Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Remember that Mattis was opposed by tons of Democrats.  Kristen Gillebrand voted against the waiver that would allow him to be nominated since he hadn't been officially out of the military for 4 years before being allowed to serve in the Trump cabinet.  Chris Coons said he had reservations against the guy.  

And your point about him wanting more deployment didn't square with Democrats.  

They called him Mad Dog Mattis and they didn't like him much.  

Now since they perceive that he's against Trump, he's their hero.  

You just have to laugh.  

No, in this case you have to cry.  (About JM's resignation, not anyone in particular's reaction).

Originally Posted by James Lacey

The Clinton's have been investigated over and over, again and again, ad nauseam. How many indictments have resulted in all that tremendous waste of taxpayer money? None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

It's been my experience that the simplest explanation is often the correct one, and that explanation is that they have not been indicted because there is no evidence to support an indictment.

Hi James:  There is sufficient evidence in Comey's statement "exonerating" clinton to support an indictment.  I'm convinced that if HRC would not have been HRC she would have been prosecuted for her grossly negligent handling of classified information while in the SoS office.  Soldiers, sailors, and less well protected government officials are prosecuted for the crime of mis-handling classified information all the time.   The simplest explanation in this instance is that the Obama administration protected an ally, not that Clinton is innocent of all crimes. 

For all I know, Secretary Clinton had no intent to break the law, but intent to break the law is not an element of these crimes.   Seriously, do you actually think that Lynch and WJC only discussed their grandchildren on the tarmac?

I know we disagree, and I respect your opinion, so no need for us to get into the weeds about this (again).  I do want to point out that people like me whom you hopefully consider to be rational... people like me with less of a commitment to Trump and conservatism with a capital "C,"... think that the fix was in for HRC. 

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

She should have been prosecuted for having a server outside of the Government that was used for official activity.

However, the man responsible for Trump getting elected (besides Satan) is James Comey. By reopening the Clinton investigation in the 11th hour, after his pathetic press conference detailing her malfeasance, he opened the door for a Trump victory. The irony...

That is so true.  Although I think the person most responsible for getting Trump elected is Hillary Clinton herself.  Or her campaign manager, or the Democratic campaign organization.  It depends where you want to draw the line. 

Orchestrating the nomination of the one person on earth who could lose to Trump is a root cause of Trump's election.  HRC's personal baggage and epic lack of appeal is also a root cause.  And of course taking the blue wall states for granted (-0- campaign stops in Wi )  that might be the mother of all root causes.

Do you remember us agreeing that whoever lost the election would only have themselves to blame?  The new search function stinks, so I can't find the thread, but I think you and I agreed on that point.  I still think it is entirely true.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

People were SICK of the status quo Republican {and Democrat} and turned out to vote.  

Very true.  The question is whether these folks who voted against the status quo in the primaries and the general of '16 will turn out to vote in large enough numbers for Trump to carry FL, OH, PA, WI, MI, and MN again.  I can't see it happening no matter who the D's nominate, but I was rather wrong last time.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Maurice Clark

Hi Greg,

Perhaps you need to learn to do the maths. For example, my federal income tax dropped by $7 per month on an annual salary of around $60,000. But thanks to the elimination of work related expenses deduction and others, instead of getting a refund of around $600, I have a tax bill of around $1600!

So, in return for giving me an extra $84 a year in my pay packet, they take over $2,000! I am sure there are many others in the same boat.

Thanks a lot repubs!

Maurice

Hi Maurice:

It sounds like you are a special case.  You must be an independent contractor to have been deducting work related expenses anyway, Under the old law, employees could not deduct work related expenses unless (A) the employer did not reimburse them, and (B) the work related expenses exceeded 2% of gross income.  Obviously, the new tax law stung some folks, particularly people with super-high state income taxes (Rod, Russ) and maybe you.   The average taxpayer across the US got a nice overall tax break.  I have not done my taxes yet, and it is hard to compare year to year, since both my wife and I have incomes that vary based upon production, but I will be able to see whether my overall rate went up or down soon enough.  I'm pretty sure, based upon my estimates, that it wen down.  

Obviously, the initial observation that the average refund went down is completely irrelevant, as has been demonstrated by Greg and others.  Rod knows this of course.  What matters is the overall tax burden, not the size of the refund.  If any W-2 employee wants to maximize their refund, the withholding forms allow you to claim -0- exemptions and even request additional withholding if desired.  Those who have to file quarterly estimated tax payments can just write bigger checks!   We are all in control of the magnitude of our refunds.  You could get your refund up to about $60K, if you wanted to, but it would be really hard to make ends meet the rest of the year, and why would you want to loan the US money at 0% interest!

Jim 

Originally Posted by Tony Aguire

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

Hi Tony:

The Atlantic article is a long fever-dream of pure speculation.  What in particular do you think is coming?  

Jim

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Its on Schedule C for business deductions......as you were told several days ago by Rich. He and I both have businesses. You are correct though it wouldnt apply to you although you might want to talk to a tax attorney regarding incorporating yourself, it might be advantageous for you tax wise. You wont find any sympathy here regarding the removal of deductions for foreign properties though.

I will allow you may just exist in that void often found when complex simplifications result in unintended consequences no one considered when attempting to simplify one of the more complex set of rules on the planet....the tax code

I’m not a tax lawyer, but I am pretty sure that Maurice can not file a schedule C for small business expenses related to his professor job.  Maurice is a W2 employee, and W2 employees are obviously not sole proprietorships or small businesses entitled to file a schedule C.  So, Maurice is arguably screwed by the tax code, since his employer does not reimburse lots of work related expenses.  Even under the old code, the 2% AGI limitation screwed W2 employees who have unreimbursed expenses.  This seems to hit teachers pretty hard, and I would expect that their lobbyists are working on it, at least they should be.  Maurice, if I come across as unsympathetic, my apologies.  Special case was a poor choice of words, at least Rod thought so! 

