Daily review 04/04/2025

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, April 4th, 2025 - 16 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

16 comments on “Daily review 04/04/2025 ”

    • weka 1.1

      I get the feeling the journo enjoyed writing this

      ACT leader David Seymour has slammed a select committee recommendation to bin his Treaty Principles Bill and doesn’t believe a wave of scathing submissions is a reflection of New Zealand’s true opinion.

    • Phillip ure 1.2

      We could thank Seymour ..'cos tho he attempted to sew racial dissent..

      (.at which he abjectly failed..)

      ..but what he did do was to prove for us that most new Zealanders want a racially harmonious society ..

      ..and one that recognizes the waitangi treaty as the founding document it is..

      ..and we don't want anyone to mess with that document…

      And I dunno about you..but I find all that somewhat cheering…

      • Kat 1.2.1

        Seymour keeps pushing that most New Zealanders want equality……..inferring that we don't at present…….he compares the End of Life Bill as an example…….pushing for a referendum…….he is a dangerous little glove puppet with ill intent……interesting to see if his donors keep up the financial support when all fails……..

  1. Phillip ure 2

    John key said he would have voted for trump…

    …we don't need to know anything else..do we..?

  2. joe90 3

    Elect a mob boss, find out how an autocratic oligarchy works.

    /

    Amid a flurry of pardons President Donald Trump issued to white-collar criminals last week, one name that has largely escaped notice did not belong to a person at all.

    In what may have been a first, Trump pardoned a corporation. The company to earn that distinction was a cryptocurrency exchange sentenced to a $100 million fine for violating an anti-money laundering law.

    “As far as I know, the president has never granted a full pardon to a corporation.”

    The move surprised scholars of presidential pardons, which have traditionally been considered the domain of human beings. Several experts contacted by The Intercept said Trump appears to have acted within his powers, but they were unaware of any prior instances of corporations granted full pardons.

    “There have been plenty of cases where presidents have remitted fines or forfeitures, or something else like that,” said Margaret Love, who served as U.S. pardon attorney from 1990 to 1997. “As far as I know, the president has never granted a full pardon to a corporation.”

    […]

    The company pleaded guilty last July. Two months ago, a federal judge handed it a $100 million fine and two years’ probation. The fine was supposed to be paid within 60 days of the judgment’s entry into the court record. The company said it had not paid the fine before receiving the pardon. The timing of Trump’s pardon means the company avoided the fine deadline by hours

    https://theintercept.com/2025/04/02/trump-pardons-corporation-bitmex-crypto/?

  3. Dennis Frank 4

    Senator Rand Paul opposed the new tariffs in a speech to the Senate:
    https://unherd.com/newsroom/trumps-tariffs-are-unconstitutional/

    I voted for and supported President Trump, but I don’t support the rule of one person. The President is set to have a 25% tax on goods coming from Canada and Mexico. This is a tax, plain and simple, on the American people. But one person can’t do that. Our Founding Fathers said: “No, that would be illegal for one person to raise taxes.” It has to come to Congress.

    It has to originate in the House. This has gone on for 200-odd years. You can’t simply declare an emergency and say: “Well, the Constitution of the Republic was great; but gosh, we’ve got an emergency or times are dire.”

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly said there are no exemptions for emergencies. There was no exemption for a pandemic. The taxation clause stands. It’s an important part of the Constitution. Taxes must originate in the House. They must be voted on in Congress.

    As if semantics don't matter. A tariff is a tax if you call it that? I doubt any judge would agree, unless case law had established precedent on it. I think a tariff is a cost that becomes incorporated into strategic pricing by companies, so consumers end up paying it. Perhaps he means that but is averse to saying so? Regardless, rationality of this framing seems a tad ephemeral. He's flying this kite confidently though, on the basis that they're unconstitutional. Perhaps he over-estimates the rationality of the SC.

  4. ianmac 5

    Just watched a program that showed that Mexico has not responded with their own tariffs. For many weeks Mexico has brought big USA Business in Mexico under pressure. The effect is growing big industry anxiety via CEOs in Washington. Thus Republican MPs are getting hammered as the big companies like Ford or Massey panic.

    Does this work?

    • ianmac 5.1

      It has been argued for ages that the undoing of Trump will come from the People rather than from brute force. What will happen if other countries adopt the Mexico method?

      • mikesh 5.1.1

        For Mexico to have responded with retaliatory tariffs would only have operated as a tax on its own people.

    • Stan 5.2

      Was starting to get interested in this link, when 1 minute into the video I realised it was one of those cheap nasty ones with a computer generated voice. Would prefer that links like this were not used, waste of my time…

Leave a Comment