Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Well, I see we obviously going to agree to disagree on this one, albeit huge, issue.
I'd think you'd do well to consider the words of Liz Cheney:

"Former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., warned Monday that if Donald Trump is elected president next year for a second term, he will try to remain in power beyond those four years."

"There's no question," Cheney said about that possibility in an interview on NBC’s “TODAY” show with host Savannah Guthrie in advance of the release Tuesday of her book, "Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning."

"Asked if she believes Trump would try to stay in power forever, Cheney said, "Absolutely. He's already done it once," referring to his efforts after the 2020 presidential election to overturn Joe Biden's victory and to stop its certification on Jan. 6, 2021."

"The U.S. could become a dictatorship if Trump is re-elected, Cheney warned. "I think it’s a very, very real threat and concern."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/liz-cheney-warns-trump-will-never-leave-office-elected-president-rcna127889
PS:Coming back on topic, Trump's statement that "I don't give a shit about NATO" must be music in Putin's ears...

Sort of.  We don't disagree that Trump, if elected, could, "try to remain in power beyond those four years." 

We disagree completely on the issue of whether Trump has the aptitude, skill, will, infrastructure, and intelligence to actually stay in power after his term is up. 

I am not sure why you think he could do it.  I don't believe Liz Cheney actually believes he could do it.  I think the speculation over an imminent dictatorship is pure political sloganeering - and I worry it is backfiring.

With respect, I have to ask, if you really truly think a Trump dictatorship is plausible; 

(a) do you have so little faith in the US institutions and the US Constitution which are designed entirely to prevent a dictatorship, and
(b) do you really think Trump has the talent, will, and skill to subvert these institutions and jettison the Constitution?   

I am extremely  confident the Constitution and the institutions established by the Constitution defeat any wanna-be Trump dictatorship, because I am extremely confident Trump is a buffoon whose real talents are insult and self-aggrandizement, rather than Trump being a Stalinesque mastermind who might, for example, motivate the military to support an unconstitutional power grab. 

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

PS:Coming back on topic, Trump's statement that "I don't give a shit about NATO" must be music in Putin's ears...

Yes, for this and about a billion other reasons, I vehemently oppose Trump's candidacy.   

All I'm saying is that one of those billion reasons is not a legitimate worry that Trump will become a dictator.   This is why I think all the dictator/authoritarian stories over the past few weeks are either backfiring or at best having no effect, if the polls are accurate.  I do not think any persuadable voters are any more concerned about Trump being a wanna-be dictator than I am.  Trump's rise in the polls is not because people secretly want Mussolini.  It is because Joe Biden is so clearly too old and uninspiring to be president.   I do not think that the many felony prosecutions aimed at Trump help either, even if they are justified under the law.   

Trump is rising in the polls because the Democrats' strategies are not working, at least as of now.   Jim M. I hope your knee is getting better because you need to be knocking on doors soon - Trump is leading in Michigan by 10 points!  I am worried indeed, just not about dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Trumps chances of winning the Presidency seem 50/50 even to me right now, but I just have to believe it will look much bleaker for Trump next Oct/Nov. 

Let me seriously  ask you as a lawyer, if the President refuses to obey a court-order, and his AG accepts Trumps refusal, what happens then?

I'm a patent and trademark lawyer and know no more about this stuff than you do. 

But; what kind of court order?  This is not a specious question.  The Supreme Court recently said "no" to Biden's authority to forgive student debt by executive order.  Biden has now floated and maybe implemented an alternative plan for debt forgiveness that he thinks is constitutional, maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong, not sure how that will turn out.   This sort of push-pull between the branches is part of the system and not what I am talking about.  Even Biden's original plan for debt forgiveness was deemed Constitutional by a number of scholars.

Let's say instead that Trump appoints a sycophant AG and the Senate expressly votes not to approve him or her.  Trump says "screw you this is my AG, like it or not."  This would be a bald and grievous violation of the Constitution. 

First, the Senate would go to the Supreme Court and they would instantly affirm the Senate's Constitutional right to approve cabinet members.  If Trump said "screw you" to the SC, I would expect all of the members of the DOJ, even the MAGA Republicans to refuse to accept orders from the bogus AG.  They would stand down, strike, offer resignations and the like because the DOJ is composed of thousands of civil servants who respect the Constitution.   They would not honor any radical plan hatched by Trump and his bogus AG.   

Simultaneously, I would also expect the Congress to impeach and remove Trump because the Senate would have enough R votes to meet the 60% number for such an obvious and inexcusable violation of the separation of powers detailed in the Constitution.   Especially since Trump's power grab came at the expense of Congress.