If you were an independent contractor professor, if such a thing exists, you could deduct most business expenses on your schedule C.  Of course, if you were an independent contractor you would be paying many more expenses directly, office and IT for example. You also would not get paid leave, insurance, and so on.  So, in the end it’s probably best to be a W2 employee, if possible.

I own a business with 8 partners and about 40 employees.  We reimburse all business related expenses to the extent permitted by law.  Nonetheless Rod, I paid for my own Audi?.  My wife is a sales executive in the private sector.  She travels some of course, and all expenses are reimbursed to the extent permitted by the law.  I suppose this is one of the best things about private enterprise!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Lol! Obstruction of justice is a crime! Count them them up:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/obstruction-charge-trump-mueller/index.html

Hi Rod:

Obstruction could be a crime of course, but it can not occur when the President engages in a constitutionally authorized action, even if he had a questionable motive.  Therefore the CNN article you linked to is bogus on its face.  No one has any credibility whatsoever if they argue that firing Comey is  criminal obstruction (including of course this CNN writer).  Dershowitz explains it all here:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/04/18/the-legal-dispute-between-barr-and-mueller/wv0BmogLrYaZzgJFmWjHmN/story.html


I listened to a political science professor on the radio yesterday, who had an interesting take.  He is no doubt a liberal, being a poli-sci professor at CU Boulder.  Nonetheless, he noted that his research shows two things strongly:  

1.  Normal people, as opposed to beltway talking-heads, do not believe that obstruction is possible or relevant if the underlying investigation turns up empty.  Specifically, since there was no collusion with Russia, any possible obstruction is irrelevant in the view of normal people.  Recall that with Watergate there was an underlying burglary.   That is not the professor's legal opinion of course, just an observation that I think is pretty darned accurate.  Joe Six-pack and other deplorable types in middle america know darned well that they would be pissed and not fully inclined to cheerfully cooperate if they were wrongly and very publicly accused of a crime.   The boobs at CNN miss this point.  They argue backward from their pet conclusion and basically believe that (A) since Trump didn't confess to collusion, he is (B) guilty of obstruction.  That view does not play well outside of their bubble.

2.  99.99% of the population (everyone except Adam Schiff) knows now that there was no collusion.  Therefore, this poli-sci prof. believes that if the Dems take the next step and bring impeachment proceedings for something as process oriented and debatable as obstruction, then the negative blow back in 2020 will be enormous.  I agree with that too.  I think that Pelosi understands this and will rein in the more wild impeachment crowd in her coalition, but we will see.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Every credible news source on Earth: Bill Barr lied under oath, and obstructed justice, and must resign.

Fox News and every right-wing whack-a-doodle news source: The Mueller report is the crime.

Hi James:


I've read Mueller's letter a couple of times.  http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/05/01/letter.32719.pdf  It is nice and short.  I can see that Mueller was peeved that Barr's summary,  "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions."   Mueller goes on to advocate for a release of the redacted report, in particular the Mueller team's introduction and executive summaries, which "accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions."

Barr did release the introduction and executive summaries - not instantly, but within two or three weeks.  So any discrepancy between Barr's initial summary letter to congress and the actual report, especially the introduction and executive summaries can be reviewed by anyone.  I don't think that Mueller or anyone in the press is disputing Barr's characterization of Vol. 1, concerning collusion.  "...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."  It looks like much of the fuss is about Barr's characterization of Vol. 2, regarding obstruction.

I'm not sure why Mueller's team thinks Barr soft-sold the obstruction angle.  They certainly did not recommend prosecution in that section, which is the bottom line Barr reported in his initial summary letter.  Of course this is not "exoneration" as some might argue, but it is the best a person ever gets when he is investigated for a crime.  Prosecutors don't typically exonerate anyone, unless maybe when the real criminal is captured, many years later.  In any case, the Mueller team's report has been released, so we can all compare it to Barr's initial letter, to determine if it did or did not not accurately summarize the report.

So where did Barr lie under oath or obstruct justice in all of this?  I'm not seeing it and I'm also not seeing it reported as such in various credible press outlets (WaPo, NYT, WSJ).  I did see tweets reported on the internet from congressional partisans calling for Barr to resign, but I sure don't see any basis for that yet.  I did see that Joe Scarborough on MSNBC is calling for Barr to resign or be impeached.  I don't find him credible.  Barr obstructing justice is particularly absurd.  Barr is a prosecutor and based on the report he choose not to prosecute.  When a prosecutor chooses not to prosecute, that is hardly obstruction justice.  Except maybe in the the most egregious cases (see Jussie Smollet).  Given the Mueller report's own non-conclusions on the obstruction issue, it is really hard to image that anyone serious is calling Barr's summary letter or testimony a further "obstruction."  Obstruction of what?  Do you actually think Barr should prosecute Trump or anyone else based upon what is in Vol. 2 of the Mueller report?

Jim 

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Your "facts" as usual are wrong. The Mueller letter has been released. It does not mention the media at all and makes it clear that Mueller is upset with Barr's actions, not anything the media did.

Hi James:  I hate to say it, but CNN more or less supports Richard on this phone call angle:

CNN reported previously that Mueller also followed up with Barr in a phone call after he sent the March 27 letter.  While Mueller didn't think Barr's letter was inaccurate, the special counsel believed his report was more nuanced on the obstruction of justice issue, according to Justice Department officials. Mueller was frustrated by media coverage, and wanted more of the report to come out, those officials told CNN.  The call was described to CNN as polite, but there was clear disagreement. "This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the special counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations," Mueller wrote.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/01/politics/mueller-barr-letter-special-counsel/index.html