Raise taxes to the wealthy and let them pay for the things that benefit them: Iraq and Afghan war and its ISIS fallout, the defense program, start regulating industries again, improve schools and infrastructure, start a draft where everybody goes whether its military, teaching, building roads and parks.....
Raise taxes to the wealthy and let them pay for the things that benefit them: Iraq and Afghan war and its ISIS fallout, the defense program, start regulating industries again, improve schools and infrastructure, start a draft where everybody goes whether its military, teaching, building roads and parks.....
Who are the wealthy Bob? How much would you like to tax them. Would you like to tax their profit for the work they do or would you like to tax their income from Investments or both. I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that the wealthy are paying far more than their share of taxes. At what point do they say the hell with it and stop any efforts to grow their business provide more jobs and spur the economy? Hey I got a ******* idea why don't we lower the corporate tax rate so that the businesses that flee overseas for lower tax rates will bring back that money and we can tax it at a reasonable rate... all those billions upon billions of dollars and maybe the rest of us would get a reasonable reduction in our taxes... But of course that makes way too much and the fanatic rabbid liberals who love to scream tax the rich! Would have one less thing to rant about.
Julian Assange, responsible for one of the largest leaks of classified U.S. documents, has been holed up in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London since June 2012, when he was granted diplomatic asylum. According to high-ranking U.S. law enforcement sources, there is no sealed indictment or criminal complaint against the WikiLeaks founder, despite rumors that he was under investigation by the Justice Department.
By Sari Horwitz November 25, 2013
The Justice Department has all but concluded it will not bring charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing classified documents because government lawyers said they could not do so without also prosecuting U.S. news organizations and journalists, according to U.S. officials.
The officials stressed that a formal decision has not been made, and a grand jury investigating WikiLeaks remains impaneled, but they said there is little possibility of bringing a case against Assange, unless he is implicated in criminal activity other than releasing online top-secret military and diplomatic documents.
The Obama administration has charged government employees and contractors who leak classified information — such as former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden and former Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning — with violations of the Espionage Act. But officials said that although Assange published classified documents, he did not leak them, something they said significantly affects their legal analysis.
“The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists,” said former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller. “And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange.”
Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
What if Assange leaves the embassy?
The Post's Sari Horwitz reports that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is not under sealed indictment. She speaks with Nia-Malika Henderson about the ultimate question: What would happen if Assange leaves his embassy sanctuary? (The Washington Post)
WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said last week that the anti-secrecy organization is skeptical “short of an open, official, formal confirmation that the U.S. government is not going to prosecute WikiLeaks.” Justice Department officials said it is unclear whether there will be a formal announcement should the grand jury investigation be formally closed.
“We have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell us what the status of the investigation was with respect to Mr. Assange,” said Barry J. Pollack, a Washington attorney for Assange. “They have declined to do so. They have not informed us in any way that they are closing the investigation or have made a decision not to bring charges against Mr. Assange. While we would certainly welcome that development, it should not have taken the Department of Justice several years to come to the conclusion that it should not be investigating journalists for publishing truthful information.”
Content from Siemens Manufacturing: The revolution will be digitalized
Watch how automation in manufacturing is optimizing work done by humans.
There have been persistent rumors that the grand jury investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks had secretly led to charges. Officials told The Post last week that there was no sealed indictment, and other officials have since come forward to say, as one senior U.S. official put it, that the department has “all but concluded” that it will not bring a case against Assange.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment, as did former U.S. attorney Neil H. MacBride, whose office in the Eastern District of Virginia led the probe into the WikiLeaks organization.
In an interview with The Post earlier this month, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that Justice Department officials are still trying to repatriate Snowden, who has obtained temporary asylum in Russia, to stand trial. But Holder also said that the Justice Department is not planning to prosecute former Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, one of the journalists who received documents from Snowden. Greenwald has written a series of articles based on the leaked material. An American citizen, Greenwald has said he fears prosecution if he returns to the United States from his home in Brazil.
Justice officials said that the same distinction between leaker and journalist or publisher is being made between Manning and Assange. One former law enforcement official said the U.S. government could bring charges against Assange if it discovered a crime, such as evidence that he directly hacked into a U.S. government computer. But the Justice officials said he would almost certainly not be prosecuted for receiving classified material from Manning.
Assange has been living in a room in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London since Ecuador granted him political asylum. Assange is facing sexual-assault allegations in Sweden. Assange and some of his supporters have said the Australian national fears that if he goes to Sweden to face those allegations, he will be extradited to the United States.
But current and former U.S. officials dismissed that defense.
“He is hiding out in the embassy to avoid a sexual-assault charge in Sweden,” Miller said. “It has nothing to do with the U.S. government.”
I'll be happy with Dwight David Eisenhower's tax rates.
How about you?
Hawkeyes mailbox.
Of course you would Bob then again you're probably living off some government entitlement... Probably haven't filed a tax return since Jesus was a Lance corporal.
I'll be happy with Dwight David Eisenhower's tax rates.
How about you?
Hawkeyes mailbox.
Care to answer the question? I pay a higher tax rate than you do. About 35%.
Well for me I would prefer not to pay any taxes considering the way the government usually squanders it but if I have to pay I would prefer a flat tax based on consumption about 10% should do it... That means no income tax Bob
Still didn't answer the question. No taxes, eh? Unless its a regressive "flat tax". Figures. You're not part of the 5%, why do you favor taxes schemes like the flat tax that hurt you and the middle class?
The problem is that Sweden will not give an undertaking not to deport him [Assange] to America which is what he rightly fears.
Not sure what an undertaking is. By the context it seems to be some sort of agreement not to deport him to America, but how powerful it is or the nature of the agreement I don't know. In America, for instance, one court's decision can overrule a lower court's decision. Can you explain?
Britain would never deport Assange to America. We're too close for that, the political ramifications would be enormous, not least our claim to be a sovereign nation. The suspicion amongst a lot of people is that this rape trial is a pretext to get Assange extradited to America. Assange has said he will go to Sweden and attend trial on condition he will not subsequently be deported to America for publishing classified data.
On this count at least, Assange has not committed a crime. He is an Australian, not an American citizen. All he did was publish documents that were given too him. He may have been a bit more cavalier than a more traditional organ, but that's not a crime.
0 Replies
izzythepush
4
Sun 24 Jul, 2016 10:35 am
@bobsal u1553115,
'Unlikely to face prosecution,' is hardly a guarantee, not with the possibility of a Trump presidency. Trump has said that Bush's use of torture and extraordinary rendition didn't go far enough.
Now, if you were Assange, (and assuming you're not guilty of rape,) would you submit yourself to the Swedish authorities under those conditions? Because I bloody wouldn't.
0 Replies
giujohn
-2
Sun 24 Jul, 2016 10:45 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:
Still didn't answer the question. No taxes, eh? Unless its a regressive "flat tax". Figures. You're not part of the 5%, why do you favor taxes schemes like the flat tax that hurt you and the middle class?
Tell us Bob how does a flat tax hurt the middle class?
Even I can answer that one. If someone has a dollar and another person has only fifty cents and it is decided that there should be a tax of thirty cents, of course it is going to hurt the one with only fifty cents more than the one with a dollar which is why the one with a dollar should pay more to make up the difference of the one with fifty cents paying less.