Then if Trump after impeachment and removal said "screw you I'm not going to leave", I would expect the Capital Police to arrest him and the SC would swear in the VP.  If Trump and a cadre of supporters barricaded themselves in the White House, the military or National Guard would go in and get him under authority of the VP, or Speaker of the House, or Supreme Court.  

So, for Trump to successfully thwart the Constitution on this one example, he needs a complicit Congress, a complicit entire DOJ, a complicit Supreme Court, a complicit VP and Speaker, and the balls to orchestrate and see through a naked power grab.   He has exactly none of those things.  Even in Rod's most fevered dream, Clarence Thomas and all the justices to the left of him are not going to jettison the Constitution to support a mad President bent on blatantly disregarding the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

First, I do take comfort in your confidence that Trump, principally because of constitutional safeguards, will not be able fulfill his ambitions to become a dictator but given his attempts to stay in power in his initial term by proclaiming the election was rigged and, as has been demonstrated today, was fully aware of the fake electors plot to keep him in office, the insidious efforts to return him to power are already in place and these include local electoral supervisors who have signified their intent to elect Trump no matter what the voters say in their districts. 
Please see:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/trump-2020-oval-office-fake-electors-recordings/index.html
As you read this, keep in mind the GOP is embarking on a bogus, Trump-driven "impeachment inquiry" of Joe Biden that has no basis in fact or in the law.
Finally, just breaking, SCOTUS is inexplicably going to hear an appeal of the obstruction law used to prosecute January 6th perpetrators and that includes Trump! I have faith in that law as you do in the constitutional safeguards but now even that is under threat:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/capitol-rioter-supreme-court/index.html
When Trump's appointees/sycophants), either on SCOTUS or in the federal courts (exs Cannon,Thomas, Alito), have synergistic legal rulings that enable Trump to elude the rule of law, then the constitutional safeguards erode and fall by the wayside by way of their ministrations...

FWIW, I think the two checks reproduced below standing alone justify an impeachment inquiry, in the context of certain scummier Biden family members' influence peddling business, which is pretty much undeniable.   I'm happy to give the president the opportunity to defend himself, and prove that he did not benefit in any way from the influence peddling.  But there is plenty of evidence to open an inquiry.  It is an inquiry, not an impeachment vote.   The full facts need to come out.   It is not enough for the President and his allies to simply issue blanket denials.

Second, as you have noted, Trump and his lawyers went exactly 0 for "a lot" in all the court cases challenging the election.  They lost them all.  Every one of them.  That is a pretty robust court system standing against the absolutely bogus claims of stolen elections.   Why will Trump all of a sudden become competent at staying in power based upon a pack of lies?

Third, why is it inexplicable that the Supreme Court would hear that appeal?  According to the article the Federal Appeals Court divided on the interpretation of the law.    The Supreme Court exists to hear appeals of this nature and the Jan 6 rioters have every right to have their appeals heard.

Originally Posted by James Brown

FWIW, I think the two checks reproduced below standing alone justify an impeachment inquiry, in the context of certain scummier Biden family members' influence peddling business, which is pretty much undeniable.   I'm happy to give the president the opportunity to defend himself, and prove that he did not benefit in any way from the influence peddling.  But there is plenty of evidence to open an inquiry.  It is an inquiry, not an impeachment vote.   The full facts need to come out.   It is not enough for the President and his allies to simply issue blanket denials.

Second, as you have noted, Trump and his lawyers went exactly 0 for "a lot" in all the court cases challenging the election.  They lost them all.  Every one of them.  That is a pretty robust court system standing against the absolutely bogus claims of stolen elections.   Why will Trump all of a sudden become competent at staying in power based upon a pack of lies?

Third, why is it inexplicable that the Supreme Court would hear that appeal?  According to the article the Federal Appeals Court divided on the interpretation of the law.    The Supreme Court exists to hear appeals of this nature and the Jan 6 rioters have every right to have their appeals heard.

P.S.  I know that the Biden's team has presented evidence that loans were in fact made.  Probably the checks above are completely legitimate.  The inquiry will fully develop the facts and circumstances around Joe Biden's involvement in any in the shady deals his family did.  To my knowledge, no one other than possibly the lawyers representing Hunter is denying that he and his uncle did lots of influence peddling on the Biden name.  I get it that the shady actions of family do not support impeachment, but it is not beyond the pale to inquire into the facts and circumstances.

There are other things beyond these checks of course.  "10% for the big guy"  could be puffery by Hunter to exaggerate his power and influence.  "My father is sitting right here, and boy does he hold a grudge..." could easily have been a lie to exaggerate power and influence.   Same with all those trips, dinners and other phone calls.  The gazillion emails and so on.  In view of all this stuff, I am sure not opposed to an inquiry, and I don't understand those who say inquiry is baseless.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"...why is it inexplicable that the Supreme Court would hear that appeal?  According to the article the Federal Appeals Court divided on the interpretation of the law."
Because it was a 2 to 1 vote with Nichols, a Trump appointee, dissenting, and they, the cons on the court, are taking his argument, based upon splitting hairs, and running with it.

