B3
OPINION
Mountain Views News Saturday, April 13, 2019
HAIL HAMILTON
Mountain Views
News
PUBLISHER/ EDITOR
Susan Henderson
PASADENA CITY
EDITOR
Dean Lee
EAST VALLEY EDITOR
Joan Schmidt
BUSINESS EDITOR
LaQuetta Shamblee
PRODUCTION
SALES
Patricia Colonello
626-355-2737
626-818-2698
WEBMASTER
John Aveny
DISTRIBUTION
Lancelot
CONTRIBUTORS
Mary Lou Caldwell
Kevin McGuire
Chris Leclerc
Bob Eklund
Howard Hays
Paul Carpenter
Kim Clymer-Kelley
Christopher Nyerges
Peter Dills
Rich Johnson
Lori Ann Harris
Rev. James Snyder
Dr. Tina Paul
Katie Hopkins
Deanne Davis
Despina Arouzman
Jeff Brown
Marc Garlett
Keely Toten
Dan Golden
Rebecca Wright
Hail Hamilton
EXPLAINING WHAT WE DO
NOT BUT SHOULD KNOW
So after spending 22 months investigating, On March
22, Special Counsel Robert Mueller submitted his report to
Attorney General William Barr. The investigation garnered
199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas, and 5
prison sentences, and cost to the American taxpayer about $25
million—A bargain compared to the $25 million spent in 1974
dollars on the Watergate investigation. Mueller’s report has not
yet been made public.
Two days later, On March 24, Barr sent a four-page summary to Congress
detailing the what he called the “principal conclusions” of special counsel’s findings
to key members of congress. Barr wrote in his summary “that the report is divided
into two parts: the results of the investigation into Russia’s interference into the 2016
presidential election, and an examination of whether the president obstructed justice.”
Barr said that the special counsel “did not find that the Trump campaign
or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to
influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and an examination of whether the
president obstructed justice. He quoted directly from the report:”The investigation
did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated
with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Barr said that Mueller’s team did not determine whether Trump illegally obstructed
justice either: “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a
crime, it also does no exonerate him.” In his summary, Barr wrote that he and Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “determined that the special counsel’s investigator’s
did not have enough evidence to prove Trump had obstructed justice.”
There seems to be some confusion over what the standard of proof Mueller
should have been using. Grand juries, unlike petit criminal trial courts, where beyond
a reasonable doubt is the standard. Grand juries use this, not the higher standard. They
are generally impaneled with 16 to 24 jurors for extended periods time to investigate
serious, more complicated crimes.
For a quorum to vote 2/3rds of the grand jurors have to be present, or 8 to
16 respectively, the same number needed to indict or charge a person with a crime.
Not meeting this threshold of proof was the reason why the president and other
administration officials were not held accountable—not that President Trump and his
cronies have been exonerated!
AG Barr reported by Politico indicated: “…he’s prepared to share a redacted copy
of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report with lawmakers and the public by mid-
April ‘if not sooner’ and indicated he’s prepared to testify to Congress by early May.”
Yet why the need for any redactions at all? The committees members can
use the un-redacted copies in closed, non-public sessions. My understanding is that
all members of the House and Senate committees holding hearing on the Mueller
investigation have sufficiently high security clearances to read the un-redacted version
of the report.
The Politico article also noted that “Barr’s initial summary of Mueller’s conclusions
also omitted central swaths of the areas Mueller investigated, including whether he
reached counterintelligence findings that might show whether any Americans were
compromised by Russians even if they committed no crimes.”
Donald Rumsfeld, Former Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush,
once said, “Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to
me, because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we
know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we
don’t want to know, and there are things governments do not want you to know. ”This
is what I call Rumsfeld’s General Theory of Relative Unknowns.
Mountain Views News
has been adjudicated as
a newspaper of General
Circulation for the County
of Los Angeles in Court
Case number GS004724:
for the City of Sierra
Madre; in Court Case
GS005940 and for the
City of Monrovia in Court
Case No. GS006989 and
is published every Saturday
at 80 W. Sierra Madre
Blvd., No. 327, Sierra
Madre, California, 91024.
All contents are copyrighted
and may not be
reproduced without the
express written consent of
the publisher. All rights
reserved. All submissions
to this newspaper become
the property of the Mountain
Views News and may
be published in part or
whole.
Opinions and views expressed
by the writers
printed in this paper do
not necessarily express
the views and opinions
of the publisher or staff
of the Mountain Views
News.
Mountain Views News is
wholly owned by Grace
Lorraine Publications,
and reserves the right to
refuse publication of advertisements
and other
materials submitted for
publication.
Letters to the editor and
correspondence should
be sent to:
Mountain Views News
80 W. Sierra Madre Bl.
#327
Sierra Madre, Ca.
91024
Phone: 626-355-2737
Fax: 626-609-3285
email:
mtnviewsnews@aol.com
JOHN L. MICEK
STREAMING ‘GAME OF
THRONES?’ YOU SHOULD
CARE ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY BILL
If you’re like me, you’re probably going to sit down on Sunday
night, popcorn and adult beverage in hand, to watch the
start of the final season of “Game of Thrones.”
And if, like me, you’re one of the roughly 33 million other
Americans last year who were expected to cut the cord with
their cable companies, then you’re probably watching “Game
of Thrones” on your laptop or streaming device.
So, Mother of Dragons, you’re going to need to pay attention to some recent developments
in Washington.
This week, the majority-Democrat U.S. House voted to reinstate Obama-era “net
neutrality” rules that prevent internet service providers from meddling with web
traffic.
The “Save the Internet Act,” sponsored by Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., passed on a 232-
190 vote, largely along party lines. One Republican, Rep. Bill Posey, of Florida, broke
ranks with the GOP to side with Democrats.
President Trump’s Federal Communications Commission reversed the rules in 2017
- a major win for big telecom like Comcast and Verizon, who were effectively freed
to charge super-users more for their data consumption and cut off the competition
at the knees.
But the bill is in for a bumpy ride in the Republican-controlled Senate, where, according
to Slate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pronounced it “dead on
arrival.”
As an added bonus, Slate reports, aides to President Trump have recommended
a veto. Which is a shame, because if there’s anyone who needs access to streaming
high-quality historical documentaries about the basics of American history, it’s
Trump.
Last year, the Senate approved a resolution to undo the administration’s rule reversal,
with the support of Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, John Kennedy of
Louisiana, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Every Democratic senator backed the resolution.
Even still, it failed to get the votes for passage in the Republican-controlled
House, Slate noted.
According to Doyle, it’s likely that lawmakers will face some significant pressure
from the folks back home to approve the legislation, something that’s backed up by
polling data.
As ZDNet reports, 80 percent of respondents to a recent Comparitech Poll said they
supported net neutrality. The support, according to ZDNet, cuts across party lines:
87 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of Republican respondents said they supported
net neutrality.
We’re now at a point where there’s a nexus between the content-creators and the
content-providers. And anything that further cements that relationship - and chokes
off choice - is a bad thing.
“In other words, major ISPs will be able to promote the media companies they own
… while punishing competitors’ offerings,” Paul Blumenthal wrote for HuffPost in
2017. “That will force consumers, who often have no choice in internet service providers,
into walled gardens of content that the ISPs create.”
The other issue is that while many Americans have access to broadband internet,
there are many thousands more - particularly in rural areas - who do not.
As ZDNet also reports, research by Microsoft found that 162.8 million people (that’s
half the nation, by the way) don’t have access to broadband-speed access.
The digital divide is one of the starker reminders of the gap between the haves- and
the have-nots in Donald Trump’s America.
It’s nearly impossible to do anything these days - from registering to vote and paying
your electric bill to shopping or obtaining access to basic information - without an
internet hook-up. And there is nothing less patriotic than balkanizing Americans
and cutting them off from a civic debate that occurs largely online, simply because of
an accident of geography.
In the early 1990s, when the first blush of this thing called the internet was upon us,
it was viewed as a liberating force, one that would level the playing field by democratizing
the flow of information and opening channels of communication to everyone.
It has been successful - and failed - beyond our wildest expectations. For every social
media campaign that’s resulted in policy change, there’s been the revelation of foreign
meddling and the unsettling, but inevitable, reality that the concept of “online
privacy” is now an oxymoron.
While the early days of the internet are long gone, the restoration of net neutrality
rules would at least restore some fairness and preserve consumer freedoms.
And that doesn’t seem like a whole lot to ask.
Call your Senator and let them know winter will be coming if they don’t vote to support
the House bill.
