204
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 48 points 6 months ago

Wouldn't it have been easier for NYTimes to use in the title: "Caterpillar" instead of: "a Major Company" ?

I don't understand that was left out of the title. It's almost a form of obfuscation that shields said company.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago

I think because this is more about exposing corruption in the DoJ than an expose about Caterpillar. Not mentioning the company in the headline can inform you that the heart of the article is the DoJ so that you’re coming into it with the right context.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

Can’t get clicks without bait. Next they’ll be adding “You’ll never believe who it is!”

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

I found the most moral use of AI using Artifact as my news app. There is a feature where you can "Mark as clickbait" an article's title and it reads the article to generate a new title that actually is relevant to the content of the article. I think the devs have stopped development of the app though.

[-] [email protected] 26 points 6 months ago

It's as if the entire administration was corrupt.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago

bUt jOe BiDeN s GeNoSiDe!!!11

[-] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Just a major company?

Color me surprised it's just a major company

[-] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


In December 2018, a team of federal law enforcement agents flew to Amsterdam to interview a witness in a yearslong criminal investigation into Caterpillar, which had avoided billions of dollars of income taxes by shifting profits to a Swiss subsidiary.

The Internal Revenue Service told the giant industrial company to pay less than a quarter of the back taxes the government once claimed that Caterpillar owed and did not impose any penalties.

“It appears that Caterpillar was given special political treatment that the average U.S. citizen cannot obtain,” Jason LeBeau, one of the agents who worked on the investigation, wrote to the Justice Department’s inspector general late last year.

whistle-blower claim asserting that Caterpillar had fraudulently dodged billions of dollars in U.S. income taxes by improperly parking profits in a small Swiss subsidiary.

And it took particular aim at Mr. LeBeau, saying he had a “basic misunderstanding of the relevant tax rules” and was pursuing a “conspiracy theory.” The attacks were an unusual effort to undermine the credibility of an individual investigator.

Two hours after Mr. Miller sent the email, he got a response: Senior Justice Department officials had decided “that no further action,” including the planned interview, should be taken “until further notice.” (That direction was reported by Reuters in 2020.)


The original article contains 1,722 words, the summary contains 212 words. Saved 88%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
204 points (97.7% liked)

politics

18881 readers
3881 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS