Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Currently, more than 720 former federal prosecutors who have worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed the letter, and the count is rising. They assert that Barr mischaracterized the Mueller report when he said it laid out insufficient evidence to make an obstruction case.

Hi James:

A few wide ranging thoughts:

Let's assume that the Mueller investigation did document sufficient clear-cut evidence to make an obstruction case.  Then why didn't Mueller include an unambiguous conclusion of obstruction in his report?  The answer must be that the obstruction case is a close call.  Dershowitz argues that the president cannot as a matter of law be illegally obstructing justice while  exercising his Constitutional prerogatives, no matter what his motivation might have been. (e.g. firing Comey).  Also, it appears to be undisputed that the White House delivered the documents subpoenaed by Mueller and made witnesses available to the investigation.  That's refreshing and not indicative of widespread obstruction.

Legally, obstruction can occur when there is no underlying crime supporting the original investigation.  But actually doing something about the obstruction in those circumstances, in a politically charged matter such as this, is going to backfire.  Bill Clinton lied about sex with Monica, and was impeached, but not convicted.  It did not seem to politically harm him or his wife all that much.  Partisan opinions for and against WJC were solidified at that point.  He was disbarred as an attorney, but never actually prosecuted for his perjury.  Impeachment for obstruction when DJT has been cleared of collusion is going to similarly enhance his standing with the voters.

Even so, rather than fuss about the handling of the report, the House should proceed with impeachment, if they have the courage.   I personally think that impeachment would guarantee DJT's reelection, but what do I know...  It seems fairly obvious that the Democrats want to beat the obstruction drum without actually doing anything.  My guess is that the voters have all pretty much moved on from this issue and that it is only pf paramount importance to inside the beltway types.

The opinions of 720 former federal (and state I believe) prosecutors is not that helpful, in my view.  This sounds like a big number of course, but we really need to see who these folks are, and how their signatures were solicited.  The ABA is extremely left-biased, in my experience.  It would be trivial to get thousands of signatures on a letter condemning Trump at an ABA conference.

Jim

Originally Posted by Pete Brayton

Once again, since it's such a great deal with LAVISH benefits, why aren't you one of the "100's" of people waiting in line for the job of teacher? I invited you to my classroom once to see what a teacher does on a daily basis, but you just "hid underneath your desk" and continued your whiny-ass attacks on the teaching profession. As to how much I think a teacher should make, I'll leave that up to the school districts and school board members to decide who are much more in tune with what teachers are worth than some right wing extremist hater who thinks he knows everything.

Hi Pete:

It's a sad and rainy day here in South Littleton.  My office is only a couple of miles from the STEM School, Highlands Ranch.  I went to public school K-12, public college and law school, public college here again in Colorado and so have my kids (Jeff Co. K-12, Lakewood High, Red Rocks, Colorado School of Mines, CU Boulder).  I've always really admired public school teachers and certainly don't begrudge you your salary, health care or retirement benefits.  I recognize that my formal education and my sons' formal educations were delivered by scores of dedicated professionals, virtually all of whom are really great people.  Thanks!

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Pete,

I recently sent my Mother her Mother's day card. In that card, I thanked her for her devotion and the example that she and my Father set for my brothers and me. Without my parents and their sacrifices, I would not be where I am today. I could send that same message to any one of the many teachers I have had over the years, and it would be just as appropriate. I don't understand how or when attacking the teaching profession became a mainstream thing by right-wingers. Sadly, it probably has to do with union-busting, and greed driven by privatization advocates.

James:

I don't think it is mainstream on the right to attack the teaching profession.  This is gonna take some explaining though...

We live in highly polarized times.  The teacher's union is indisputably an active part of the progressive coalition.  In that role, the teacher's union is quite vocal on issues not directly related to teaching, for example gun control.  https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/teachers-unions-strongly-back-gun-control-campaign-most-other-unions-silent/   Immigration, http://www.nea.org/home/immigration.html  Abortion  https://www.aft.org/resolution/stand-planned-parenthood and more.

