Login
The strength of the housing market suggests that a lack of housing supply, high levels of immigration, and increased demand from remote work may mean interest rates need to go higher to reduce inflation.
The post Fed President Kashkari Warns Rates Might Not Be High Enough appeared first on Breitbart.
The Federal Reserve admitted yesterday that progress on inflation has stalled and that it will take longer for the Fed to achieve the confidence it needs to cut interest rates.
The post Breitbart Business Digest: The Fed Finally Realized Progress on Inflation Has Stalled appeared first on Breitbart.
The Fed chair does not see a rate hike coming but he acknowledged that recent setbacks on inflation mean the current rate policy will last for longer than anticipated.
The post Powell Says A Fed Hike Is ‘Unlikely’ But Wait For Cuts Will Take Longer appeared first on Breitbart.
Federal Reserve officials agreed on Wednesday to hold interest rates steady for the sixth consecutive meeting, signaling that it is willing to keep rates at the highest level in more than two decades for longer than previously expected and noting that progress on bringing down inflation has stalled.
The post Fed Keeps Rates Unchanged, Noting Progress on Inflation Has Stalled appeared first on Breitbart.
There are many reasons why legal experts are questioning the legitimacy of the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump. But the major reason is that the main claim in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case—that Trump’s $130,000 settlement payment of a potential claim by Stormy Daniels was a campaign-related expense—is totally bogus.
Here’s a quick tutorial on why Bragg doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on—call it “Federal Campaign Finance Law for Dummies 101”—an apropos title, given what’s going on.
Daniels claims that she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, fully 10 years before the 2016 presidential election, which Trump denies. For the payment, Daniels agreed to sign a nondisclosure agreement, which is a standard provision in many settlement agreements of personal injury cases and other claims.
Bragg contends that Trump falsified business records, a misdemeanor, when this payment was listed as legal expenses instead of a campaign expense.
Supposedly, according to Bragg, that converted the misdemeanors into felonies because Trump was concealing another crime. That other crime, according to prosecutors, is a violation of Section 17-152 of New York law, which makes it a misdemeanor to “promote … the election of any person to public office by unlawful means.”
Besides the fact that it’s very strange to allege that the commission of a misdemeanor for the purpose of covering up the commission of another misdemeanor is enough to allege a felony, the only plausible theory that Bragg is pushing for the alleged “unlawful means” was a violation of federal law by concealing a campaign-related payment.
With me so far?
But Trump was running for president. The raising and spending of money for campaigns for president and Congress is governed by federal law, the Federal Election Campaign Act, not state law. Any wrongdoing related to federal campaign financing falls under the enforcement authority of federal officials, not a local prosecutor like Bragg.
In fact, the Federal Election Commission, on which I served as a commissioner, has civil enforcement authority and the U.S. Department of Justice has criminal enforcement authority over violations of this law.
For the nuisance-value settlement payment to Daniels to fit within Bragg’s rickety legal structure, it would have to be a crime under federal law. In other words, it would have to be considered a campaign-related expense that was falsely reported under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
If you want an example of such a violation, just look at the $113,000 civil penalty the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee agreed to pay in 2022. They listed the payments for the opposition research that formed the basis for the infamous Steele dossier, which fabricated the entire Trump-Russia collusion hoax, as legal expenses instead of opposition research.
But opposition research on the opposing candidate is obviously a campaign-related expense under applicable federal law, so the FEC had authority to investigate and enforce the law against this deception.
That’s not the case with the Daniels’ payment. For starters, the incident in question that led to the payment is alleged to have happened 10 years before the 2016 campaign. More importantly, the payment fails the test the FEC applies to determine whether an expense is campaign-related.
Under federal law and corresponding regulations, the FEC applies the “irrespective test” to “differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses.” As the FEC explains on its website, under the irrespective test, “personal use is any use of funds … to fulfill a commitment, obligation, or expense of any person that would exist, irrespective of the candidates’ campaign.”
