Earlier this month, conservative author and commentator Candace Owens announced that she’s connected with big-name lawyers to sue Facebook fact-checkers, who allegedly flag “misinformation.”
“It is time to fact-check the fact-checkers,” Owens said in a video posted to Twitter. “I’m going to put these suckers through discovery and figure out what the relationship is that they have with Facebook.”
Giving an example of the censorship, Owens said one of her “opinions” concerning coronavirus, which was initially shared by a doctor, was “fact-checked” by the platform’s third party arbiters.
“Quite literally a doctor gave his opinion about COVID-19, which I shared, and Facebook issued a strike on my account because they said only information that they agree with about COVID-19 … was acceptable,” she said, as reported by Fox News.
Owens noted that the fact-checking led to her Facebook page being demonetized.
“I decided I was not going to give up and sit down,” she told her supporters, vowing to always use her platform to fight. “The fact-checkers … they are activists for the Left that shut down your speech if they don’t like it.”
The BLEXIT founder launched her own legal website to raise funds for the pricey battle.
“Our freedoms are being stripped away,” the site reads. “The overlords of Big Tech are determining what Americans can and cannot say, share, like, and post. Support our legal efforts today as we fight back against Facebook’s fact-checkers, confronting those who are suppressing free speech, thought, and expression across our great country.”
Facebook back in 2016 launched its third-party fact-checking programs back in 2016 to weed out supposed “disinformation,” though conservatives have time and again highlighted the strongly liberal bend of the fact-checkers.
“The fact-checkers apply ratings to content that range from ‘false,’ ‘altered’ and ‘missing context,'” Fox explains. “When such ratings are applied, Facebook may either reduce its distribution or add labels to notify users about additional reporting elsewhere.”
In one recent egregious case of biased censorship from Big Tech, for example, stories critical of the family of Democratic nominee Joe Biden from the New York Post were granted limited reach on Facebook and outright blocked from being shared or direct messaged on Twitter.
Owens, who is pregnant, announced on Election Day that she has joined The Daily Wire team and is headed to Nashville.
Daily Wire co-founder Jeremy Boreing hinted at the conservative’s new position: “Candace is going to make the move with us to Nashville,” he said. “I don’t want to tell people too much what we’re working on … but we are working on a show together; Candace and I have been collaborating behind the scenes.”
Boreing said the show will be taped before a live studio audience in Nashville and set for viewing come the beginning of March.
The show will be “different in kind” than anything that’s happened in conservative new media, Boreing promised.
“I’m so excited. I think the time is now. The energy feels right,” Owens responded, adding that it’s “high time” conservatives become united.
THE "whistleblower" mailman who made claims about ballot tampering in Pennsylvania has insisted he's NOT recanted his allegation - while the Trump campaign sued over the result in battleground Michigan.
Postal worker Richard Hopkins, 32, appeared in a video on Tuesday to insist that he's sticking by his claims of mail-in vote fraud - just hours after Democrats on the House of Representatives Oversight Committee claimed he'd "completely" recanted his allegation.
"My name is Richard Hopkins and I am a former US Marine and I worked for the United States Postal Service in Erie, Pennsylvania. I am willing to testify under oath that my supervisors ordered workers including myself to deliver ballots received after November 3rd in order to "back date" so they would still be accepted in the 2020 Presidential Election. I made the difficult decision to risk everything in my life to come forward with this information of extreme wrongdoing by the Post Office. I am uncertain of what the future holds for me but I felt the public had a right to know what is really going on.
Your donations are going to help me now that I have been put on unpaid leave from my job at USPS and have been ostracized by most of my coworkers. I hope to get a new start in a place I feel safe and and continue supporting my children while I find out what comes next. The Post Office has already been threatening my employment. I am scared for myself, my family and those closest to me.
Thank You, James O'Keefe and Project Veritas for letting me tell my story when others wouldn't. Please support me as I go forward with this battle."
Is this a scam? Who is telling the truth?
I do not know. I know that I saw the picture at the top of this page when I went on to my Twitter account, and I am not ok with anyone stopping me from seeing what someone has said but some nameless person doesn't like it.
