The Democrats and Russia

Written By: - Date published: 7:30 am, July 26th, 2017 - 66 comments
Categories: Donald Trump, Europe, International, us politics - Tags: ,

Russia is already the issue that will permanently mark the Donald Trump Presidency’s first term. He will live or die on how he and his team come out of the inquiries that are going on (Sure bigger than Monica Lewinsky was to President Clinton).

So I’m puzzled. The United States government is the weakest we have seen for many generations – certainly the most unpopular – and is getting deeper and deeper into trouble. So the Democrat leadership should be more popular. They should be in a full-blown revival by now. This is the least popular President since World War II. Even Bill Clinton 6 months in wasn’t this unpopular.

Some may say that what they need is some Bernie Sanders-type hard left saviour. But Bernie’s views on Russia are pretty much the same as Obama’s were. And pretty much the same kind of nuanced and conciliatory stance to Russia that Trump is taking now.

Russia will now dominate U.S. politics right through to the next Presidential elections.

I think a big public trust issue with the Democratic Party is precisely about Russia. Russia is being set up as the primary cause of the political instability of the Trump Presidency. But it is the Democratic President Obama that set the U.S. positioning about Russia in play. Trump is simply continuing and deepening it. That means the Democrats cannot credibly attack Trump on Russia: they can’t criticise their own President. They are largely leaving it to the mainstream media to do their political work for them.

So before we treat ourselves to yet another youtube clip of Maddow’s MSNBC or CNN’s Blitzer scoffing at how corrupted by Russia Trump’s staff have been in their dealings, let’s remind ourselves why Democrats are so weak on Russia.

President Obama launched his famous Russian reset in early 2009 just months after Russia invaded Georgia. He then announced the removal of missile defence systems in the Czech Republic and Poland that year. He also ignored Russia violations of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (while simultaneously negotiating new START). Then he ceded ground to the Russian military intervention in Syria. Then he did nothing about his own Syrian “red line” when Syrian civilians were gassed. President Obama’s administration was one long – eight-year-long – concession to Russia.

At the United Nations General Assembly in 2009 President Obama said “The traditional divisions between nations of the south and the north make no sense in an interconnected world nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.” By which he meant pretty much the same thing that Trump said when he had a good crack at NATO. Except when Trump did it, the liberal commentators wet their pants.

So it was kinda good to see Chuck Schumer finally make a distinction recently that Russia was not the only reason Hillary Clinton lost.

Here’s the fuller version in the Washington Post.

Schumer – as Clinton’s campaign Chair – has good reason to throw Clinton herself under a bus for the 2016 campaign saying the basic messages weren’t clear. So it wasn’t just Russia’s electoral interference. He has to gear up the message for the 2018 Senate races.

Democrats remain largely leaderless in the aftermath of an election no-one in that party thought they would lose. I sure didn’t. Sanders and Warren pretty much cancel each other out for leftie appeal, and Biden’s still biding his time. As ever.

I have to be honest that it is fun watching Trump’s key people die a professional death.

But it is taking too long for the Democrats to show that they are a credible alternative government-in-waiting. There is simply no way for them to join in the Russia attack since they also have to back Obama’s legacy and since they have the Hillary loss around their necks that they need to get rid of – which they can’t because they blame the loss on the Russian cyber attacks. Which are where all the investigations started. So they can’t attack Trump on Russia because the public know when they do that they attack both Obama and Hillary Clinton – one Democratic saint and one Democratic martyr. Ain’t no extricating that.

All the Democrats are doing is leaving the hard political work to the media.

66 comments on “The Democrats and Russia”

  1. garibaldi 1

    In a nutshell the Democrats are in total disarray internally and have blamed it all on Russia. If they concentrated on their own demise they might get somewhere. Perhaps distancing themselves from the Clinton dynasty would be a good start. All this anti Russian bullshit is pretty thick coming from the USA …. total hypocrisy.

    • red-blooded 1.1

      There’s something in what you say, Garibaldi. The US has definitely not been backward in meddling in other countries’ democratic processes. Having said that, there’s no excuse for any party or candidate’s team to accept help from another country that’s been spying or working underground to influence an election. We wouldn’t put up with it here and the people of the US shouldn’t either.

