Accounts Receivable (Broad Form: Fill & Download for Free

Hello!You mean this tweet:96-0 in the United States Senate. Congratulations AMERICA!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 26, 2020Sure, it’s a good and necessary thing that the relief package has passed. But they’re blowing through two trillion just to try to mitigate the damage that Donald Trump has negligently done to this country.But what you probably don’t know is that Moscow Mitch McConnell wasted ten precious days advancing a relief package laden with “poison pill” measures that according to the polls, were broadly opposed by Democrats, Republican and independents alike, and blocking provisions sponsored by Democrats that were popular across party lines.The political press reported the substance of these disputes as they usually do: Briefly, in the 8th or 9th paragraph of print pieces, and without any acknowledgment that Democrats were fighting for stuff that both Democrats and Republicans wanted. There was far more focus on the legislative process and various political calculations, which is also typical.As a result, those who just skimmed the headlines or caught a cable segment about the dispute would have had no idea what the parties were fighting over.At best, they took away a narrative of a relief package hobbled by partisan gridlock. More commonly, blame for holding up the vitally needed bill fell on Democrats, with headlines like, “Emergency Economic Rescue Plan in Limbo as Democrats Block Action” (New York Times), “Democrats block coronavirus response in fear of 2008 redux” (CNN) and “Senate Democrats block Republicans’ coronavirus stimulus bill 2nd time around” (Yahoo News).It’s hard to overstate how broadly the public supports what Democrats were trying to insert into the legislation.Congressional negotiators and the White House wrangled over a large number of issues, but there were two significant sticking points. First, following the regime’s lead, Republicans wanted to give the White House discretion over distributing hundreds of billions in corporate bailouts, and vigorously opposed Democratic efforts to attach conditions to that relief which would, among other things, prevent executives from pocketing the funds or enriching their shareholders rather than taking care of their workers.Trump’s claim that he would “be the oversight” for a huge amount of funding was clearly a non-starter. Meanwhile, most of the provisions Democrats fought for were recently proposed by Sen Elizabeth Warren, and Data for Progress conducted a survey to gauge public opinion about those measures. Other than barring bailed-out companies from buying back their stocks, which half of respondents didn’t understand well enough to form an opinion, they all proved to be extremely popular. https://filesforprogress.org/memos/accountable-bailouts.pdfAnd, unusually, they were popular across party lines. Republicans favored barring companies that received federal funds from laying off their workers by a 70-13 margin; they favored holding CEOs accountable for not complying with these rules 61-14; Republicans were in favor of a ban on dividends and bonuses by a 63-17 margin and 60 percent of Republicans approved of requiring shareholder approval of political spending against only 14 percent who opposed it. Pluralities of Republicans favored all of the other provisions tested.The other main point of contention centered on direct cash payments to keep individuals and households afloat. The bill Senate Republicans put together without Democratic input called for $1,200 payments for adults who pay federal income taxes, but only $600 for people with no federal tax bill. Given that the Earned Income Tax Credit and other benefits for lower-income households with kids bring many families below the tax threshold, this would have effectively given more money to those in less need. Democrats (who had offered adults $2,000 payments in their House bill) objected. Mitch McConnell blocked Democrats’ coronavirus bill for 10 days — and the press covered for himHere we don’t have clear-cut polling–I haven’t come across a survey that asked specifically about the Republicans’ regressive approach to these payments. But we can extrapolate from surveys that find overwhelming–and again, bipartisan–support for the idea of sending checks out to Americans generally. Eighty-two percent of respondents to an Ipsos poll favored direct cash relief, with only 11 percent opposed. It’s a safe bet that with that kind of support, most would side with Democrats that $600 per adult for lower-income households isn’t enough. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2020-03/newsy_march_poll_covid-19_032420_0.pdfDemocrats won these fights, but not before ten more days of economic hardship for millions of people had passed. McConnell had laden down the bill with provisions that he knew Democrats would balk at in an attempt to make them bear responsibility for the economic crash. It was pure, bare-knuckled partisan politics at a time when people of all political views desperately needed Congress to stop playing games and offer some federal support. It was cruelly cynical, and it echoed Trump’s own strategy of calling to reopen schools and businesses so he can shift blame for the coming recession onto Democratic governors. Trump doesn't really want to restart the economy — he's preparing the ground to blame Democrats and the media for the coming recessionBut one would never know about any of this by skimming media reports about this “partisan standoff.”