This political activism obviously draws a heated response from the opposing cohorts of the conservative coalition.  This is normal hardball politics.  I don't personally think it has much to do with old-time union busting or greed.  Political discourse is coarse when the issues are guns, abortion, taxation, immigration and so on and the teacher's unions stake out strong positions on the left.   I'm not blaming them or even taking sides.  I'm trying to draw a fine (and hopefully meaningful) distinction between teachers and teaching as a profession on one hand, and the teacher's union(s) as active political bodies.

I believe that individual teachers and teaching as a profession are held in high esteem by most left and right wingers.  Richard's need to personalize everything is an exception.  Tony fills this niche on the left in our little ecosystem.  A similar dichotomy between individuals and active political organizations purporting to represent those individuals can be drawn with respect to gun owners and the NRA.  Nearly all gun owners, who might be our aunts, uncles, brothers, and neighbors are folks who are worthy of respect and honor.  Even so, the NRA is reviled by "the mainstream left."  I would rather say that the NRA is reviled by the politically active and vocal left, since I think that is more accurate, but this is a minor point that might be implicit in your definition of "mainstream."

This analogy can be taken even further.  I'm not a member of a teacher's union or the NRA, so hopefully I can be objective.  The teacher's union does not seem to me to draw nearly as much hostility from the right when they engage in contract negotiations, public outreach, "brand" development and so on, versus the more "newsworthy" and controversial instances of direct political activism, universally in support of the left.  The NRA does not seem to draw much ire when they teach gun safety classes and so on versus instances of direct political activism, universally in support of the right.  Politics can be coarse and rude and the animosity felt toward the NRA and NEA by the other side  does not affect how most reasonable people view the gun owners or teachers they know as individuals.  That is my take anyway, hopefully not too poorly communicated.

Jim

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

Biden does say we will need more clinics to better take care of them.
They are continuing to come because neither party has changed the asylum laws. The voters that know are outnumbered by the party faithful which automatically jump up to defend the party against that mean, terrible man Trump. They repeat what the party leaders say, "Crisis, what crisis?

Hi Mel:

Biden is looking very strong in the early polling.  I know that this means nothing, but I'm guessing he has a lot more than another month in him.  I'd rather have Biden running against Trump than Sanders or Warren for sure!  It is not even close.  I'm not saying this because I think that Trump would beat Biden easily.  Heck, I might be persuaded to vote for Biden.  Assuming my dream of Trump declining to run doesn't come true 

I am only saying that I would much prefer Biden of the D candidates, because, if a D were to win,  I am hoping for a President who won't tank the economy on purpose.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

"...tank the economy..."

I haven't given that any thought.
I should have.

I will be very surprised if Trump declines to run. Wonder what story he would come up with?
It couldn't be anything physical, he is the finest physical specimen we have had in office.

In my dream, if I could script things, Trump would hold a press conference in January of 2020, to announce boldly to the world that, "he has accomplished everything that can be accomplished by any man in the greatest presidency ever.  Heck the greatest presidency that can or ever will be."  He would announce that, "all of his goals have been met and all of the needs of this great country fulfilled in only three years."  "Amazing."  "Bigly."

Then Trump will announce that he is graciously stepping down to play golf, spend more time with Barron, and let the next generation take the reins.

Pence, Romney, Cruz and Rubio all throw their hat into the ring, but they are overwhelmed in the early primaries by Nikki Haley, who goes on to beat old white Joe in every state except Hawaii.  Hey, it's my fantasy, I can dream what I want!

Seriously though, I would desperately love to see Haley run some day because (a) I think she'd be a good president, and (b) I would so very much enjoy seeing my liberal friends, colleagues, the press and especially certain sisters-in-law twist in the wind trying to come up with reasons not to vote for a smart, articulate woman of color.  These folks, as much as I love some of them, view being an R or even having lukewarm quasi-support for Trump's policies as a profound moral failure... Watching them justify voting against the woman for an old white insider with groping hands would be soooooo sweet.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Hi Jim

In all honesty, who out there on the right could beat the Dems aside from Trump? 