      • garibaldi 1.1.1

        You are right red-blooded, but is there absolute proof against the Russians? Seems more like the Dems just had to find someone else to blame for losing to Trump(of all people!).

        • Morrissey 1.1.1.1

          There is no evidence at all that the Russians meddled in the U.S. election. Here’s someone who, in contrast to dear old “Advantage”, actually knows what he’s talking about….

          • RedLogix 1.1.1.1.1

            Yes. It would be interesting to get a panel of influential and experienced analysts like Greenwald, Warren, Pilger, Dwyer, Fisk, Sawyer, Stewart, Chomsky and the like into a room … and get them to see what facts they agree on and maybe reach a rough consensus on what is really happening.

            Because I’ve given up drawing any useful conclusions from the deluge of media drivel.

            • dukeofurl 1.1.1.1.1.1

              Cant you getout of your seat and find out what the people on your list are saying ?

              You want others to tell you what the facts are ? Do you miss Even Hoxha that much ?

          • Ad 1.1.1.1.2

            Morrissey this post is about the politics of the Democrats, and the part of the media in it.

            I’m quite happy to register Glenn Greenwald’s expertise. In his own field.

            So apply yourself to the purpose of the post.

            • Morrissey 1.1.1.1.2.1

              Greenwald is an expert on the failure of the Democrats to address the reasons for their near-annihilation in American politics. Who do you think knows more than he does?

              • Ad

                He’s good at interpreting intelligence.
                He’s not a good political analyst.

                Again, this post is not about whether links to the Russians are true or not, but about the politics of the Democrats.

                As noted in the Chuck Schumer link, some Democrat leaders are getting beyond the Russia narrative. But most can’t, for the reasons I stated.

                Do you have any actual thoughts of your own on the matter?

                • Morrissey

                  He’s good at interpreting intelligence.
                  So are most people, if they’re given the intelligence. Thanks to the likes of Messrs Manning, Snowden, Assange and other heroic figures, we now do.

                  He’s not a good political analyst.

                  On what basis do you feel able to make that statement?

                  Do you have any actual thoughts of your own on the matter?

                  Yes I do, and I have made them clear on this forum many times in the past.

                  • Ad

                    Intelligence, accurate or not, has nothing to do with the post.

                    You haven’t figured that out yet, and you’re not capable of doing so, so I sure wasn’t proposing you do another extended rant about what you think true intelligence is.

                    Your failure to engage with the post simply illustrates that same inability to analyze politics that Greenwald has.

                    None of that is surprising, because you are attracted to Greenwald as a kindred spirit:

                    – There’s not a mainstream media outlet you don’t loathe or mistrust

                    – There’s no one else out there with your degree of accuracy

                    – No one can be as left or as righteous as you are

                    – The whole world is lying and only the chosen have the truth

                    – Since the world is irredeemably corrupt, that corruption represses those heroes of the truth into self-defined obscurity, and when pushed out into the world can only ever be martyrs

                    – Only the truth that you and the chosen reveal can ever matter

                    You will never get beyond any of this. You can’t get any of the points of the post because it’s about fluid political dynamics in the world of perpetually contested information, not immutable truths hidden by omnipotent conspiracy.

                    Which requires analysis neither you nor Glenn Greenwald are capable of.

            • RedLogix 1.1.1.1.2.2

              My sense is more or less the opposite of yours Ad. The Dems have expended far too much energy and time rabidly distracted by this Russian matter, with so far nothing useful to show for it.

              And even IF they manage to impeach Trump on this, I doubt very much it would have any beneficial effect on a very sick body politic. Their energies would be far better focused on more constructive matters.

              • Ad

                We don’t oppose each other on that.

                It’s clearly hard for the Dems to extract themselves out of their current tactical direction. Their only saving grace so far is that the Republicans have not formed a united caucus and united programme to truly rule over that country as never before.

                I’m beginning to even despair about the 2018 Senate races for the Dems.