Hello Joanne!Very interesting and relevant question!As of now, there are four. Richard Burr, Jim Inhofe, Ron Johnson and Kelly Loeffler. Burr’s share in this scandal I already explained in this answer: Roland Temmerman's answer to Why did Senator Richard Burr warn wealthy members of a business club that a pandemic was coming 5 weeks ago?This is what Inhofe sold, second tweet:Here's some stock sales in that same time frame by Sen. Jim Inhofe R-OK pic.twitter.com/5npBsEtciH— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) March 20, 2020Up next is Ron Johnson. Senator Johnson, who has a net worth estimated at over $36 million, made a major transaction.The exact amount is unknown, as ethics forms only require disclosure in broad ranges, but Johnson reported selling over $5 million that day — and potentially up to $25 million.In a report filed today, Sen. Ron Johnson R-WI with a very large stock sale earlier this month. pic.twitter.com/c9QbjYOcPa— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) March 20, 2020Not too shabby, I’ll say!Now in Johnson’s defense, he sold off his share in his family’s company but it doesn’t matter since it’s still insider trading. Here’s the filing. eFD: HomeHis sale was reportedly announced February 11th.“A San Francisco-based private equity firm, Gryphon Investors, has made an equity investment in Oshkosh-based Pacur LLC, the supplier of specialty plastic packaging materials to the medical device industry that was led by Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson prior to his election to the U.S. Senate in 2010,” BizJournals reported. “Details of the transaction were not disclosed.” https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2020/02/11/private-equity-firm-makes-equity-investment-in.htmlAnd last but certainly not least, we have Kelly Loeffler. A few words about her first. Kelly Loeffler is married to Jeffrey Sprecher, the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, and the chairman and CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, which is NYSE's parent company.Loeffler assumed office on Jan. 6 after having been appointed to the seat vacated by retiring Sen. Johnny Isakson. Between then and Jan. 23 she did not report a single stock transaction from accounts owned by her individually or by her and her husband jointly.Between Jan. 24 and Feb. 14, by contrast, Loeffler reported selling stock jointly owned with her husband worth between $1,275,000 and $3,100,000, according to transaction reports filed with Senate ethics officials. On Feb. 14, she also purchased the Citrix stock and another $100,000 to $250,000 in technology company Oracle, which has seen its share price decline by more than 18 percent since then.The 15 stocks that Loeffler reported selling have lost more than a third of their value, on average, since she reported offloading them. She initially reported many of the transactions as sales of stock owned by her husband. Last week she amended the filing to note that most of them were jointly owned. Sen. Kelly Loeffler Dumped Millions in Stock After Coronavirus BriefingThe full scope of Loeffler’s portfolio and its particular holdings is not yet known. Senators are required to regularly disclose that information, but in January she requested an extension from Senate ethics officials. A full accounting of her finances will not be public until May.Fun fact: Loeffler’s worth an estimated $500 million.But what’s really remarkable in an appalling, egregious, heinous way, is that in the weeks after her spate of stock trades, Loeffler sought to downplay the public health and financial threats posed by the coronavirus.“Democrats have dangerously and intentionally misled the American people on #Coronavirus readiness,” she tweeted on Feb. 28. “Here’s the truth: @realDonaldTrump & his administration are doing a great job working to keep Americans healthy & safe.”And to top it off she tweeted this doozy on March 10th:Concerned about #coronavirus? Remember this:The consumer is strong, the economy is strong, & jobs are growing, which puts us in the best economic position to tackle #COVID19 & keep Americans safe.Update following meeting with @realdonaldtrump, @VP, & @StevenMnuchin1: pic.twitter.com/H9t2D6x19k— Senator Kelly Loeffler (@SenatorLoeffler) March 10, 2020She literally sold 7-figures in stock and purchased stock in 'teleworking' companies knowing people would be forced to work from home. Talk about hypocrisy and sheer grifiting…Now what will be the consequences for these four senators? Rest assured that the pressure on them to resign will be overwhelming in the coming days. If Trump wants to call the COVID-19 crisis a “war”, these are war profiteers. And since they’re members of the GOP voting against removal of IMPOTUS, they have even more reason for their resignations.Darn that crony capitalism, kleptocracy, and Republican character traits.And then there’s this:“The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act (Pub.L. 112–105, S. 2038, 126 Stat. 291, enacted April 4, 