Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

I read the Hill's commentary on Navarro.  No problem there.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.   

Then I clicked through to their analysis of the Supreme Court's recent decision.  It is laughable in its bias and breathtaking in its dishonesty.  I despair for the country when well meaning people get their news from a source like "the Hill."  Rod, in my opinion, you need to find a new source if you want to maintain credibility.

Here is a horrifically dishonest quote with my highlighting:

"In their unanimous decision, the nine justices ruled that states don’t have the authority to keep candidates for federal office off their election ballots based on the Insurrection Clause. But five of the six conservative justices went further — they decided not only to make new law, but to rewrite the Constitution. They ruled that a person cannot be disqualified from office by the 14th Amendment unless Congress passes legislation saying so.

It was a radical decision by a supposedly originalist court, designed solely to shield the former president from the Constitution’s sanction against “oathbreaking insurrectionists.” The justices are fully aware that Republicans in the current Congress would never approve such a bill."  https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4520065-another-fine-mess-from-the-us-supreme-court/

"Radical decision" my ass.  "Rewrite the Constitution?"  "Make new law?"  Hardly!  This so-called opinion is just a shameful bald-faced lie.   Consider for a moment the quotes I've highlighted above in view of the actual text of the entirety of the 5th Section of the 14th Amendment:  "Section 5.  The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Anyone who quotes a ridiculously biased source like the Hill diminishes him or herself.  It is no small wonder that the press is reviled in this day and age.

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Calm down,  Jim.
The article is clearly labeled an opinion piece. If you read the disclaimer at the bottom, and as in all of the Hill's clearly labeled opinion pieces, it does not reflect that of The Hill. I've read equally disturbing opinion pieces from the likes of Jonathan Turley on other topics that make me want to puke but I understand that the Hill publishes both liberal and conservative opinion pieces so, in my experience from reading it, your criticism against the Hill is not warranted.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I'm still trying to process your comment that the Hill publishes conservative opinions too.

I am not sure why you and all the lefties out there think that the Supreme Court threw Trump a lifeline.  In my view, they are doing their job and most importantly assuring due process for the accused. 

It is pretty clear that you and Jack Smith want to convict Trump before the election by any means, and are willing to deny him due process to achieve that goal.   As you know, it is unethical to bring or time charges to affect the outcome of an election.   Smith will never admit this of course, but it is the only conclusion one can draw from the refrain you favor of "justice delayed is justice denied."  

Also, Trump's due process rights vastly outweigh any public interest in a trial before the election.  Ask yourself honestly if you would care when the trial was going to happen if Trump were not running for president?   

Last, a cautionary tale.  Smith obtained a conviction in the Gov. Robert McDonnell case, only to have it overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court, including RBG, on appeal.   There is no doubt Smith wins at trial against Trump in DC.  Guess how many primary votes Trump got in DC?  About 700 and some.  As many on the left have gloated, that is a tough jury pool!   We will have no idea if Trump wins or loses until the appeals are over, which will take years. 

I hate Trump a lot.   I doubt I hate him as much as you do, but my personal feelings do not blind me to justice.   Under the circumstances, I am very pleased the Supreme Court is assuring some semblance of due process for the accused.   

Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

The Supreme Court does not hear frivolous appeals, so by definition you are wrong.   Yes, there is a strong public interest in "knowing."  Three comments though:

1.  Most voters "know" enough about Jan 6 and Trump's malfeasances to make up their minds now.

1A.  If Trump wins Michigan or Minnesota or maybe other key swing states it is not because Smith's trial was delayed.  It is because the far left is pissed at Biden for supporting Israel (so far).  Hence Biden's attempt to pivot, his bad mouthing Bibi with the fake "hot mike" and the like.  I am not pleased that the US is posturing in this manner at all, but I am not a voter in Michigan and I understand that Biden will do whatever it takes to win the swing states.   I can appreciate hardball politics.  I am hopeful Bibi ignores the pressure.

2.  We won't know whether Trump is actually guilty of a crime until after he has exhausted his appeals, and that is not going to happen until long after the election.   There is a very good reason that it is unethical to time a prosecution to affect the outcome of an election.  If HRC had been prosecuted right before the election you would have cried bloody murder and you would have been right. 

3.  Jack Smith is legendarily aggressive.  He takes cases other prosecutors will not because of the risk of losing or being overturned.  That is fine, but he would not have been my choice for special counsel if I had been AG.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi David:

Ms. Brown and I toyed with the idea of Mazatlán, or the Texas hill country since that is the best chance for clear skies.   Still, the weather in April is pretty dicey everywhere in the states.  A consideration for us is that my mom is turning 90 within a couple weeks of the eclipse (tomorrow).  So, on eclipse day, we are visiting mom and dad in Southern Indiana.  They have 56 acres of forested land pretty close to the centerline (3 minutes and 57s totality), and the sun will be clearly visible over their pond at totality, weather permitting.  We checked the view lines out the last time we visited.  This is obviously the last (only) chance mom and dad will have to see a total eclipse and we wanted to visit for her 90th anyway, so hopefully the fates will smile on us with clear skies over the old homestead.

Also, that evening, with any luck at all, we will get to watch Purdue win the Men's NCAA basketball Championship.   That would really tickle dad and thrill me!   Should be a great day!  

Last, don't forget that you are all invited to my mountain observatory in Colorado for the total eclipse of August 12, 2045.  We are right off the centerline and have bedrooms and tons of camping space.  5 Minutes and 11 seconds of totality, and August has great clear skies most of the time!  As I mentioned a couple years ago, Richard's attendance is mandatory, assuming he mellows a bit with age!   Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Rod:   Once again the Hill lets you down.   The bloodbath comment needs context to understand it is not a call to arms and mayhem and is instead a prediction of the state of the auto industry if Biden wins.   Believe Trump or not, agree with him or not, several media outlets have serious disinformation blood on their hands this time.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/mar/18/in-context-what-trump-said-about-a-bloodbath-and-b/

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

The entire transcript is on line. I read it, every word.  He was talking about China, electric cars being made in Mexico, the US auto industry, Auto workers unions  and so on when he mentioned the 'bloodbath' stuff.  So, not a call to arms.  Unless he meant that his proposed 100% tariff on Mexican-made, Chinese-backed electric cars would be a bloodbath for China.  Hard to say, though....  

In reading the entire speech, though,  I did notice a strong and consistent theme of racially demonizing immigrants - they'll bring murder and mayhem, an immigrant killed this beautiful white woman etc. .   He continually mentions where they are coming from with unmistakeable hints that they are brown and black.  This was the content of the vast majority of the speech. 

The hard part about reading his speech is the scattershot, stream of consciousness way he jumps topics, doesn't finish sentences or thoughts.  The description 'word salad' is apt.  

Dave

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Rod, I concur that there was plenty of inflammatory rhetoric in this one speech.  But ITrump has nowhere near the intellectual ability to plan a ruse where he says 'bloodbath' about the cars thing when he really wants his followers to think it will be a  'bloodbath' of and/or caused by the nasty brown immigrants.   The vast majority of his core followers might construe it that way but Trump ain't got the brains to influence them like that.  
Dave