The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Reprinted with permission from Shareblue.


When Trump meets with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin in Helsinki this week, he won’t ask Putin to hand over the Russian officials who attacked our democracy — at least if National Security Advisor John Bolton has his way.

On Sunday morning’s edition of “This Week,” host Jonathan Karl repeatedly pressed Bolton on whether Trump would demand that Putin extradite the 12 Russian intelligence officials who were indicted Friday for interfering with the 2016 elections.

Unless Putin hands these officials over to the United States, special counsel Robert Mueller can’t actually prosecute them in court.

“Will the president ask Putin to extradite those 12 individuals who have been indicted?” Karl asked Bolton.

“Well, you know I know a number of Democratic senators have called for extradition,” Bolton said. “I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume none of them are lawyers, because the United States does not have an extradition treaty with Russia, so it’s pretty hard to imagine how that would happen.”

“But extradition treaty or not, the president could ask, even demand, of Putin that he turn those individuals over,” Karl pressed. “Will he do that?”

“You know, I think it’s pretty silly for the president to demand something that he can’t get legally,” Bolton said.

He went on to argue that because Russia has refused to extradite Russians to other governments in the past, there’s no point in asking.

“So, I think — for the president to demand something that isn’t going to happen puts the president in a weak position,” Bolton claimed.

As Karl pointed out, the absence of an extradition treaty doesn’t mean Trump shouldn’t demand extraction. In fact, if there were an extradition treaty, Trump wouldn’t need to make such a demand at all. If Trump only makes demands he already knows Putin will agree to, he has no leverage.

Demanding extradition is also a way to put pressure on Putin over Russia’s election interference.

But as Bolton made even clearer later in the interview, standing up to Putin for trying to sabotage American democracy just isn’t a priority for Trump.

“But will the president hold Putin accountable — and I don’t mean just ask him if he did it, or if the Russians did it,” Karl said. “Is he actually going to confront President Putin with the evidence that it was Russian interference, Russian government interference with our election?”

“Well, look, you have two indictments by the Justice Department already. I think the Russians are well aware of that,” Bolton said. “We have asked, and the Russians have agreed, that [the talk] will be basically unstructured. We are not looking for concrete deliverables here.”

According to Bolton, it’s enough that the Justice Department has made the indictments — Trump doesn’t actually have to confront Putin about them face to face.

Trump himself said Saturday that he hadn’t even thought of asking Putin to hand over the accused Russian criminals. Bolton’s response made clear that it won’t be happening.

Even before the indictments were announced Friday, Trump had been clearly signaling surrender to Putin by parroting the Russian dictator’s absurd denial that his government had anything to do with election hacking.

Now that Trump’s own Justice Department has directly implicated Putin’s intelligence officials, Trump’s failure to do anything about it will cement America’s humiliation.

Published with permission of The American Independent. 



Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Supreme Court of the United States

YouTube Screenshot

A new analysis is explaining the disturbing circumstances surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how the U.S. Supreme Court has morphed into an entity actively working toward authoritarianism.

In a new op-ed published by The Guardian, Jill Filipovic —author of the book, The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness—offered an assessment of the message being sent with the Supreme Court's rollback of the 1973 landmark ruling.

Keep reading... Show less


YouTube Screenshot

After a year of reporting on the tax machinations of the ultrawealthy, ProPublica spotlights the top tax-avoidance techniques that provide massive benefits to billionaires.

Last June, drawing on the largest trove of confidential American tax data that’s ever been obtained, ProPublica launched a series of stories documenting the key ways the ultrawealthy avoid taxes, strategies that are largely unavailable to most taxpayers. To mark the first anniversary of the launch, we decided to assemble a quick summary of the techniques — all of which can generate tax savings on a massive scale — revealed in the series.

1. The Ultra Wealth Effect

Our first story unraveled how billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos were able to amass some of the largest fortunes in history while paying remarkably little tax relative to their immense wealth. They did it in part by avoiding selling off their vast holdings of stock. The U.S. system taxes income. Selling stock generates income, so they avoid income as the system defines it. Meanwhile, billionaires can tap into their wealth by borrowing against it. And borrowing isn’t taxable. (Buffett said he followed the law and preferred that his wealth go to charity; the others didn’t comment beyond a “?” from Musk.)

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}