2012)…prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees.”en.wikipedia.org/…(Sec. 6) Amends the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EGA) to require specified individuals to file reports within 30 to 45 days after receiving notice of a purchase, sale, or exchange which exceeds $1,000 in stocks, bonds, commodities futures, and other forms of securities and subject to any waivers and exclusions.Lists such individuals as: (1) the President; (2) the Vice President; (3) executive officers or employees, including certain special government employees and members of a uniformed service; (4) appointed administrative law judges; (5) executive branch employees in positions excepted from the competitive service because of their confidential or policymaking character (except those excluded from such exception by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics [OGE]); (6) the Postmaster General, the Deputy Postmaster General, each Governor of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Postal Service, and certain U.S. Postal Service officers or employees; (7) the OGE Director and each designated agency ethics official; (8) civilian employees of the Executive Office of the President (other than a special government employee) appointed by the President; (9) Members of Congress; and (10) congressional officers and employees.(Sec. 18) Amends the federal criminal code to subject to a fine or imprisonment of up to 15 years, or both, as well as possible disqualification from holding federal office, certain covered government persons, in addition to Member of Congress and congressional employees, who with the intent to influence, on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity: (1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act; or (2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another.Extends the meaning of "covered government person" (currently restricted to Members of Congress and congressional employees) to include the President, Vice President, an employee of the U.S. Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee.www.congress.gov/...Could anyone of them, particulary Senator Burr be prosecuted for insider trading? Here’s what former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) | tweeted:Whether it is insider trading that is illegal (or criminal) is complicated.Insider trading is when someone learns of "material, nonpublic information" and uses that to trade stock. That means that the person knew something the public didn't know, which can sometimes give a trader a big advantage over the public.Insider trading by Senators and Members of Congress was *legal* until the STOCK Act of 2012. (See below.)Interestingly, Burr was one of only three Senators to vote against the STOCK Act.Insider trading is only illegal when the information is "material," meaning that it would have caused a significant change in stock price.It is also only illegal when the information is known by the trader and is not public.To prove Burr engaged in insider trading, the government would have to prove he knew of information that -- if the public knew about it -- would cause a significant change in the price of stocks that he sold.I realize it seems obvious to many of you that this was the case.But the government (SEC or DOJ) would have to prove each of those things. So first of all, they would need to prove exactly what Burr knew and find some piece of information that was not known by the public that was so important that it would have changed stock prices.Remember that there was a *lot* of public information and discussion already about the coronavirus. I suspect that his lawyers would spend a lot of time finding articles by experts that warned of the threat. They would argue that what Burr learned was essentially public.In addition, they would argue the information was not "material" because there was no way Burr would have known that it would have caused a significant change in price in the particular stocks that he sold.They would claim he couldn't have predicted a recession in advance.I'm not saying that these arguments would be successful. But it's complicated, and the first step is for the SEC and DOJ to investigate this matter.There is certainly enough information here to launch an investigation, and there should be a bipartisan call for one.Not all insider trading is prosecuted criminally. An inquiry by the SEC, which polices the stock markets, is a good starting point. There is a far higher burden of proof in a criminal case.The SEC should investigate this matter and see where the evidence leads. Another hurdle for SEC/DOJ would be that the STOCK Act is a fairly new statute that has not been used in the context of information that is not specific to an individual company.Prior cases were based on corporate insiders, not governmental "insiders" under the Act.So to conclude: Richard Burr already announced awhile back that he won’t be running for reelection when his current Senate term is up in 2022, so I won’t be shocked if he tries to cut some kind of resignation deal in exchange for immunity. Kelly Loeffler is in a rather different position. Because she was appointed near the end of a term, she has to run for “reelection” this November. After this scandal, you have to wonder if she’ll remain in the race…