                I don’t see the possibility of impeachment unless there is a solid Democrat majority in the Senate.

                So I don’t see a way out of this for a long time, and I see every sign that Trump will make a very large and powerful country very unstable, which is no good for anyone.

          • dukeofurl 1.1.1.1.3

            Greenwald was one of those getting their leaks from the Russians

            Yep nothing to see here
            https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/

    • Johan 1.2

      Garibaldi, you sound as if you have been watching too much RT propaganda.
      Just follow Trump’s money trail and income tax returns and he will be done like dinner.

    • RedLogix 1.3

      I’m in much the same camp myself Garibaldi. The Trump Jr. meeting with the Russian attorney is only interesting because of what we don’t know about it; ie exactly what was the information about the Dems being offered?

      While no-one wants to pretend Putin and his mates are lily-white angels, the levels of anti-Russian paranoia in Washington preclude any sane discourse on the topic and make it impossible to unpick the propaganda in any of the media anywhere in the world.

      Only one thing seems certain; Putin is an order of magnitude more cerebral and calculating than Trump.

      • Phil 1.3.1

        The Trump Jr. meeting with the Russian attorney is only interesting because of what we don’t know about it; ie exactly what was the information about the Dems being offered?

        That’s like saying to your wife “I didn’t have an affair with that woman. Yes, I agreed to meet her because she said she wanted to f–k me, but we never actually got naked”.
        … and THEN trying to get out of that troubling statement by talking about which sex position you would have wanted to try with the other woman.

        Only one thing seems certain; Putin is an order of magnitude more cerebral and calculating than Trump.

        How do you calculate orders of magnitude if you’re dividing by zero?

        • RedLogix 1.3.1.1

          Your metaphor is slick, but in this day and age with polyamory so fashionable in some circles, it carries less oomph than you may have hoped.

          OK Putin may be smarter, but Trump has way more low animal cunning.

  2. Paul Campbell 2

    Wait, are the apologising because they are not Republicans , or because others are not – that bumpersticker could equally be anti or pro republican

  3. Philj 3

    There is a growing movement to extinguish the Democratic Party and start a new party because of corruption @ the core.

    • dukeofurl 3.1

      Where ?
      Any evidence of that at all?

      besides the example of Bernie shows he ran for the democratic nomination without even being a registered democrat. he won his senate seat without being involved with Democratic party

  4. dukeofurl 4

    Why rain on the parade ?

    When you dont have control of the leadership of either house of congress there is very little that can be done on a substantive level, enquiries etc

    In 18 months that might change if say the Senate flips to Democratic

  5. DH 5

    This post reads as wishful thinking to me. So far the Russia accusations have been a complete bust, the accusers have yet to produce one single iota of proof that the Trump team colluded with Russia. It’s all been hot air and to my mind it’s the US corporate media who are in disarray.

    • dukeofurl 5.1

      Trump jnr : I love it!

      he wasnt talking about maccas.

      • DH 5.1.1

        So what does that prove? He met someone with the hope of gaining incriminating evidence on an opponent. Who in politics hasn’t done, or wouldn’t do, that?

        The whole meeting brouha so far has been a complete bust, there’s been no evidence of collusion come out of it.

        • dukeofurl 5.1.1.1

          Incriminating evidence from a foreign government obtained by hacking?
          Who hasnt done that !!!

          Its collusion all right, as Trump immediately after that meeting began tweeting about spilling secrets about Hillary!

          You do know its a federal offence to even accept money from a foreign government.

          before they were claiming ‘ no contacts’ with russians, now thats been blown out of the water, they are saying ‘no collusion’, that wont last either.

          • DH 5.1.1.1.1

            “Incriminating evidence from a foreign government obtained by hacking?”

            That’s a typical example of the shrill shrieking that’s characterised this Russia nonsense to date.

            There hasn’t yet been any proof surface to suggest Trump jnr gained any incriminating evidence let alone from a foreign government and there also wasn’t any suggestion the (non-existent) evidence was obtained by hacking.