I think that no matter what your political party is, censoring a whistleblower - if that is indeed what happened - for speaking out about election fraud is wrong, despicable, and disheartening.
I am not a legislator, but if I was, I would immediately create a bill to give criminal consequences for censorship.
A Pennsylvania postal worker whose claims have been cited by top Republicans as potential evidence of widespread voting irregularities admitted to U.S. Postal Service investigators that he fabricated the allegations, according to three officials briefed on the investigation and a statement from a House congressional committee.
Richard Hopkins’s claim that a postmaster in Erie, Pa., instructed postal workers to backdate ballots mailed after Election Day was cited by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) in a letter to the Justice Department calling for a federal investigation. Attorney General William P. Barr subsequently authorized federal prosecutors to open probes into credible allegations of voting irregularities and fraud before results are certified, a reversal of long-standing Justice Department policy.
But on Monday, Hopkins, 32, told investigators from the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General that the allegations were not true, and he signed an affidavit recanting his claims, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee tweeted late Tuesday that the “whistleblower completely RECANTED.”
Hopkins did not respond to messages from The Washington Post seeking comment through his social media accounts, family members and phone messages earlier this week. But in a YouTube video he posted Tuesday night, he denied recanting. “I’m here to say I did not recant my statements. That did not happen,” he said.
The reversal to investigators comes as Trump has refused to concede to President-elect Joe Biden (D), citing unproven allegations about widespread voter fraud in an attempt to swing the results in his favor. Republicans held up Hopkins’s claims as among the most credible because he signed an affidavit swearing that he overheard a supervisor instructing colleagues to backdate ballots mailed after Nov. 3.
The Trump campaign provided that affidavit to Graham, who in turn asked the Justice Department and FBI to launch an investigation.
The Trump campaign also cited reports of the allegation in a federal lawsuit filed Monday against Pennsylvania election officials that seeks to prevent them from certifying the states’ election results.
Tim Murtaugh, a Trump campaign spokesman, said Hopkins’s allegations are just a small part of the campaign’s assertions in the Pennsylvania lawsuit, adding, “We don’t know what kind of pressure he has been under since he publicly made those statements.”
The Justice Department and Graham did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
The Erie postmaster, Rob Weisenbach, called the allegations “100% false” in a Facebook post and said they were made “by an employee that was recently disciplined multiple times.”
“The Erie Post Office did not back date any ballots,” Weisenbach wrote.
The Postal Service inspector general’s office informed members of Congress in a briefing on Tuesday that Hopkins had recanted his allegations, according to a congressional aide. The investigators first interviewed Hopkins on Friday, the aide said.
Hopkins’s allegations, without his name, were first aired last week by Project Veritas, an organization that uses deceptive tactics to expose what it says is bias and corruption in the mainstream media. Hopkins agreed to attach his name to the allegations late last week. He was instantly celebrated by Trump supporters.
Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe on Saturday hailed Hopkins as “an American hero” on Twitter. A GoFundMe page created under Hopkins’s name had raised more than $136,000 by Tuesday evening, with donors praising him as a patriot and whistleblower. The fundraising page was removed by GoFundMe after this story was published Tuesday, a spokesman for the platform said.
“Your donations are going to help me in the case I am wrongfully terminated from my job or I am forced into resigning due to ostrizization [sic] by my co-workers,” the page states. “It will help me get a new start in a place I feel safe and help me with child support until I am able to get settled and get a job.”
A spokesman for GoFundMe, Bobby Whithorne, said in a statement that the money raised on the site was “not disbursed and Hopkins never had access to the funds.”
Separately, on Monday Project Veritas announced it was offering a “$25,000 reward” for “first hand election fraud tips in Pennsylvania.” Late Tuesday, O’Keefe claimed to have recordings of agents questioning Hopkins and said that he was pressured to sign a document he did not understand.
The Postal Service said in a statement over the weekend that it had referred Hopkins’s allegations to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Office of Inspector General.
The Postal Inspection Service declined to comment on Tuesday morning, referring questions to the Office of Inspector General. A spokeswoman for that office, Agapi Doulaveris, said it was still “looking into the matter” Tuesday afternoon and declined to elaborate.
