Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

RINO in Colorado stated:  "and that his disbarred fixer paid her hush money"

For goodness sake, Cohen calls himself a fixer!  It is not a pejorative in his world view.  He is shopping a reality TV show called The Fixer!   You have taken pedantic nonsense to a astronomic level.

https://nypost.com/2024/04/20/us-news/michael-cohen-shopping-television-show-the-fixer/

Also... so what!  The mainstream news organizations hate Trump and will use negative language to describe him at any opportunity!   New flash Richard - this is an immutable fact of reality.   Get ready for a heavy dose of "convicted felon Donald Trump" rather than "ex-president."   Do you think the press opposition to Trump is new or matters in this instance?  Unreal.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Let me correct the record again.  Payments to a lawyer are legal fees.  

Unless they are reimbursement of expenses.  Duh.   The tax ramifications of your ignorance would be profound.   Here's a life lesson:  Assuming you ever do have a paying construction job, bill the materials and your fees on the same invoice but separately.  your fees are taxable income to you.  Your expense reimbursements for materials are not.  Unless you mark the materials up, then the delta is taxable.

Ask your accountant for help, it will save you a lot of money.   "Payments to a lawyer are legal fees."   Thank goodness you are so profoundly wrong.  My clients have reimbursed my firm millions for pass-through legal expenses over the years.  I am pleased to report never for a hush money payment to a porn start though!  

Jim is right, ignoring you is the right path and I'm pretty good at it.  Sometimes it is just so damn fun to point out your stupidity I indulge myself.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

While I agree about the pro-Trump and anti-Trump voter sentiments, I do hope that the polling regarding the margins in the Republican party not voting for Trump as a result a verdict of GUILTY in THIRTY FOUR FELONY counts will become a consistent trend. 

That said, I think you're trivializing what Trump did which, in essence, was to do what he usually does, i.e. deceiving the electorate with his lies and corrupt acts.
And, of course, he'll continue to do so if re-elected by eliminating the remaining cases against him and freeing the Jan 6th "patriots" who were found guilty of serious crimes by a jury of their peers with the latter action seriously undermining the rule of law and the integrity of our judicial system.

Frankly, I'm shocked that you're calling this a "political prosecution" which is the same sort of unhinged nonsense spouting out of Trump's mouth. He was indicted after an investigation by a grand jury, prosecuted justly under the laws of the state of his residence and found guilty by a jury of his peers. But, as per your statement to the contrary, it's a "political prosecution" and in doing so,  you've obviated our system to the same level as Trump.

And I certainly disagree with the whatraboutsism comparo between Hillary Clinton and Trump. They're nowhere near in equivalence and I'll remind you of the nonsense with Hillary's emails shortly before the election that helped sink her campaign while Trump and his family did similar with classified emails on their cells while in office.

What is happening now is another example of the existential threat to democracy and the rule of law that Trump truly poses as he and his Republican supporters in congress lie and rail against the guilty verdicts and call the system unfair, fascist and corrupt.

I probably am trivializing the underlying facts.   It is a crime though, and I am not trivializing the process in any way.  Also, I do not think it is moral to diddle a porn star and then pay hush money.  I am saying that this "revelation"  of Trump's malfeasance did not move my opinion of him one iota.  Expecting this level of immorality is already baked into my own opinion of Trump.  

So, in my view, this is a very politically motivated prosecution.   If Trump were not a candidate would they have investigated and prosecuted him?  I don't think so.  The effect on the country is entirely political.  Look how the partisans on each side are lining up behind their teams.   Me and you may be some of the few people in this country who have actually discussed the law and facts and our concerns about the legal interpretations applied.

Last, I still do not believe that Trump is an existential threat to democracy.   I also think Biden is overplaying that hand, but it is all he has. 

I believe in the guardrails inherent to the system as I have posted here many time over the years.   If Trump wins, the US will survive.  I know it.  Unless I am wrong of course.  

I do not want him to win!  He is among other things too numerous to list; a liar, a scoundrel, a cheat, unfit to lead, a pathological narcissist (not unlike our own pet pathological narcissist) , vindictive, divisive, self centered, and generally terrible for the country.   We need a uniter, not a divider and on that score Biden fails, but Trump fails spectacularly.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Frankly, I'm shocked that you're calling this a "political prosecution" which is the same sort of unhinged nonsense spouting out of Trump's mouth. He was indicted after an investigation by a grand jury, prosecuted justly under the laws of the state of his residence and found guilty by a jury of his peers. But, as per your statement to the contrary, it's a "political prosecution" and in doing so,  you've obviated our system to the same level as Trump.