FORGET TRUMP’S TAX
RETURNS, WHAT ABOUT MINE?
I don’t care about President Trump’s tax returns.
With the filing deadline approaching, I’m far more interested in
my tax return. Because as fascinating as the contents of the president’s
returns might be, it’s my own that give me agita.
Of course, I do realize that some Americans, most of whom are
House Democrats, care deeply about Trump’s tax returns.
They thought Robert Mueller had delivered them a present in the
completed Russian collusion investigation. It was all wrapped up
in a nice shiny package with a pretty red bow. But inside, the Democrats found only
irregular underwear.
Undaunted, the members of the House Financial Services Committee, led by Rep.
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who hates Trump more than a canker, now have another
object of their obsession – Trump’s tax returns.
Because the president has told the Democrats to go pound sand, the Financial Services
Committee gave the IRS a Wednesday deadline to hand the returns over.
On Wednesday, Trump said he won’t provide six years’ worth of returns for which the
Democrats are asking because he’s under audit. He also pointed out that he got elected
with this issue hanging over his head and those who voted for him didn’t seem to care.
There’s no reason to believe that isn’t still the case.
All of this is likely to degenerate into a long, rancorous legal battle.
But that’s the Democrats’ problem.
In the meantime, I have to write a fat check to the IRS this year.
My father, who was a CPA, used to say that if you owe money, be thankful because
it means you’ve had a pretty good year. That’s a far better approach than my usual --
tearing my garments, followed by the first four of the five stages of grief. (I can’t seem
to make the jump from depression to acceptance.)
In the Bible, in Matthew (22:21) Jesus said “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”
That’s a tough one, especially when you know that sound financial stewardship
is not one of Caesar’s strengths.
Still, I take my responsibilities seriously. I might have to do it but I don’t have to like it.
By the way, I’d like to make the offer now to who anyone wants to see my returns.
They’re all yours.
In fact, my accountant put them in a smartly bound, blue folder. It all looks perfectly
professional and official. Production values aside, there’s nothing in there that’s particularly
interesting, just in case the IRS is reading this.
I didn’t claim my dog as a dependent or my big screen TV as a business expense. My
returns are above board and boring. Others, however, are far more creative.
How about hiring an arsonist to burn down your business and deducting the $10,000
fee paid to the arsonist? True, according to TurboTax. Or trying to deduct a tattoo as
a medical expense? Also, true.
There are some unusual, legal deductions of which you might not be aware. If you
haven’t filed yet, consider these for next year.
If you are the captain of a whaling vessel, you are eligible for up to $10,000 in ship
repairs. I hope Captain Ahab didn’t waste all that time chasing Moby Dick without
getting a tax break.
Under very specific circumstances, you can deduct cat food. “The IRS allowed a junkyard
owner to deduct the cost of cat food as a business expense,” according to CNBC.
“In this case, the taxpayer asserted that the food was necessary to attract feral cats,
which kept the junkyard’s pests - wild rats and snakes - in check.”
Exotic dancers have deducted breast augmentation surgery. Hey, it’s a legitimate business
expense.
And thanks to a 1962 case in which an orthodontist said playing the clarinet would
correct an overbite, you might be able to deduct your kid’s clarinet lessons, assuming
you’re willing to listen to a lot of off-key squealing while you’re waiting for his teeth to
straighten. Could be a long year.
But whaling is illegal (unless you’re Native American), I don’t own a cat or a junkyard,
and I’m not willing to endure a protracted period of bad B flats.
I’ll just write my check and hope Caesar appreciates it.
Rich Manieri is a Philadelphia-born journalist and author. He is currently a professor of
journalism at Asbury University in Kentucky. His book, “We Burn on Friday: A Memoir
of My Father and Me” is available at amazon.com. You can reach him at manieri2@
gmail.com.
RICH MANIERI
Mountain Views News
Mission Statement
The traditions of
community news-
papers and the
concerns of our readers
are this newspaper’s
top priorities. We
support a prosperous
community of well-
informed citizens. We
hold in high regard the
values of the exceptional
quality of life in our
community, including
the magnificence of
our natural resources.
Integrity will be our guide.
Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 Office: 626.355.2737 Fax: 626.609.3285 Email: editor@mtnviewsnews.com Website: www.mtnviewsnews.com
|