            Be honest about it. It would only be collusion if he actually colluded and there is no proof of that. He may well be guilty of collusion, who knows, but until someone can actually show some evidence of it he should get the same benefit of the doubt that everyone deserves.

            • dukeofurl 5.1.1.1.1.1

              hello , you havent been keeping up

              “Goldstone emails Donald Trump Jr.:

              Good morning

              Emin [Agalarov] just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

              The Crown prosecutor of Russia [error in terminology its 'Prosecutor General'] met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

              This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and it’s government’s support for Mr. Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.

              I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

              “Rhona” is Rhona Graff, Donald Trump’s assistant.

              Hilary info… from the Russian gov!!!

              Colluding is when one side offers information and the other agrees to accept it.
              Yes, its unlikely this made much difference to the final result
              But these campaign speeches of Trump are a strong indication his henchmen had passed that the meeting with the Russians to get dirt was about to happen ( June 9)

              eg June 7
              Trump wins the primaries in California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota, giving him the delegates to officially clinch the Republican nomination.

              “I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.”

              “During his victory speech that night, Trump promises more dirt on Clinton.”

              And where does this ‘dirt’ come from’

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/11/what-happened-and-when-the-timeline-leading-up-to-donald-trump-jr-s-fateful-meeting/

              • DH

                You’ve posted a whole heap of assumptions there, try fronting up with some actual evidence.

                And lets add the relevant caveat from that WP article;

                “It has also been used as the jumping-off point for a number of broader theories of how the Trump campaign might have colluded with the Russian government. For example: Did that meeting precipitate Donald Trump’s tweet about Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails? Well, no, almost certainly not.

                Below, a timeline of the events leading up to that meeting and some of the theories that are floating around it.”

                Note the word ‘theories’ . Not fact, not evidence, not proof. Theories. He might have, he could have, he blah blah blah. All innuendo.

                • McFlock

                  The actual evidence of Trump Jr, when offered dirt on Clinton that he was informed was supplied by the Russian authorities, responding “[…]if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”

                  As supplied by… Trump Jr.

                  • DH

                    You seem to assuming he loved that it was supplied by the Russian authorities. A more rational conclusion would be he loved the idea there might be some dirt on Clinton. Big difference there.

                    • McFlock

                      Not when they’re in the same goddamn sentence.

                      He could at least have said “let’s not deal with the russians, but what sort of things are they talking about?”

                    • DH

                      You’re speculating McFlock. You don’t know what he was referring to, the quoted text is too ambiguous to make any firm conclusion from.

                      It’s quite possible that Trump unknowingly dodged a bullet, with there being no actual dirt and thus no collusion. But the facts remain the story to date does not incriminate him in colluding with Russia. No amount of wishful thinking will make it so, it requires real evidence.

                    • McFlock

                      You’re speculating McFlock. You don’t know what he was referring to, the quoted text is too ambiguous to make any firm conclusion from.

                      Except that it’s part of the email chain jr released, which clearly labels which message is replying to which and what other topics were discussed that jr might have loved. Short answer: none.

                      You’re grasping at straws.

                    • DH

                      Well I’ll leave it there I think. I just hope that if you’re ever called up for jury duty you never make the final twelve.

                    • dukeofurl

                      DH, you havent a clue how evidence in a court is used.

                • dukeofurl

                  So the emails are assumptions ???

                  This may surprise you in your absolute proof world, but people get convicted for circumstantial evidence all the time.

        • Psycho Milt 5.1.1.2

          Who in politics hasn’t done, or wouldn’t do, that?

          Well, that depends on whether the politician’s legal system says that accepting electoral assistance from a foreign government is a serious crime or not, doesn’t it? Trump Jr was offered the opportunity to commit a serious crime and jumped at the chance. If attempted collusion is on the books as well as actual collusion, he’s in deep shit.

          • DH 5.1.1.2.1

            “Trump Jr was offered the opportunity to commit a serious crime”

            What planet are you on? There was no crime in attending the meeting.

            Too many people seem to be assuming and then accusing. The facts as they’ve been revealed to date do not show any crime nor do they show any collusion with a foreign Govt.

