Connect with us

Politics

Sen. Lummis asks Biden ‘do you distrust Americans so much that you need to know when they buy a couch?’

Published

on

Screen Shot 2021 09 29 at 7.38.46 PM

[brid autoplay=”true” video=”680339″ player=”23886″ title=”Mercedes%20Schlapp%20Joe%20Biden%20is%20no%20longer%20a%20moderate” duration=”95″ description=”undefined” uploaddate=”2020-11-18″ thumbnailurl=”//cdn.brid.tv/live/partners/18168/thumb/680339_t_1605722571.png” contentUrl=”//cdn.brid.tv/live/partners/18168/sd/680339.mp4″]


Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) took her opportunity to blast President Biden during the latest Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen appeared for a hearing Tuesday when Lummis took aim at Biden’s financial policy.

Following Biden’s proposal to require banks to hand over transaction data over $600 on individual bank accounts, Lummis railed against the president

“Banks do not work for the IRS,” Lummis said. “This is invasive of privacy. Wyoming’s people literally will find alternatives to traditional banks just to thwart IRS access to their personal information, not because they’re trying to hide anything, but because they are not willing to share everything.”

However, Secretary Yellen corrected the senator. She claimed that the administration would just see reports on aggregate transactions. This way, there would be no way to see the data behind individual accounts.

“Do you distrust the American people so much that you need to know when they bought a couch? Or a cow?” Lummis asked. “I am astounded by what you’re supporting and proposing. I think it’s invasive. I think privacy for individuals is being ignored. And I think that treating the American people like they are subjects of the government is unconscionable.”

“The IRS has a wealth of information about individuals,” Yellen said. According to the treasure secretary, the proposal is for those who have “opaque sources of income.”

“A $600 threshold is not usually where you’re going to find the massive amount of tax data you think Americans are cheating you out of,” Lummis responded.

According to the Office of Tax Analysis, a crackdown on unreported income could generate $460 billion over the next decade. Yet, the IRS estimates that compliance on taxes due on wages is 99%. Meanwhile, compliance on what they call “less visible” sources of income is at 45%.

You can follow Jenny Goldsberry on Twitter @jennyjournalism.

Continue Reading

Elections

BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.

The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.

Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.

In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.

Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.

Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.

The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.

Trump vows to appeal the decision.

Continue Reading

Trending