Hillary Clinton’s Immunity?

Fox Business News‘ Julia Limitone thinks Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will talk to the FBI “within days.”  In fact, she’ll apparently be talking directly with FBI Director James Comey.  Here’s the money quote from Limitone’s piece, though:

While a proffer agreement will protect what Clinton says during the meeting from being used in a court of law, [former federal prosecutor-turned-criminal defense attorney, Arthur] Aidala noted it can be used against her for leads.

Just how far does this proffer agreement extend?  How immune to prosecution is Comey making his hopefully future capo di tutt’i capi?

More Governance by Fiat

This time regarding American businesses merging with overseas companies and moving to that overseas lower corporate tax environment.  This improves profits for the businesses’ owners, never mind that.  It reduces revenue for the Know Betters in our Government.

The new [Treasury Department] rules, the government’s third wave of administrative action against inversions, will make it harder for companies to move their tax addresses out of the US and then shift profits to low-tax countries….

[Emphasis added]

The aggressive nature of this latest round also comes

from a Treasury Department that has expressed frustration at the limits of its own powers in curbing these transactions.

Because Know Betters always want more power.  It’s not mete that the plebes and commoners should be in their way.  Here’s the gist of these rulers’ latest power grab:

The rules have two main parts….  First, the government would go after what it calls “serial inverters,” large companies created through multiple inversions or takeovers of US companies. The government would disregard US assets acquired by such companies over the previous three years.

And

To reap the full benefits of inverting, the US company’s shareholders should own between 50% and 60% of the merged entity, which requires a partner of carefully calibrated size.

Because business decisions concerning the details of a merger are better made by the Know Betters of Government than they are by the owners and managers of the businesses involved.

And

Treasury’s second action would limit what is known as earnings stripping, a practice that follows many inversions and other cross-border acquisitions that helps lower companies’ effective tax rates.

Inverted companies—in fact, all non-US-based companies—can lend money to their US subsidiaries.  Those moves create deductible interest in the US, reducing the income subject to the 35% US corporate tax rate and shifting income to a lower-taxed jurisdiction.

Because business leaders can’t be allowed to honor their fiduciary duties to the business’ owners by looking to maximize profit and to maximize revenue left in the business’ hands.  No, not when doing that runs counter to the demands of Know Betters for ever more money for Government.

Jack Lew, author of the rules in his capacity as Treasury Secretary had this bit of disingenuosity in defense of his latest stab:

After an inversion, many of these companies continue to take advantage of the benefits of being based in the United States—including our rule of law, skilled workforce, infrastructure, and research, and development capabilities—all while shifting a greater tax burden to other businesses and American families[.]

Never mind that inversions could better be discouraged by lowering our existing corporate tax rates to internationally competitive levels, and which thereby would shift no burden to other businesses and American families.  Lowering taxes is anathema to a gang that sees tax revenue as another path to their political power. (Certainly, Treasury can’t lower tax rates on its own, but Lew is carefully silent on this matter.)

Elections have consequences, folks.

How to Understand the Constitution

Juan Williams had some thoughts concerning this alleged point of confusion last Friday in his Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Over the past half century, regardless of whether a liberal or a conservative resides in the White House, the critical issue facing any Supreme Court nominee is where he or she stands on the political contest of wills over how to read the Constitution.

True enough.  But then he went astray.

Liberals regard the Constitution as a “living document” that lends itself to modern interpretations by judges, who may extend rights to groups not mentioned or considered in the Constitution or its amendments.

This is an accurate reading of the Modern Liberal position, but what they and Williams alike carefully, consciously elide is this crucial fact: our Founders and the Constitution’s authors also considered the Constitution to be a living document (no obfuscating quotes needed).  They, and We the People who then ratified our Constitution, included Article V explicitly for the purpose of that life.  And We the People are the ones, the only ones, to breathe life into our Constitution.  Judicial interpretation away from the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution only sap that life.

That puts a premium on the importance of judges and Justices applying the Constitution and the lesser laws enacted by our elected Representatives in Congress and our elected President as they are written.

The push-pull over the Constitution and the Supreme Court is a battle without end….

There is no legitimate push-pull here.  The Constitution does not belong to any judge, to interpret according to what he thinks it ought to say.  Nor does it belong to any Modern Liberal to interpret for his convenience.

The Constitution is We the People’s document, and it lives through us and our Article V.

Full stop.

Climatistas, Again

From Watts Up With That we get the latest internal inconsistency of the climate panic-mongers.

Including gas, oil and coal, they [the UN’s IPCC] estimate a total fossil fuel reserve of nine hundred to two thousand gigatonnes of carbon (GtC).  I decided to apply those numbers to both the Bern Model and the simple exponential decay model.

Willis Eschenbach, the author of the linked-to article, asked:

My interest was in finding out what would happen, according to the two CO2 models, if we burned all of the fossil fuels by 2100.

That is, if we completely exhausted all of our coal, oil, and natural gas in an orgy of consumption over the next 85 years, what would we get?

Using the two models cited, the Bern model and the simple single-time-constant exponential model, two of the IPCC’s favorite models, Eschenbach got the answer [emphasis his]:

According to the IPCC, there is not enough fossil fuel carbon (oil, gas, and coal) on the planet to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration from its current value.

Doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2 is one of the big bugaboos of the climatistas, never minding that at 800 parts per million by volume of CO2 in the air (the result of that doubling) is just about the level when life on earth was especially lush during earlier geologic eras.

Hmm….

Another Bill Did Pass

I wrote earlier about the National Football League’s apparent attempt to extort Georgia into not enacting a bill that didn’t suit the NFL’s pleasure.

North Carolina did enact a bill in the same tenor, and now the National Basketball Association is threatening to pull its next year’s All-Star game from Charlotte in retaliation.

When can we expect the NBA to mandate an inclusive environment to all who attend our games and event[s] and safe spaces of equality and mutual respect in its clubs’ arena rest rooms and to ban Men’s and Women’s rest rooms as unacceptably discriminatory?

Hmm….