            One might create a tenuous claim of intent to collude but that wouldn’t even make a depositions hearing if it was illegal… which apparently it’s not.

            • McFlock 5.1.1.2.1.1

              Oh, well, only an intent to collude, that’s all right then. They should cancel all investigations because there’s obviously nothing to see here lol

              • DH

                Ah, no. You’d be the one claiming intent. I don’t see it. I don’t know the man and I don’t pretend to know what his intentions were.

                All I profess to know is that I doubt there’s many, if any, politicians alive who would pass up the chance to find some dirt on their opposition.

                • McFlock

                  lol

                  So you refuse to make any assumptions about Jr’s intent when he wrote ” I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”, but you know what the overwhelming majority of living politicians would do.

                  You have exceptionally low opinion of politicians. But you don’t have this opinion about the trumps. What makes them of higher character than almost every other living politician?

                  • DH

                    I haven’t made an opinion on the Trumps McFlock, why are you falsely stating that I have?

                    My opinion was that the Russia accusations have been a complete bust.

                    • McFlock

                      I explicitly said that you don’t have an opinion about the trumps.

                      Which is my point, because your opinion of almost every other politician alive today is that they’d take the opportunity to get dirt on their opponents.

                      You have a low opinion of most politicians, but you have no similar opinion about the trumps. Why do the trumps get the benefit of the doubt in your opinion?

            • Psycho Milt 5.1.1.2.1.2

              There was no crime in attending the meeting.

              Well, that’s for the investigation to find out, isn’t it? You seem to have a problem with my statement “Trump Jr was offered the opportunity to commit a serious crime.” I’m not sure why you would have a problem with it, because:

              1. It’s a serious crime for a US political team to accept assistance from a foreign power.

              2. Trump was offered such assistance.

              And indicated he would accept the offer if it was genuine, which is more than enough basis for investigating whether the assistance was actually provided.

        • McFlock 5.1.1.3

          Who in politics hasn’t done, or wouldn’t do, that?

          Al Gore’s campaign were given unsolicited information on GW’s campaign and promptly turned it over it to the FBI.

          So even turning up to a meeting where parties are offering dirt on your competitors is not something everyone in politics hasn’t done or wouldn’t do – let alone when those parties are foerign nationals claiming to work with officials of a foreign government.

  6. Adrian Thornton 6

    Good post there advantage, I would disagree on a few points, but overall I think your analysis is pretty good, until your last line, ( unless I have read your meaning wrong)…
    ‘All the Democrats are doing is leaving the hard political work to the media. ‘

    The media share as much ( maybe more) blame in the pathetic spectacle of American politics today as the Democratic Party does…that is just a fact.

    I am not sure why you would think any thing that comes out of Chuck Schumer’s mouth has any weight, he is a fucking idiot, who probably did more to cost the Dems the election than any other single person (apart from Hillary)……
    “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/14/chuck-schumer-the-worst-possible-democratic-leader-at-the-worst-possible-time/

    As usual Chomsky unpacks American/Western politics concisely, with some good points about the Democratic party that relate to this post….

    On Contact: Noam Chomsky – Part I

    On Contact: Noam Chomsky – Part II

    • Adrian Thornton 6.1

      Sorry wrong first clip up there, although ironically enough it works just as well in this conversation on the death of the DNC as a viable progressive party, which is really what this is all about.

      The interview is a excellent one with Eugene Puryear, American activist and author on the US prison industrial complex, which as we all know, really got going in the modern sense under Bill Clinton and the Democrats…well worth viewing.

  7. Gabby 7

    Why would they want to get mixed up in the reblubbiblub shitstorm? Let them get on with chewing one another’s legs off for the next40 months.

    • dukeofurl 7.1

      The next election round is in 18 months. It wont be for the office of President but will be a read as a sign of the publics regards for Trump .

      • Gabby 7.1.1

        I’m guessing there’s all sorts of stuff going on at State level that we don’t hear about. Candidates notoriously spend most of their time begging for donations.