In other words, if the expense would exist even if the individual were not a candidate, then it’s personal and not a campaign expense.
The payment to Daniels clearly fails that test. Trump was a celebrity long before he ran for office, and celebrities get these kinds of nuisance claims all the time. In fact, the prosecution’s first witness in the New York case, David Pecker, said he had helped settle similar claims to avoid legal costs and embarrassment by suppressing stories for numerous other celebrities, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tiger Woods.
The easiest way to understand this test is to take the example of a personal injury claim.
Candidate A has a car accident several years before he runs for Congress that injures another driver. After the campaign has started, the candidate decides to settle the personal injury claim made by the other driver by paying that driver $130,000 in exchange for a nondisclosure agreement.
Settling and paying the claim may help the candidate in his campaign by avoiding personal embarrassment. But that doesn’t make it a campaign expense. It’s a claim that would exist even if the candidate were not running for office and is thus considered a personal expense under federal law.
Daniels’ claim is also a personal claim that existed long before Trump ran for the presidency and, given his celebrity status, would have continued to exist even if he never ran for president.
That’s no doubt why neither the FEC nor the Justice Department ever filed an enforcement action against the Trump campaign or Trump personally over the payment; specifically, because it was not a campaign-related expense.
You know what would have led to enforcement actions? If Trump had actually claimed this was a campaign-related expense and had used campaign funds to make the payment, I have no doubt he would have been prosecuted by the feds for the illegal use of campaign funds to pay a personal expense.
That’s what former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., went to prison for after he pleaded guilty in 2013 to spending $750,000 on personal expenses.
Keep in mind that Bragg’s entire manufactured case of 34 counts of falsifying business records depends entirely on the legitimacy of his contention that the settlement payment should have been listed as a campaign-related expense.
It shouldn’t because it wasn’t.
And all of the other testimony from the prosecution’s witnesses about this payment and other settlement payments that are obviously intended to blacken the character of the former president and prejudice the jury doesn’t change the fact that none of these payments were campaign-related expenses. Period. End of story—or at least it should be.
The post Trump’s NY Prosecution Is a Bogus Case by a Bogus Prosecutor appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Breitbart News editor-in-chief Alex Marlow told Judicial Watch's Chris Farrell that Democrats in control of the U.S. government are "trying to criminalize being a conservative."
The post Alex Marlow: The Left Is ‘Trying to Criminalize Being a Conservative’ appeared first on Breitbart.
The odds of a Fed cut are evaporating amid the blaze of hotter than expected inflation figures.
The post U.S. Labor Costs Jump, Indicating Rising Inflationary Pressures appeared first on Breitbart.
Article tags
The PCE index shows that progression on bringing down inflation has stalled.
The post Fed’s Preferred Inflation Gauge Show Prices Rising Sharply appeared first on Breitbart.
Southwest Airlines will be cutting jobs and ceasing operations at four airports while reducing flights from others to cut costs amid Boeing's ongoing complications.
The post Southwest Cuts Jobs, Quits Four Airports Due to Boeing Woes appeared first on Breitbart.
The Democrat majority at the FCC voted on Thursday to restore the Obama-era net neutrality rules.
The post Democrat FCC Majority Votes to Restore Obama-Era Net Neutrality Rules appeared first on Breitbart.
Article tags
At least 13 financial institutions are being investigated for colluding with the federal government to spy on Trump supporters.
The post Nolte: Report Says 13 Banks Helped Feds Spy on Trump Supporters appeared first on Breitbart.
On Wednesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Jesse Watters Primetime,” House Speaker Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) stated that Columbia University and other schools that “are engaging in this kind of nonsense” similar to what’s happening at Columbia do not
The post Speaker Johnson: Columbia Shouldn’t Get Taxpayer Dollars appeared first on Breitbart.
Article tags
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has banned almost all noncompete employment agreements that prohibit workers from switching to competing businesses or starting one of their own.