I ought to clarify that in my view a prosecution can be legal, justified, properly handled and be politically motivated.   In other words, I am not saying that political equals invalid.   Not at all.


If this does not make sense, please let me know.  I agree that far too many people are equating "political prosecution" with "invalid prosecution."

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

That didn't take long:

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/speaker-johnson-says-the-supreme-court-should-step-in-211999813815

The Supremes will not get involved until the state court appeals process plays out.   That could take years.   I can guarantee you that they will not take this case up just to bail out Trump.

There is one exception, if NY tries to jail Trump, after he is elected president, I thinks the Supreme Court will unanimously stay the sentence until after Trump's term.   I read something about that the other day, but can't find it now.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

What do you think of Project 2025, Jim?  Trump's election (or any other R should Trump be incapacitated before November...) would empower those behind this frightening movement..Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation are the existential threats to democracy just waiting in the wings until an R is elected.  2024, 2028......  

Dave

You'll have to pardon me Dave, I'm no student of the Project 2025 "mandate." 

I glanced at their web page but I don't have time to dig in right now.  I read the Wiki summary here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

Looks like basic hard-right heritage foundation stuff that someone like Trump might pay lip service to before the election but then will either have no will or no mechanism to implement upon election.  No more than Sanders or Warren has the will or power to instantly transform the USA into a socialist workers paradise if he or she were ever to be elected.

So why is this group more frightening to you than the robust socialist movement as embodied by Sanders and AOC would be to me?  Why is it more frightening to you than the left anarchist movement embodied by Antifa?  You can bet that Richard would guarantee a totalitarian government the instant Sanders, Warren, or even Biden is elected.  We agree that he would be wrong, but why?  Why is Project 2025 qualitatively different than the programs favored by fringe lefties in your view?  That's a serious question.  I doubt it is because you think the Rs are more competent at enforcing their will!

In my view, both parties are shamelessly playing the "end of democracy" card this cycle.  I personally think fringe "movements" are a dime a dozen on the left and right.  These movements have appeal to activists on the left and right during elections, they serve to whip up the base for or against something.  But history shows the Constitution and institutions of government cause change to occur slowly.  More importantly, the rhetoric of these movements is really not all that popular outside of the hard-core bases.  See AOC's Green New Deal.  Apparently Project 2025 wants to abolish the Department of Education.   I doubt that is a popular position among Republicans in general and I would be shocked if any president tried to dismantle the Department of Education.  What really happens is incremental change accompanied by thunderously overstated rhetoric.

Obamacare is a great example.  Has it led to socialized medicine in the US?  Of course not.  It is actually kind of popular, but you would not know that if you listened to R rhetoric.   Has climate change rendered the planet uninhabitable?  No, and I think our best and brightest minds will outpace any possible catastrophe with green energy and technological solutions to the challenges we face.   You would not know it listening to D rhetoric.  Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

And there's a good chance of that happening:

"Our model currently predicts that Donald Trump has a 56% chance of winning the Presidency."


https://elections2024.thehill.com/forecast/2024/president/

Presumably based on polling from before yesterday.  It will take a while, but whether Trump's electability is enhanced or diminished by the guilty verdicts will take some time to see, and it will take more time to see if any movement sticks. 

My guess is that Biden now dodges the June debate because his opponent is a convicted felon and it is beneath the dignity of the office to debate him.  God help us if Biden takes that course, he will be playing into Trump's hands.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Frankly, I'm shocked that you're calling this a "political prosecution" which is the same sort of unhinged nonsense spouting out of Trump's mouth. He was indicted after an investigation by a grand jury, prosecuted justly under the laws of the state of his residence and found guilty by a jury of his peers. But, as per your statement to the contrary, it's a "political prosecution" and in doing so,  you've obviated our system to the same level as Trump.