It’s a little like the difference between failing to get your car inspected on time and having to pay a fine, and being charged with vehicular homicide. One is a civil violation, the other is a serious criminal matter, a felony. In the second case there may be lengthy prison terms and large fines involved.The $375,000 fine that the 2012 Obama campaign paid to the FEC was related, in part, to late reporting of about 1300 contributions amounting to $1.8 million dollars that were made in the last 20 days before the Election.These contributions were reported by the Obama campaign, but they were not reported in a timely manner. Within 20 days of an Election, the FEC requires reports of all contributions exceeding $1,000 to be made within 48 hours of receiving them — the Obama campaign did report these contributions, but the reports came late, after the 48 hour window. In addition, the Obama campaign was late in returning some individual contributions that were over the legal limit, and there were some incorrect dates on campaign reports.These reporting matters are matters that are taken very seriously by the FEC, but they are civil matters, indeed the FEC has no authority on its own to bring criminal charges, and can only enforce civil matters. Criminal charges couldn’t be brought unless someone at the FEC were to decide that the conduct by the Obama campaign was both willful and serious and a criminal violation of the federal election law and then referred it to the FBI and the DOJ for potential investigation and prosecution.For context, I believe that the 2012 Obama campaign was the first campaign to raise over $1 billion in US history, but in any case that was approximately the total amount of money involved, so while a fine of $375,000 looks large, it really is not so very large. The Obama campaign was sloppy in their reporting — they certainly should not have been sloppy, and they paid a fine for that.These violations were treated as civil matters by the FEC, since they were all determined by the FEC to be technical reporting violations. The matter was not referred to the Department of Justice because the FEC apparently did not consider these violations to be both willful and serious. For a campaign violation to be enforced as a criminal matter by the DOJ it must be both willfully carried out and serious in nature.In the case of Michael Cohen, the DOJ has already gathered evidence about Cohen’s involvement in facilitating the payments to Stephanie Clifford and to Karen McDougal totaling to $280,000, in the course of evaluating all of the other multiple felony charges that Cohen pleaded guilty to, and the DOJ has determined that these payments, both corporate and individual, that Cohen either made or helped to organize, were both willful and serious unlawful corporate and individual in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign, made for the purpose of influencing the election.These payments were never reported to the FEC by anyone associated with the Trump campaign. They were kept strictly secret for obvious reasons.Announcing that you are making hush payments defeats the whole purpose of making hush payments, and in the context of an election it is reasonable to believe that Trump considered the revelations about the alleged affairs to be potentially very damaging to his campaign, coming in the last days of an election, and that he was unwilling to take the risk of having that information come out.So Donald Trump was willing to pay money, or to have money paid on his behalf, to try to suppress that information before the election. And, while the source of the money and how it was actually transferred here are very interesting things to know, and more details are likely to come out about it, the actual source of the money is ultimately completely irrelevant to the criminality of the acts. The important thing is that the money that was paid was not reported, and that the President knew all about that. We know from the one Cohen/Trump tape that has been published that the President knew all about the existence of the payments and that Michael Cohen had consulted with Allen Weisselberg, the chief accountant of the Trump Organization since the days of Fred Trump, on how to structure the necessary corporations to accomplish what needed to be done to keep Karen McDougal quiet. The President appeared to think on that tape that he could actually pay cash to set up a corporation, which is hilarious to me, given that he’s supposed to be such an expert businessman! But Cohen immediately and vehemently corrected him on that point, having already gotten the down low from Allen.The story, which is supported by evidence in possession of the DOJ, and by the guilty plea of Michael Cohen is this:Donald Trump arranged through his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, and with the aid of David Pecker to have $150,000 paid to Karen McDougal and $130,000 paid to Stephanie Clifford aka Stormy Daniels for their silence right before the 2016 election.David Pecker, chairman of AMI, and publisher of the National Enquirer, reported the stories of both McDougal and Clifford to Donald Trump in advance, and after obtaining Donald Trump’s approval the National Enquirer paid the $150,000 to McDougal, to buy her story, and they executed a written agreement with Michael Cohen that Cohen would reimburse the National Enquirer for their outlay of funds.Michael Cohen, at Trump’s directions, paid $130,000 to Stephanie Clifford through a corporation that he had set up and that he personally controlled, in return for a non-disclosure agreement that she signed, and which she now disputes the validity of, in a civil suit which has been temporarily stayed. This suit involves both Michael Cohen and Donald Trump.David Pecker was given immunity from prosecution by Federal prosecutors, an extremely unusual move in a case like this, since he is clearly a co-conspirator in the crimes.The Trump Organization re-imbursed Michael Cohen for his financial outlays and for his services to the Trump campaign, in 2017, to the tune of $420,000.The net effect is that Donald Trump, taking part in a conspiracy, either made or accepted two illegal campaign contributions to his own campaign, the purpose of which were to influence the election in his own favor.Trump did not report these campaign contributions and neither did anyone else.The amounts involved are way in excess of any legal individual campaign contributions, and the corporate contribution in the form of money that went to Karen McDougal, which Cohen facilitated for Trump through the National Enquirer, is illegal on its face.Cohen acted at Donald Trump’s direction and in coordination with Donald Trump, and he was apparently later reimbursed for the money that he fronted, by the Trump Organization. His actions on their own are felony campaign finance violations. So he pleaded guilty to the two felony campaign finance violations that he was charged with and he also implicated Trump and David Pecker in a conspiracy to commit those crimes.[1]So, the difference between what happened with the Obama campaign is that they had committed civil violations of the reporting and other FEC regulations on campaign financing; they were late in reporting, but there was no intentional failure to report determined by the FEC, and the matter therefore was civil and could be resolved by a fine, while Trump, Cohen and Pecker conspired intentionally to commit serious criminal violations of federal election law, and they never reported the campaign contributions in question. Specifically, Trump and Cohen are implicated in a conspiracy in both felonies that Cohen pleaded guilty to in his allocution, and David Pecker is implicated in Count Seven.Pecker has been given immunity and this is perhaps the most interesting development to come out, since it is well-known in the NY area that for many years the National Enquirer has been a mouthpiece for Donald Trump and it can be guessed that they undoubtedly have a whole vault full of stories that were killed, for the benefit of Donald Trump. It goes without saying that the existence of such information in the hands of the National Enquirer gave David Pecker considerable influence over President Trump.Moreover it is likely that the arrangement with the National Enquirer pre-dated the 2016 campaign.Now, a brief comment: had President Obama ever been accused of anything even remotely like this, there would have been immediate impeachment hearings started in the House of Representatives, and he might very likely have been removed from office.What Trump is implicated in doing is the very definition of “other high crimes or misdemeanors” which is referred to in the Constitution. At a minimum investigations into impeachment could and should be begun. But they will not be, because the majority party in the House of Representatives is the Republican party, and the President is of the same party.Remember precisely what President Clinton was impeached for and remember in particular the arguments that Senator Lindsey Graham made in favor of impeachment at the time. In fact, on a reading of the Constitution and the record of the debates surrounding the drafting of the Constitution and the debates surrounding its adoption, “other high crimes and misdemeanors” was a term of art borrowed from English law that was intended to be applied very broadly.In fact, in my opinion a criminal indictment could, and likely should, be brought against President Trump either immediately or in the near future. It is high time to reconsider the opinion of the DOJ, laid out in department memoranda and legal opinions but never tested in court, that the President may not be indicted while in office. Here’s an interesting opinion by one of the Watergate prosecutors.Footnotes[1] David Kahana's answer to What precise felonies did Michael Cohen implicate Donald Trump in during his guilty plea?