Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Yes I think we are seeing yet another episode of the left shitting their pants over a nothing burger.....Dont see how I could state it any plainer. 

That's plain enough!   Your conclusion is definitely one possibility, but, as detailed above in too many words, I think this could be more than a nothing burger.

Have a great weekend!

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Really, its more likely than not?  I read the report and the charge against Trump.  It was a freakin' joke.  You're an attorney?  

I read the transcript of the phone call as well.

You say you haven't lived in a cave for the last few years?  

So tell me something Counselor, when has Hearsay evidence ever been allowed in a district court, let alone a Federal court?  

That would be my very first question to you.  Maybe you can start by answering that.  

Hi Rich:

I did not read the rest of your post.  Good gracious my man, please break it into manageable chunks!  Regarding the above, impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process.  The Federal Rules of Evidence do not have to apply - the Senate gets to make it's own rules for any trial.  

More importantly, the hearsay "content" of the whistleblower's complaint is not the evidence that would be presented against Trump in the Senate.  Presumably, if they choose to proceed with an impeachment vote, the House would have uncovered all sorts of direct evidence proving the shake down - other phone transcripts, emails, statement from actual witnesses and so on.  If the House can't muster that sort of evidence, then impeachment would be a really bad idea.

So, the fact that the whistleblower's complaint is hearsay is not relevant.  The complaint is not the evidence itself.  The complaint merely opens the door to an investigation.  What the investigation turns up, if anything, will be the evidence.

Here's an analogy - Let's say that my wife witnesses a murder in central park.  She tells me about it, but she is too frightened to call the cops.  I call the cops.  According to your way of thinking, the cops would then say, "sorry Jim, we don't investigate hearsay statements?"  Of course not, the cops would start an investigation if they found me at all credible, and they would dig up the direct evidence of a murder...or not.

Now, you and Greg are pretty sure that there will be no direct evidence of a Trump/Ukrainian shake down.  Maybe you're right, and if you are, this is going to be another huge black eye for the D's and the press.  Maybe you're wrong.  Time will tell.

Jim

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Hey Jim Brown, I think Richard asked a question or two. Aren't you going to respond?  

Hey Jim M. 

Not on the weekend! 

(Better things to do...) 

You make a good point though!     

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

"If not prison then kicked out of politics forever."

Hi Greg:

Elizabeth Warren has all of the momentum.  It looks like the Democratic Party primary voters are setting the stage to "kick Joe Biden out of politics forever."  It is tough to tell how much of Joe's declining prospects are the result of the Ukrainian mess and Hunter, but it is probably some good portion.

Jim

 

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Hi Jim. I may be wrong but usually the frontrunner at this point isn't who will end up with the nomination. What the Democrat's need is a "democrat light" candidate like Amy Klobuchar, someone from the midwest who can win back Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Saw her on Bill Maher's show Saturday night and was impressed.

Hi Jim:

I would love to see a Midwestern moderate get the nomination.   I'll be surprised though.  The extremes seem to control the primaries.

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

And why would I care what your wife thinks?  

Rich:

I was going to reply to Russ, and I still might because I think his point about his wife is one of the most important in this thread.  (I'm reading from old posts to new)  You ought to care what his wife thinks because she is representative of a sizable chunk of the R coalition.  If Trump loses any large chunk of his coalition, he will lose the election.  

There is no margin for error.  Recent history shows that candidates who take portions of their base for granted pay the price.  See HRC in Wisconsin, circa 2016 for example.

The white, evangelical, married chunk of the coalition is critical.  That is why you care.  Assuming you want Trump to win.  Personally, I have not decided yet - I need to see who the D's nominate.  Maybe you are in the same boat, being an independent thinker.

Jim  

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

My wife is somewhat of a bell weather of evangelicals that voted for Trump. She never liked him personally, as most evangelicals don't that voted for him. I mentioned to her that even though we are on the same team and hold the same beliefs and values, I think that a bad person is more dangerous as President than someone with bad policies, and she thinks someone with bad policies is more dangerous than a bad person.  She said "not any more"

If democrats would nominate ANYBODY that is a centrist (Amy Klobuchar, Michael Bennett, Joe Biden), they would find that there are many disaffected evangelicals like my wife that wouldn't just abstain from voting, but actually get their vote. 