Hopkins was escorted out of his workplace on Monday afternoon and told not to return until the investigation was completed, according to one of the officials familiar with the probe.
A page on the social networking site LinkedIn that matches Hopkins’s name and other biographical details says he served in the Marine Corps from 2007 to 2012. Hopkins subsequently held numerous jobs for short periods of time, including as a nurse’s aide and as an employee at a fracking company in Texas, according to a Facebook profile. The Facebook page says he became a letter carrier in Erie in August 2018.
In their Appellate Practice column, Thomas R. Newman and Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. provide a refresher on stare decisis principles as described in various cases and sources.
By Thomas R. Newman Steven J. Ahmuty Jr.|November 03, 2020
June Medical Services v. Russo, 591 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct 2103 (2020), will probably be remembered by the public at large as the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a Louisiana state law requiring doctors working in abortion clinics to have “active admitting privileges at a hospital … located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed.” The law mirrored a Texas state law that the court found unconstitutional in 2016 in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ , 136 S.Ct __ (2016). For state and federal court litigators, Chief Justice Robert’s concurring opinion will also be recalled for its recital of the history of the doctrine of stare decisis, “the legal term for fidelity to precedent” and its present application in federal courts. 140 S.Ct at 2134 (concurring opinion, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary).
Quoting 18th century sources as applicable to 21st century litigation, the Chief Justice begins by noting that in 1765 it had “long been ‘an established rule to abide by former precedents, where the same points come again in litigation; as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion.’” 140 S.Ct at 2134 (concurring opinion; quoting 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 69 [1765]). He then explains that “[t]his principle is grounded in a basic humility that recognizes today’s legal issues are often not so different from the questions of yesterday and that we are not the first ones to try to answer them.” 140 S.Ct at 2134 (concurring opinion).
Returning to the 18th century and Hamilton’s The Federalist No. 78, the Chief Justice notes “[a]herence to precedent is necessary to ‘avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts’” Ibid. Next come quotations from two of the court’s late 20th century decisions reminding us that “[r]espect for precedent ‘promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.’ Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991), and that it “is the ‘means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.’ Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 265 (1986).” Ibid.
But, we are cautioned, “Stare decisis is not an inexorable command” and “[t]he Court accordingly considers additional factors before overruling a precedent, such as its administrability, its fit with subsequent factual and legal developments, and the reliance interests that the precedent has engendered.” 140 S.Ct at 2134 (concurring opinion, citations omitted). Justice Alito, in dissent, also notes that “[r]eexamination of a precedent may be appropriate when it is an ‘outlier’ and its reasoning cannot be reconciled with other established precedents.” 140 S.Ct at 2170 (dissenting opinion; citations omitted).
This is also the law of New York. “Precedents remain precedents … not because they are established but because they serve the underlying ‘nature and object of the law itself,’ reason and the power to advance justice.” People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 338 (1990). The Court of Appeals, also quoting Blackstone, stated, “‘Precedents and rules must be followed, unless flatly absurd or unjust’ (Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law, p 70). Blackstone’s blunt statement of the rule shows that from the earliest times the doctrine of stare decisis did not require a strict adherence to precedent in every instance.” Matter of Eckart, 39 N.Y.2d 493, 498-99 (1976). However, the “existence of strong arguments to support a different result is not sufficient, in and of itself, to compel the court to overturn judicial precedent.” Id. at 502. There must be a “compelling reason to change the established rule,” id. at 502, such as “that the law has been misapplied, or … the former determination is evidently contrary to reason,” id. at 502.
“Although a court should be slow to overrule its precedents, there is little reason to avoid doing so when persuaded by the ‘lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning.’ … This is especially so in constitutional interpretation where legislative change is practically impossible.” People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 338 (1990). On the other hand, “considerations of stare decisis weigh heavily in the area of statutory construction, where Congress is free to change this Court’s interpretation of its legislation.” Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 736 (1977).