The post FTC Bans Noncompete Agreements for Employers, Chamber of Commerce Sues to Block It appeared first on Breitbart.
Article tags
FBI authorities served subpoenas at Illinois' Dolton Village Hall on Friday afternoon as Mayor Tiffany Henyard (D) fields corruption accusations, per Fox 32.
The post VIDEO: FBI Serves Subpoenas at Dolton Village Hall amid Democrat Illinois Mayor Tiffany Henyard’s Corruption Scandal appeared first on Breitbart.
On Thursday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Your World,” Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank President Neel Kashkari stated that stimulus spending was “a contributor to the high inflation that we’ve seen.” And “the spending on infrastructure, the spending on new chip
The post Minneapolis Fed Pres: Biden Spending on Chips, Infrastructure ‘Is Inflationary’ and There Are ‘Cross-Purposes’ appeared first on Breitbart.
Just over one-third, 35 percent, of individuals believe former President Donald Trump did something overtly "illegal."
The post Poll: Just 35% Believe Donald Trump Did Something ‘Illegal’ in Alvin Bragg’s Criminal Trial appeared first on Breitbart.
Joe Biden unveiled his 2025 budget proposal earlier today. In general, presidents’ budgets are hardly worth discussing. They project revenue and spending over the next ten years, and if you go back and look at them a few years later, they usually bear no relation to reality. And, in this instance, there is zero chance that Congress will pass anything resembling Biden’s budget, which can best be seen as a campaign document.
But, for what it is worth, this is what the Wall Street Journal had to say about it:
President Biden proposed Monday a $7.3 trillion budget for the next fiscal year that would raise taxes on wealthy people and large corporations, trim the deficit and lower the costs of prescription drugs, child care and housing.
Other than spending $7.3 trillion and raising taxes, it wouldn’t do any of those things. For purposes of comparison, federal spending in 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration, was $1.79 trillion. So Biden wants to spend almost exactly four times that much.
The fiscal 2025 budget would cut the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade, and it would raise taxes by a net total of $4.9 trillion, or more than 7% above what the U.S. would collect without any policy changes.
Those hypothetical deficit cuts depend on economic forecasts in the out-years that won’t come true. The only meaningful fact is that Biden wants to raise taxes by nearly $5 trillion.
Biden’s purported budget is largely an exercise in fantasy:
The budget leaves some blank spaces. It lists principles for shoring up Social Security, without specifying a plan. It calls for paying for extensions of tax cuts for most households after 2025 but doesn’t detail how that would be paid for. And it calls for restoring the expanded child tax credit, but only temporarily, lumping that into the broader 2025 tax debate.
Biden’s budget proposes absurd taxes on corporations and “the rich”:
The budget repeats many past Biden tax-increase proposals, including higher tax rates on corporations and high-income individuals along with minimum taxes on the wealthiest Americans’ unrealized capital gains.
Which is insane. If the government taxes unrealized gains on unsold securities when the market goes up, will it write checks to investors when the market is down? Logically, it would have to, but of course that is not part of Biden’s proposal.
Biden rolled out several new tax increases last week, such as raising his new corporate alternative-minimum-tax rate to 21% from 15% and denying deductions when corporations pay any workers, not just top executives, more than $1 million.
The net effect of Biden’s proposals would be to give the United States one of the heaviest tax burdens in our history, equaled only once since World War II.
Is that because people are dying to give the federal government more money to waste? No, it is because many people are too naive to understand that, as has been said a million times, corporations don’t pay taxes, they collect them. Those taxes are actually paid mostly by customers (i.e., all of us) and secondarily by employees (i.e., most of us). But Biden’s budget is not about economics or, for that matter, mathematics, as the numbers will never add up. Rather, it is about politics:
Biden’s advisers are betting that a focus on lowering costs for families will help push the president to re-election.
Needless to say, Biden’s budget, if actually enacted, would raise costs for families, not lower them. Fortunately, there is zero chance of that happening.
Vaunce News