And I certainly disagree with the whatraboutsism comparo between Hillary Clinton and Trump. They're nowhere near in equivalence and I'll remind you of the nonsense with Hillary's emails shortly before the election that helped sink her campaign while Trump and his family did similar with classified emails on their cells while in office.

p.s.  What I was talking about was not HRC's emails, but her campaign's payment, laundered through the Perkins Coie law firm, for the Steel dossier.   I was reminded today that she was fined by the federal election commission - something that Trump was not.  Heck the payment for the dossier was even characterized as "legal services" by the campaign. 

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6243b3f8b001843f2379a673/t/624486ac6da88f37bd43e98d/
1648658094980/MUR+7449+closing+letter+to+Coolidge+Reagan+Foundation.pdf

Thus, the analogy is seamless: 

1. It is not illegal under NY law to pay for the fabrication of opposition research and it is not illegal to pay your porn star liaisons hush money. 

2. It is, according to the NY law a misdemeanor to book these payments as attorney fees, hiding the fact of the payment actually being reimbursement for payments to Stormy Daniels or Fusion GPS, as the case may be. 

3. It is, under a NY statute (that I personally think lacks due process) a felony if the misdemeanor occurred to advance another crime (in the jury's opinion).  In Hillary's case the other crime (federal election campaign finance violations) was actually proved by the Federal Election Commission!   

The only difference?  Hillary Clinton is a Democrat and beloved by the Attorney Generals in New York.  

This is why I say the prosecution of Trump was entirely politically motivated, and I can't fathom arguing otherwise. 

A huge number of voters feel this way.  The more the pundits or president say Trump's conviction proves "no one is above the law" the more likely Trump wins.  Also, America was not asleep when the special counsel gave Biden a pass on his own documents case.  Every day I feel more and more like the political decision to prosecute Trump in the hush money case and in the documents case will backfire immensely.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Every day I feel more and more like the political decision to prosecute Trump in the hush money case and in the documents case will backfire immensely.

The TLDNR version has to do with glass houses.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I think this claim fails to recognize that Trump did this to himself. At any time, Trump and his legal team could have taken responsibility for his actions and worked with the DA office to devise a plea deal that would have avoided the whole trial and conviction. Trump could have admitted guilt and probably gotten away with a slap on the wrist and a small fine. Instead, what did they do? Insist that Trump was innocent, that the trial is rigged, and attack and blame his political opponents without a shred of evidence. Trump and his legal team had to know that he was guilty and would likely be convicted, and yet they acted like immature toddlers rather than taking responsibility. It's not outrageous to think that they wanted this outcome to use it for political advantage. If so, we will not know the verdict on that calculus will not be known till November.

Biden and Hillary and their legal teams acted completely differently. In both cases, they cooperated, and there was at least some admission of culpability. There is a vast difference between those two cases, not the least of which is their cooperation contrasted with Trump's lack of cooperation and his predictable and on-brand behavior of never taking responsibility and blaming anyone else but himself for his misdeeds and actions.

Hi James:  I agree with everything you posted, and your comments are a good addition to mine.   There is no doubt a rational candidate would have worked out a deal and a wrist slap.  I have heard commentary by trial experts that the Trump requirement of "deny everything" was a horrible strategy at trial.  In this instance I agree that the strategy was formed by the client, not the lawyers.  Being on Trump's legal defense team must suck entirely.

Back to politics - your points are not the angle I am reading in the Biden supporting half of the press.  (I have not read everything of course).  There is a lot of sanctimonious "this proves no one is above the law" rhetoric.  I think a majority of voters do believe that Clinton and Biden are effectively above the law.  To the extent their cooperation facilitated leniency, they sure do not emphasize that point.  So the "no one is above the law" rhetoric leads to backfire and resentment.

If you were advising the Biden campaign, I'd be a lot happier.  For example if team Biden's messaging was along the lines of "Trump could have stopped this proceeding at any time by cooperating, but his narcissism got in the way.  Do you really want a man in charge whose ego is so huge that in his mind he is incapable of error and devoid of the capacity to properly assess risk?  That would play well with voters like me.  (Don't worry Rod, I'm not voting for Trump because of this).   If Biden then said, "sure - me and Secretary Clinton made mistakes too, but we owned up to them, cooperated with the authorities, paid our fines, and learned from them..."  Well, if he said that I'd send him a check (with in the legal limits of campaign contributions of course!)