In New York state court cases, the “source of the existing rule is of course a significant consideration. When the courts themselves have originated the rule, as for instance a common-law rule of tort, the courts will more readily re-examine it and, if necessary, set it aside (see, e.g., Kalechman v. Drew Auto Rental, 33 N.Y.2d 397) … . [I]f a recent holding interpreting a statute is out of harmony with a long line of well-reasoned opinions, the courts need not wait for the Legislature to repair the damage (see, e.g., Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106). And even when the error is made at the outset, in an initial decision interpreting a novel statute, the court may at a later date change direction.” Matter of Eckart, 39 N.Y.2d at 499; Matter of Cameron v. Ellis Constr. Co., 252 N.Y. 394, 399 (1930) (when considering “the scope of novel legislation, the courts must at first be guided by abstract reasoning and anticipation of probable consequences”).
In People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 488 (1976), the Court of Appeals gave four examples of personal injury cases “where courts will, if necessary, more readily re-examine established precedent to achieve the ends of justice in a more modern context (see, e.g., Victorson v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 37 N.Y.2d 395; Goldberg v. Kollsman Instrument, 12 N.Y.2d 432; Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656; Woods v. Lancet, 303 N.Y. 349). Significantly, in these cases the line of precedent, although well established, was found to be analytically unacceptable, and, more important, out of step with the times and the reasonable expectations of members of society.”
Unlike tort cases, where the law is constantly evolving as society’s notions of duties change, there are cases where the need for stability and predictability outweigh the need to purge an erroneous decision. Some precedents are more durable than others.” Matter of Eckart, 39 N.Y.2d at 499. This is especially true in cases involving contractual obligations, real property and the interpretation of wills.
The closeness of a vote in a precedential case furnishes no justification for reopening a settled legal controversy. Semanchuck v. Fifth Ave & 37th St. Corp., 290 N.Y. 412, 420 (1943). The “authoritative force of a decision as a precedent in succeeding cases is not determined by the unanimity or division in the court.” Ibid. Troublesome precedents have been followed “just because it would have been scandalous for a court to shift within less than two years because of the replacement of one of the majority in the old court by one who now intellectually would have preferred to have voted with the old minority and the new one. The ultimate principle is that a court is an institution and not merely a collection of individuals.” People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d at 491. Governing rules of law do not change merely because the composition of the court changes.
In June Medical Services, the Chief Justice also tells us how the court “handle[s] a decision that itself departed from the cases that came before it. In those instances, ‘remaining true to an ‘intrinsically sounder’ doctrine established in prior cases better serves the values of stare decisis than would following’ the recent departure … . Stare decisis is pragmatic and contextual, not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision.’” 591 U.S. ___ at ___ (concurring opinion 4, citations omitted).
New York’s former Chief Justice Charles D. Breitel expressed a similar thought in People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 488 (1976), where he stated, “Of course, it would be foolhardy not to recognize that there is potential for jurisprudential scandal in a court which decides one way one day and another way the next; but it is just as scandalous to treat every errant footprint barely hardened overnight as an inescapable mold for future travel.”
Thomas R. Newman is of counsel to Duane Morris and author of “New York Appellate Practice” (Matthew Bender). Steven J. Ahmuty Jr. is retired from Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt. They are members of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers.
BOSTON, MA. – JUNE 15: United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling speaks during a press conference
about federal cyberstalking charges against six individuals who worked for Ebay at the Federal Court House on June 15, 2020 in Boston, Massachusetts. (Staff Photo By Matt Stone/MediaNews Group/Boston Herald)
Cyberstalking is incredibly serious. The focus of a cyberstalker is to ruin your life, destroy your career, do the utmost harm, and tell as many people as possible to follow you into this legal quagmire. Many succeed, and the result can be suicidal.
Six ex-eBay executives — including a former cop — are facing federal cyberstalking charges after embarking on a months long harassment campaign investigators said was ripped straight from Hollywood, sending fly larvae, live spiders, cockroaches and a bloody pig mask to the doorstep of a Natick couple critical of the company in an online newsletter.