    • popexplosion 7.2

      Yeah who would want to get in between that shit storm. Obviously that’s the whole purpose of the trumpfad for noise and invective. Keeps everyone bedazzled and unsure. Secondly, Trump gone means Pence presidency. Third, democrats are split some like the voter backlash as cizitens realize Congress run by republicians passed Obama care broken and now have to fix it, so sit back and watch the shit storm as trump promised to fix it!!!!

  8. He also ignored Russia violations of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (while simultaneously negotiating new START).

    Allegations of Russian Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Violations—Where’s the Beef?

    Arms control critics frequently charge that the Russians are violating previous agreements. Often these charges are made with little or weak evidence, as with the current claim that Russia has violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. On examination, this claim has no basis.

    • dukeofurl 8.1

      The USA is the biggest violator of the INF treaty as its armed drones come under the category of ‘cruise missile’ and ‘weapons delivery vehicle’
      Hence the reason these drone strikes are ‘official secrets’ never to be mentioned in open communications by high officials, you can read about it in any major US newspaper or TV source.

      INF Treaty definitions
      The term “cruise missile” means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term “ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)” means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

      • I consider the INF treaty as rather silly. I really can’t see the point in banning intermediate range missiles when the longer range missiles can also reach intermediate range.

        • dukeofurl 8.1.1.1

          Well it did mean the Tomahawk and Pershing missiles were removed from Europe and Pershing dropped from inventory completely. The Tomahawk remained in sea and air launched versions.

          I think the main result was the ground launched bases in Europe where seen as first strike targets. So it was those bases were the issue rather than the targets, which as you said can be hit by other means

  9. francesca 9

    For a start , Russia wasn’t the aggressor in Georgia
    Saakashvilli, encouraged by the Americans, launched the war by attacking and killing the Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia.
    The Americans left Saakashvili high and dry,Russia went in , beat the Georgians off and rather than carry on to Tbilisi withdrew

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attacks-unjustifiable-eu

    Pointing out that little fact gets me called a Putin lover, I know, I can live with it

    The Democrats are like the tarbaby with the Russian thing now, they have pinned all their hopes on it and its not working, but the loss of face admitting its all bullshit would crucify them.They’re stuck with it and can’t move on

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-24/nsa-officials-and-computer-expert-forensic-evidence-proves-dnc-emails-were-leaked-no

    an interesting take on Russiagate, letter to Trump from ex US intelligence agents on independent forensic study of the 2 DNC tranches of information
    Leaks, not hacks with pretty compelling evidence if accurate

    • Ad 9.1

      I wouldn’t dare to know the whole truth about a war.
      That looked like a really interesting report on the Georgia situation.

      It’ is going to take incredible resolve for the Democrats to generate a message of renewal and hope against a prevailing media tide of obsession with Trump and Russia.

      Who knows, perhaps we are consigned not to see a social democrat government again in the English speaking world for another decade. It’s just freaking sad to see it in the U.S.

    • Pointing out that little fact gets me called a Putin lover, I know, I can live with it

      Given that your “fact” needs quote marks around it, I’d say anyone calling you a Putin lover is onto something.

      From your linked article:

      The Russians had moved mercenaries and paramilitary forces into South Ossetia in apparent preparation for armed hostilities before Saakashvili’s disastrous offensive…

      The secession of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia was branded illegal and Russian recognition of the two “states” in breach of international law.The report found that Moscow had been assiduously preparing the secession by, among other things, a policy of “passportification”, illegally distributing Russian passports on a mass scale among the breakaway populations.

      Later to become familiar territory in the much-better-publicised cases of Crimea and Donbas. Lucky the people running Ukraine were smarter than Saakashvili, I guess.

  10. Morrissey 10

    Bewildered MSNBC hack runs up against Glenn Greenwald

    You almost have to feel sorry for this fool….

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Maintaining momentum for small business innovation
    Small Business Minister Stuart Nash says the report of the Small Business Council will help maintain the momentum for innovation and improvements in the sector. Mr Nash has thanked the members of the Small Business Council (SBC) who this week handed over their report, Empowering small businesses to aspire, succeed ...
    3 weeks ago