If the New York Times story is true, someone broke the law to leak tax return information to the New York Times in order to undermine the President of the United States in the upcoming election. That someone broke the law to hurt Trump and help the Democrats. We should all be infuriated by that and by the fact that that the New York Times is willing to be involved in that. //

But I also wanted to point out how the top line fact they’re putting out of their story is actually refuted by their own story, that is the claim that Trump only paid $750 in 2016 and then again in 2017. The purpose of this is obviously to stir up anger against Trump for paying little in taxes.

As I said yesterday when the story dropped, I want someone who can actually read the law and apply it well. To me, that’s an asset. If you don’t like the law that allowed it, that Barack Obama signed, then take it up with the Congress and Obama. But why would anyone pay more to the government than they have to?

But as it turns out, if you read the New York Times’ own story, as they point out, Trump paid far more than $750 in each year, so this claim which is being spread everywhere is false, according to their own story.//

So what that means is he actually paid to the US Treasury $1 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017 which was then rolled forward, not refunded when his ultimate tax liability was figured out. And he paid $750 in each year on top of that.

The Jerusalem Center for Bible Translators (JCBT) is a non-profit educational ministry which focuses on training mother tongue Bible translators, consultants-in-training and consultants. This training, under the auspices of the Rothberg International School for Overseas Students at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, serves to allow increasing numbers of people to access to the Biblical message in their mother tongue created from a quality translation referencing the original Hebrew text.

The JCBT/Hebrew University program is designed specifically for Bible translators. JCBT has served translators and consultants from several Bible translation agencies, including Biblica, Bible League, IBT, NBTT, SIL, TSCO, UBS, Word for the World and Wycliffe, as well as sign language agencies like Deaf Missions and D.O.O.R. Students have come from 36 different countries.

It’s a silly idea, of course. A pointless waste of time and taxpayer money. But the Democrats don’t have a monopoly on those tactics, and we can go back and forth on the history of each party trying to one-up the other with these types of stunts. But the fact of the matter is that the Democrats are so broken by the existence of Trump that they are not thinking clearly, and haven’t been for a while. The whole idea that they can do this with any shred of credibility is absurd, and it will be just as absurd when the Republicans try it in the future.

Yesterday the Wisconsin Supreme Court, acting on an expedited basis, answered the question posed by the Seventh Circuit in the “affirmative” — the Wisconsin Legislature was authorized to act as a litigant on behalf of the State of Wisconsin when the issue in dispute was defending the validity of a law passed by the legislature. Because Judge Conley’s order declared parts of the Wisconsin election code to be in violation of federal constitutional law, and therefore unenforceable for the upcoming election, the Wisconsin Legislature could challenge his ruling.

What about the Wisconsin Attorney General you might wonder. Why did he not seek to defend the Wisconsin statutes and oppose Judge Conley’s order? He’s a Democrat, elected in 2018, and serving his first term as Wisconsin Attorney General. He’s too busy helping to prosecute Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha.

And, prior to running for office, he worked for the notorious Democrat Party election law specialists, the Perkins Coie law firm in their Madison, Wisconsin office.

Christopher Steele is perhaps one of the most successful and most duplicitous grifters of the last decade. He has managed to reach mythical status among the American left and those who ate his lies with glee in the media. Steele has been described as a “super-spy” and a patriot, a “spymaster” and someone who cares deeply for the United States. His supposed expertise and unimpeachable character were often cited as a defense of the Steele Dossier, which turned out to be abject nonsense.

Michael Beschloss
@BeschlossDC
Harris is correct that when Roger Taney died in October 1864, Abraham Lincoln deferred a Supreme Court appointment until after election so that next President, with a new mandate, could do it.
9:12 PM · Oct 7, 2020

Kevin Daley 🏛
·
Oct 7, 2020
The facts are complicated. Lincoln's reelection was not in doubt after Sherman took Atlanta in Sept. Lincoln ran on a war-time unity ticket, but his preferred choice, Salmon Chase, was the favorite son of radical Republicans. Naming Chase early would have undermined his pitch.

Kevin Daley 🏛
@KevinDaleyDC
And the other side of this precedent isn't helpful for Biden-Harris. Lincoln nominated Chase as soon as the Senate returned for the December lameduck. Chase was confirmed that same day.
9:55 PM · Oct 7, 2020

The [Supreme Court] Justices have deprecated but not forbidden all change close to an election. A last-minute event may require a last-minute reaction. But it is not possible to describe COVID-19 as a last-minute event. The World Health Organization declared a pandemic seven months ago, the State of Wisconsin closed many businesses and required social distancing last March, and the state has conducted two elections (April and August) during the pandemic. If the judge had issued an order in May based on April’s experience, it could not be called untimely. By waiting until September, however, the district court acted too close to the election.

The district judge also assumed that the design of adjustments during a pandemic is a judicial task. This is doubtful, as Justice Kavanaugh observed in connection with the Supreme Court’s recent stay of another injunction issued close to the upcoming election. Andino v. Middleton, No. 20A55 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). The Supreme Court has held that the design of electoral procedures is a legislative task.