“This was a determined, systematic effort by senior members of a major e-commerce company to destroy this couple,” U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said during a press conference on Monday, noting the torment from the eBay executives eventually escalated to physical surveillance and “psychologically devastated” the middle-aged couple.
The now-fired eBay executives — who all worked on a team dedicated to preserving the company’s brand — used burner cellphones and prepaid debit cards to make purchases and send “disturbing” deliveries to the couples’ home including the fly larvae, live spiders and cockroaches, Lelling said.
Last August, a bloody pig mask was delivered to the couple’s home and less than 15 minutes later one of the defendants sent the couple a message asking, “Do I have your attention now?” according to prosecutors.
Two Former eBay Executives Indicted in Connection with Cyberstalking Campaign
BOSTON – Two former eBay, Inc. executives were indicted today by a federal grand jury in Boston in connection with their roles in a cyberstalking campaign targeting the editor and publisher of a newsletter that eBay executives viewed as critical of the company.
James Baugh, 45, of San Jose, Calif., eBay’s former Senior Director of Safety & Security, and David Harville, 48, of New York City, eBay’s former Director of Global Resiliency, were indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit stalking through interstate travel and through facilities of interstate commerce, two counts each of stalking through interstate travel, two counts of stalking through facilities of interstate commerce, two counts (Baugh) and one count (Harville) of witness tampering, and two counts (Baugh) and one count (Harville) of destruction, alteration, and falsification of records in a federal investigation. Baugh and Harville were previously charged by criminal complaint and arrested on June 15, 2020.
According to the charging document, the victims of the cyberstalking campaign were a Natick couple who are the editor and publisher of an online newsletter that covers ecommerce companies, including eBay. Members of eBay’s executive leadership team followed the newsletter’s posts, often taking issue with its content and the anonymous comments underneath the editor’s stories.
It is alleged that in August 2019, the defendants and their co-conspirators executed a three-part harassment campaign targeting the Natick couple, which included the defendants sending anonymous and disturbing deliveries to the victims’ home; sending private Twitter messages and public tweets criticizing the newsletter’s content and threatening to visit the victims in Natick; and traveling to Natick to surveil the victims and install a GPS tracking device on their car.
Among other things, the indictment alleges that Baugh convened meetings to plan and coordinate the various parts of the harassment campaign; directed Harville to travel with him to Boston for an “op” targeting the victims and their website; directed Stockwell to “make up” allegations that the victims had made direct threats to eBay, the company’s CEO and its employees as cover in case the surveillance team was stopped; and posed as Zea’s husband when a Natick Police detective arrived in the lobby of Boston’s Ritz Carlton hotel to investigate eBay’s connection to the harassment campaign.
Among other things, the indictment alleges that Harville flew from California to Boston intending to place the victims under surveillance; attempted to install a GPS tracking device on the victims’ car; purchased tools intending to break in to the victims’ garage; lied to an eBay investigator who was responding to the Natick Police’s request for assistance; and deleted evidence from his company-issued cell phone after learning of the criminal investigation.
The charges of conspiracy to commit stalking and stalking each carry a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release, a fine of up to $250,000 and restitution. The charges of witness tampering and destruction, alteration and fabrication of records in a federal investigation each carry a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, a fine of up to $250,000 and restitution. The witness tampering charges also carry the potential for forfeiture. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; and Natick Chief of Police James G. Hicks made the announcement today. eBay provided valuable assistance and cooperation with the federal investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Seth B. Kosto, Deputy Chief of Lelling’s Securities, Financial and Cyber Fraud Unit, is prosecuting the case.
The details contained in charging documents are allegations. The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will raise your taxes. They will impose income tax hikes, small business tax hikes, capital gains tax hikes, corporate tax hikes, a carbon tax, and will even bring back the much-hated Obamacare individual mandate tax.
Feb. 7, 2020: Joe Biden said: "I'm going to raise the capital gains rate so that you pay capital gains at what your tax rate is."
Jan. 22, 2020: Joe Biden lied about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, claims it only benefited "top 2% of nation"
Jan. 9, 2020: Joe Biden lied about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Jan. 7, 2020: Joe Biden lied about his healthcare plan, says "no middle class tax" will occur.
