No, ultimately I'm saying you're in a catch 22. This fund is being made from a lawsuit settled out of court. If that settlement process isn't safer from corruption, this designated fund need not exist to corrupt. If that process is safer from corruption, this "corrupt" fund wouldn't have come out of it at all.
Between a plaintiff and defendant both controlled by the same individual. A state of affairs you can't just recreate endlessly, without inviting scrutiny.
If you're attempting to illustrate a 'catch 22', then I assume the second sentence there is supposed to read, "if that process is safer".
Yup, fixed.
A) Because?
This is a bit like asking, "why steal a credit card & PIN when you could just steal $100 in cash from the same place, over and over and over again ad infinitum".
As much as would be invited by rigging 100 separate suits? Uhrm, no, of course not. That would invite investigation and reporting on each as its filed and settled, over months and potentially years, and subjection to safeguarding procedure. This way, its one and done, quickly forgotten by most media, and the allocation is ordered exempt from safeguarding requirements.
You mean something like a settlement that says that Trump, his family and affiliated persons are granted amnesty for all unpaid taxes and cannot be audited? Because I've got some bad news for you... https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1441216/dl
They literally don't know if they would work... That's the point, we don't know what works.
So what? Use the ones that work. Your article states clearly that inverters allow renewables to be integrated. Its actually very positive about the tech.
Dozens of countries use renewables, integrated into their grids just fine. That's already the reality right now. Its not even terribly costly; its a great deal cheaper than the fossil fuel industry, which haemorrhages power and requires the companies to be subsidised at public expense.
We know plenty that do work. Once again: dozens of countries already successfully use inverters to integrate renewables into their grids.
Right. And d'you know how many times our overreliance on fossil fuels has thrown us into dire straits? Have you heard of OPEC? The winter of discontent? The 3-day week? The 70s energy crisis? The Texan grid failure? The present energy crisis?
Nope. This may have been the case between ~2008 and 2016. Since 2017 fossil fuel subsidies skyrocketed, and eclipse all else.
www.theguardian.com
That fund pays out 5x this amount annually across thousands of cases, all of which are functionally invisible. It is not less conspicuous to do one giant block of payment and then publicize it. You are silly.
No, it doesn't. Trump Mobile is the final stripe, a little bit of creative flair representing how integral Trump is to the USA becoming its truest, best self. Obviously.
Thousands of cases... which require judicial involvement in coming to settlement each and every time and are subject to safeguarding rules.
Did this settlement have judicial involvement? Did it make it through safeguarding rules?
Indeed it did! He was able to game the system, controlling both plaintiff and defendant. And because he could do it once, he could therefore just as easily have done it 1000 times, is that what you're getting at?
On the contrary, the initial lawsuit looks brazenly corrupt, the settlement tremendously less so, and your interpretation of the settlement makes no sense at any level. If you are in control of both halves of the lawsuit and can pay yourself off that way, and that was the goal, why would you set up an account to pay other people money instead of yourself? If the goal from the beginning was to sneak through the fund to pay off Trump's allies, why make Trump the actual plaintiff?
Paying himself wasn't necessarily the goal. Paying political allies was, or funding a pet project that aims to embolden his supporters.
Direct control, and publicity.
You have yet to identify one. Your issues so far have either been completely nonsensical, or just boil down to incredulity.
Ah yes, those "adversarial" parties conveniently controlled by the same man.
Question: Why did he do this?
Are they oversight or aren't they? You can't pick both.
Because it is.
To be clear, the settlement creates a fund controlled by a council of 5 that is appointed by and serves solely at Trump's will with no oversight, and no real transparency to pay out essentially arbitrary amounts to whoever they decide (and again they are explicitly chosen by and serve solely at Trump's pleasure). Also, this fund and whole mechanism stops shortly before Trump leaves office, making this a machine for Trump to disburse tax funds to whoever he wants with a level of indirection so he can pretend it isn't that.
Because sometimes you need to pay off others, and having a handful of his chosen puppets disburse tax funds to whoever he chooses is a great way to do so without having to spend his own money and with a veneer of it being legitimate. Want to bet whether or not a few major figures involved in J6 get big payoffs (people like Rhodes and Tarrio who likely played a significant role in organizing), and rank and file J6ers get smaller but still still substantial payoffs? I mean, this would literally be Trump paying them tax money for attacking the Capitol on his behalf, with a paper thin veneer of plausible deniability. And yes, the goal would be to signal that going along with his plans in the future is a worthwhile endeavor.
Essentially Trump sued Trump to make Trump, family and friends immune to the IRS and to create a way for Trump to give payouts to whoever he wants in arbitrary amounts, AFAIK he's not barred from some of that going to people close to him or even he himself. The tax immunity would be a lot harder to put in place if Trump weren't a plaintiff. Also this fund can only be challenged by Plaintiffs, Defendants and the United States - all of which are Trump.
You really are trying quite desperately to manufacture a contradiction, here. Put an iota of thought into this and you can see there isn't one.
Are what oversight? Do you mean "are settlements from the judgement fund subject to oversight or are they not"?
No, I mean is the department of justice oversight. That is the oversight that would prevent Trump from "settling" a case with himself on whatever terms he likes. Without this explicit fund, that is who stands in his way, and you seem to value that oversight, but describe them as "controlled by the same man" in the next breath.