Why the Democrats don't realize that the largest political affiliation in the US is "independent" I don't know. They could mop the floor with Trump if they did. Trump could still win it if a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren is their nominee. I might not even vote for them, and I think Trump is Hitler in restraints. 

Hi Russ:

Good insight-filled post.  I agree with your wife that someone with bad policies is more dangerous than a bad person as president.  The beauty of our federal system is in the robust set of checks and balances, and the remaining tension between federal and state authority.  The executive and the legislative branches are arguably incompetent, but the nation chugs forward. 

Klobuchar, Bennett and the like are not getting any attention at all.  Biden is going to continue to fade I fear.  I'll be surprised if Elizabeth Warren is not the nominee.  Several of her policies are crazy bad.  If the D's nominate Warren, my seriously up-for-grabs vote for Trump is sealed and I suppose he'll win again.  How is it that the D power structure, including the press, do not see this?

Jim

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

In all seriousness, you probably hold the judicial branch in higher esteem because you work inside of it and are more knowledgable about its actual level of functionality. 

Hmm.  You got me thinking.  I'll admit to holding the judicial branch in higher esteem because the judges I know are such sharp, dedicated, and high quality people.  This describes all of the Supreme Court in my opinion, and also, most of the federal and state judiciary.  There exist crooked or incompetent judges of course, but I think fewer than there are crooked or incompetent legislators.  I acknowledge my bias, but I still think I'm right.  

Now here is something interesting (I think), that was stimulated by your post.  In my day job, I primarily "prosecute" patent applications.  This means that I file and eventually get patents for applicants, usually engineers and their employers.  So, day to day every day I work with the USPTO, which is part of the Department of Commerce, and part of the Executive Branch.  Some of the patent examiners and supervisors I deal with are kind of frustrating, I'm sure they think the same about me.  The USPTO does it's job the same under Trump as it did under Obama and Bush before him.  

I work some with the other branches too.  Sometimes the Supreme Court changes a key interpretation of patent law, and this can cause changes in the way I go about things, even if these decisions get no press.  Much more often the Federal Circuit resolves a key issue (to me) of patent law.  Sometimes my clients get involved in patent litigation, which is always in federal court.  These interactions with the judiciary almost always leave me impressed with the skill and competence of that branch.

Sometimes the Legislature re-vamps patent law and affects my day-today operations.  Legislative efforts in patent and trademark law are generally broadly supported and although they are sometimes controversial, and "political" the politics are more along the lines of IBM v. Microsoft politics, not R v. D politics.  Nothing sexy for the press to dig into.  Nothing that is overtly impacted by the personality in the White House. 

So, my patch of the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches is more or less immune to the personality in the White House.  Isn't much of the government like that?  I don't have first hand experience outside of the patent system, but I suspect that most day to day work accomplished by the federal government is delivered pretty much the same under Trump as it was under Obama, even though those two are about as different as can be. 

Jim

When was the last time you got the better of me in a debate?  I'd submit its been quite a while now.  

When I debate you, I present facts and data, and typically you haven't the ability to counter me back with anything.  

Anytime you care to have a live debate with me one on one, you let me know, Ok?  

Wow Rich; you've mellowed.  When I used to take the time to get under your skin, you'd demand blood satisfaction in the boxing ring!  Now you'll settle for a live debate?  How disappointing.  Age catches up to all of us, I guess.

FWIW, I think that Russ has made some really good points in this thread.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I wouldn't bet a Franklin note to a doughnut than anything that Russ Carroll says contains an ounce of truth anyway.  

Sorry Rich, I was reading your long post, and going to try to address some of your thoughts, but you lost my interest and support with the line quoted above.  Russ is not a dishonest man.  I admire his integrity and honesty quite a bit.  Jim