Jan. 7, 2020: Joe Biden said: “Get rid of the Trump tax cut. No, not joking.”
Dec. 6, 2019: Joe Biden said: "We should charge people the same tax for their capital gains as their tax rate is. And I think we should raise the tax rate back to, for example, I take it back to where it was before it was reduced. It could go higher, but at 39.5%, 40% basically if you have that as the capital gains, that raises, I brought along, I’m not going to bore you with it, but you’ve seen it, I brought along a graph is how much money each of these things raise."
Dec. 9, 2019: Joe Biden said the capital gains tax rate "could go higher" than 40%
Oct. 28, 2019: Joe Biden said Trump’s $2,000 middle class tax cut is “negligible”
October 24, 2019: Joe Biden said: "So reduce the corporate tax cut, the tax payment to 20%? It needed to be reduced, but if we raise it back up to 28%, it was 39%, we can raise hundreds of billions of dollars."
October 23, 2019: Joe Biden said: “[Corporations] don’t need their tax cut reduced to 20 percent, it should be raised back to 28 percent."
October 23, 2019: Joe Biden said:“So every single solitary person, their capital gains are going to be treated like real income and they are going to pay 40 percent on their capital gains tax."
Oct. 15, 2020: Joe Biden said: "I would raise the capital gains tax to the highest rate of 39.5 percent, I would double it."
September 27, 2019: Joe Biden said: “I’m gonna double the capital gains rate to 40 percent."
September 20, 2019: Joe Biden said: “What I’d be focusing on is eliminating the $1.9 trillion tax cut that [Trump] passed."
September 4, 2019: Joe Biden endorses a carbon tax.
August 21, 2019: Joe Biden said: “I believe we should, in fact, the capital gains tax should be at what the highest minimum tax should be, we should raise the tax back to 39.6 percent instead of 20 percent."
August 9, 2019: Joe Biden said: “By eliminating just a few of the tax cuts,” Biden said, then added, “I’m going to eliminate most all of them. No, you think I'm joking? I'm not."
July 16, 2019: Joe Biden said: “I would raise the corporate tax. I think we should have lowered it from 36 to 28 percent, but it got lowered to 20 percent. If we just raised it back to 28 percent, we would raise about 600 billion dollars a year. Look at all of the needs we have and the opportunities we have. Ladies and gentlemen, it begins by reversing those cuts.”
July 5, 2020, Joe Biden said: "Yes. Yes, I'd bring back the individual mandate."
July 5, 2019: Joe Biden said: "Well, three things. One, I do raise the tax rate to 39.5 percent. I do, in fact, eliminate the ability for them to write off capital gains the way they do now. I would raise the -- and raise billions of dollars -- raise the corporate tax rate from 20 percent to 28 percent.”
July 2, 2019: Joe Biden is running ads to "Repeal Trump's Tax Cuts."
June 22, 2019: Joe Biden said: "And folks, on day one, I will move to eliminate Trump's tax cuts."
June 17, 2019: Joe Biden said: “First thing I would do as president is eliminate the president’s tax cut."
June 4, 2019: Joe Biden said: “You go out and you make a capital gain you make a little bit of money on an investment you made and you're about to go and cash it in. You cash it in, you pay - now it's down to 20% is too low - but you pay you used to pay them 28%,"
June 3, 2019: Joe Biden said: “If you make a gain, you buy something, you buy stock or anything else and that increases from $1 to $2 or $1 - $2 million, and you want to cash it in, get the cash, you got to pay a capital gains tax much lower than what you’d pay in your regular taxes. It’s much too low now in my view, but that’s a different issue.”
May 28, 2019: Joe Biden said: “You buy something, you buy stock at a dollar it goes to two dollars. You buy a Million, it goes to a million five. When you cash that in to make the gain you made, you have to pay a capital gains tax, which I believe is much too low.”
May 13, 2019: Joe Biden said: “When I’m president, if God Willing I am, we’re going to reverse those Trump tax cuts.”
May 4, 2019: Joe Biden said: “First thing I’d do is repeal those Trump tax cuts."