Maybe, but that is a conclusion and I sure do not know enough about the case to draw a conclusion.   Frankly, no one knows enough at this stage in the proceedings to draw a conclusion.   Anything you read anywhere that purports to know what is going on in the Court's certiorari discussions is pure unadulterated speculation and is of no value whatsoever!

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/12/court-to-weigh-in-on-scope-of-law-used-in-jan-6-prosecutions/

The Scotus Blog is the money place for SC analysis.  Stay tuned.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

PS: As far as the Biden stuff goes, the GOP has been "investigating" him for years and have come up empty. Even their own witnesses have said they do NOT have evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors for impeachment.

In which case Biden has nothing to worry about.  The electorate is jaded enough by the Trump years to collectively yawn about a mere impeachment inquiry.   I think the press hysterics shrilly claiming there is no basis whatsoever are detrimental to Biden's reputation at least.   I'm talking about stuff like this:  https://www.newsweek.com/biden-impeachment-inquiry-isnt-just-unserious-its-dangerous-opinion-1851290

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I get the nuance of what you are saying, but the more he can take over the executive with sycophants (modern-day brown shirts), the more defiance he can exert. Ultimately, the guys with the guns are the last resort to enforce the words of the guys with the pens. The Judiciary is unarmed. 

George Wallace complied with the law ONLY because federal authority marched the national guard in to allow blacks to attend pubic college. If the guard were on Wallace's side, that would not have happened.

One thing I see that you probably don't is the number of whack-jobs that are active-duty military - I see them on survival channels on YouTube with some frequency in my bushcraft and survival research, and frankly it's very disturbing.  I think they are more common than you think and many would be more than happy to use force to end the "woke agenda destroying 'merica" if called on to do so. The most disturbing thing about them is how ordinary and "likable" for lack of a better term they are - they certainly do not come across as troublemakers, but they are actual and highly trained soldiers.

This is the perfect example of the robustness of our system.  The National Guard was no doubt staffed with it's fair share of racists who voted for Wallace or would have if they lived in Alabama in 1963.   But they did their job.  Some probably paid a high personal cost back home.  Why did they do their job?  I doubt it was a noble allegiance to civil rights.   At least not in every case.  I suspect that the Guard did their job because Americans, whether they are MAGA idiots of potentially racists in 1963 know a step toward dictatorship when they see it and the vast majority oppose that, no matter what they may think on other issues.   

I'll concede that you know more about the whack jobs in the military than me.   But these guys, with a few exceptions I'm sure, are not going to support a dictatorship.  The dictatorship they fear is on the left of course, but they are not going to disobey orders from the Pentagon and partake in a for-real armed insurrection at the request of Donald Trump.   If some General Kurtz does arise to support Trump (which I do not think is plausible) it will be scary as hell, but those renegades will be dealt with and probably executed.  The military is big, and I believe overwhelmingly aligned with the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

The blog, indeed, is a nice summary. Thanks for that link.
In regards to the case, I find the gist of it to be stated as per the link:

"Fischer sought to have the charge at the center of his Supreme Court case dismissed, and U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols agreed. He reasoned that the law, which was enacted in the wake of the Enron collapse, was only intended to apply to evidence tampering that obstructs an official proceeding."

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and reinstated the charges against Fischer (as well as those against two other men). It ruled that “[u]nder the most natural reading of the statute,” the law “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, other than the conduct that is already covered by” the evidence-tampering provision."

"In a dissenting opinion, Judge Gregory Katsas countered that the government’s interpretation of the law would render it “both improbably broad and unconstitutional in many of its applications.”

So, based upon the opinions of two Trump appointees, NIchols and Katsus, the case gets picked up by SCOTUS. Given the track record of the cons on SCOTUS, deciding virtually every case before them for the plaintiff and against the government specific to notion of just about anything the government does is too broad and therefore exceeds its authority, the majority opinion of the cons will prevail and the perps will likely skate. 
In the case before it, Fisher, an ex-cop like some others who were similarly charged and convicted, reportedly charged the capitol, blocked doors and exits while assaulting capitol police officers and, in doing so, obstructed the official business of congress in attempting to certify the vote for Biden. But wait, here comes Nichols and Katsus that "interpret" the law as only applying to evidence tampering!  Now really, is that what the statute actually says?

Interesting points.   We'll find out if you are right next year.  We have to remember to review this after the Court has rendered an opinion.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

I hope everyone who votes for their bank account will be happy once he is installed as President in November, as that’s all people seem to care about.

Do you really think Trump will win?