What would they offer policy wise that is better than what Trump's admin

Enjoy your weekend.   

Rich

Hi Richard:

I think Nikki Haley would trounce the Democrats.  It would not be close.  Her policies would be similar to Trump’s, without the embarrassing tweets. Would that be so bad?

Enjoy your weekend too!

J

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

In reality, Steve King or David Duke would throw their hats in the ring and win the GOP nomination - provided Trump Jr does not run.

Hi Russ:

I’m not sure why your opinion of fly-over R’s has tanked so much...  Step away from the internet and chat face to face with some regular folks in middle America and I’m sure you’ll feel much better.  

Jim the optimist.

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

Biden and his son have some very dirty laundry. If the names in this caper were changed to Trump and his son everybody's hair would be on fire, now. The Trump Tower affair was just talked about. It looks like the Bidens got more than a million dollars to change hands. Despite polling saying all the voters care about is beating Trump I won't put a hundred dollars on Biden getting the nomination if somebody offers me 10 to 1 odds.

Hi Mel:

I can’t say that I am up to speed on any Biden scandal.  We’ll see how it plays out.  I will say that I am skeptical of any scandal issues nowadays.  Skeptical that the scandal du jour is real...skeptical that anyone will care, even if it is real.  Pretty dark for an optimist 😳J

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Hi Jim,

This statement is a bit confusing since why would any President tank the economy on purpose? Not to mention that the overarching theme of the economy and political parties in modern times is that the Republicans drive it into the ditch, and Democrats then spend eight years digging us back out. Precisely this scenario is what happened with Clinton after Reagan and Bush Sr. and it's what happened with Obama after Bush Jr. On top of that, Trump did not save the economy. Instead, he inherited one of the most prosperous economies in modern times. The economy was already on a steep growth curve when he took it over. Granted, deregulation, roll-backs of environmental protections, and a surge in company and consumer confidence have helped, but are these policies sustainable in the long run? I guess we will see, but most economists don't think so, especially given that sooner or later, those trillions of dollars in tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy are going to come due. And who has this Trump economy helped? Real wage growth is still flat or falling as it has been for decades. No doubt this economy has been good for those who were already doing well and have plenty of income investments, but the average American worker is not benefitting that much.

It's incredible to me that the persistent myth that the Democrats are the ones who "ruin" the economy will never die, given that all available evidence in modern times the truth is the opposite. I think it's time to consider that policies like industry-specific stimulus packages, moderate tax increases on the wealthy, healthcare reform, banking regulations, and reducing income inequality are not necessarily bad policy. After all, without them, Trump would not have had an excellent economy to inherit.

Hi James:  I was exaggerating of course with “on purpose”.  I do think that Warren or Sander’s policies would be terrible for the economy.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Okay, fair enough. I failed to detect the exaggeration. I'm not so sure that policies like student debt forgiveness, or universal health care, or stimulus for green new deals would be so bad though. Maybe they have other policies would be "disastrous" that concern you more. I'm not suggesting we debate them. The truth is, I'm not a Bernie fan, but I'm a one issue voter in 2020, and that is to get Trump out. I'll be voting Democratic no matter who gets the nomination, but I do hope they nominate a moderate who has broad appeal.

Hi James:

Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton all presided over great economies.  I think it is fair to say that the policies of Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton are not the policies of the current left-wing Sanders/Warren wing of the Democratic party.  I would be happy to vote for the policies of Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton next year.  Will I have a candidate?

Student debt forgiveness is not a good idea.  I was shocked to hear the other day that the level of student debt in the USA at $1.5T exceeds the level of automobile debt ($1.1T) and even Credit Card Debt ($977B).    https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/05/pf/college/student-loan-stats/index.html  In most cases, the debt is worth it for the student, since their lifetime earning are increased by a large factor.  If the student chose to study something that does not provide a good return on his or her investment, then I think it is a bad incentive for the taxpayers to bail them out. 

Jim