (Score:2)
According to Bill Clinton, there's even a difference between sex and getting a blow job.....
Paula Jones did not consent even if Monica did... (Score:2, Informative)
Consensual for whom? Paula Jones didn't want sex, even if Monica Lewinsky did. Bill lied in court about Monica to cover up the harassment of Paula when he was sued. Monica isn't the one who sued him!
Bill Clinton was held in contempt of court for perjury. As part of that, he surrendered his license to practice law for 5 years. He also settled out of court with Paula during the appeals because of how his lies had been uncovered. This led to articles of impeachment, which failed, but that's purely a poli
Re: (Score:3)
LBJ didn't get impeached for doing the exact same thing Nixon did (breaking into opposition offices for information and getting caught).
It was a moment in time. They were worried about revolution. In hindsight they could have relaxed, but that means little.
Another Trump apologist bites the dust (Score:2, Troll)
So tell us again, please, how Hillary Clinton ties into a story documenting Russia's financial strings on current high-ranking members of the US government.
We'll wait...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you want every election to be a choice between criminal A and criminal B, you have to stop covering for your side's criminal when your side's criminal gets caught.
He says without a trace of irony in a thread about Trump's shady financial ties.
Re: (Score:3)
You're covering for your side's criminal now, by trying to deflect public interest from Trump's Russian ties onto the other side's most visible figurehead.
Re:Nobody cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know how the Primaries work in the USA? How do you rig primaries? They are run by the states.
Voting is run by the states. The candidates and campaigns and everything else including and plain ol' deciding whether or not to go along with the vote, is run by the party. Why do you think Hillary "won" all those instances where they kicked out Bernie supporters or pretended not to hear them when anything came up that was to be decided by voice?
The DNC rigged their primaries for Hillary. I don't agree with Bernie's crazy views or policy, but I would have voted for him over Trump, and he would have won the election over Trump.
The DNC torpedoed itself in its attempt to stage a coronation for Hillary. The fact that any voter is loyal to the DNC after that is worrying. It's almost a one party system now.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What you described ("kicked out Bernie supporters or pretended not to hear them") is a caucus, not a primary election. Some states have caucuses, some have primaries which are run just like any other election -- secret ballot, no discussions or voice votes. Bernie actually did quite did well in the caucuses, Clinton did much better in the primaries which bring out more "regular people" rather than the fired up activists. Over 3 million votes better than Sanders in the primaries.
Re: (Score:3)
Ballot box stuffing doesn't occur. If it did, there would be a problem, but multiple studies, on multiple elections, have found little evidence of voter fraud. So don't go haring off attacking people, when you can't even prove that there is a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, you may not have heard that a sitting US Senator is currently on trial for bribery [nytimes.com], and it looks like it will go to jury deliberations soon. If he's convicted, he will be forced from the Senate and his seat will be filled by the Governor, who is of the opposite party. Guess that's not news -- not something you're supposed to know about -- either.
Re:Meanwhile (Score:5, Interesting)
Hillary is irrelevant. Nobody gives a shit.
Meanwhile, yet another member of President Traitor's cabinet is found to be directly connected to Russia.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But no Slashdot story on that, because ...? Guess it's not news.
Have you submitted one? Because that's how Slashdot works. Like Democracy you have to participate for it to be effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess it's not news.
I dunno, man they're opening up two more panels on her ass. At this rate I think we're be seeing November as this time where the World Series winds up, Football is getting into full swing, Turkey dinners, autumn colors, and Clinton investigations. I would use the dead horse card here, but damn I think the card has turn into confetti at this point. Besides, yeah, we all know she's shit. We also know Trump's full of shit too, I mean look at 90% of the comments here, there's literally no one surprised by t
Re: Trudeau's 1% (Score:2)
Re:Don't conflate tax avoidance with tax dodging (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you really write that? You included in your own post a quote indicating the "NO taxes" claim is horseshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
When you're powerful enough and rich enough to bribe the people writing the rules, there is no such thing as cheating.
And when the society you're parasitizing eventually collapses because the tax-maintained infrastructure rots out, you just move on to the next one.