Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Oh Ok, well thanks for the reply. 

I can only assume that you are not comfortable answering this question I asked.

If you prefer to not answer, I get it.

Doesn't Jamie Raskin strike you as incredibly hypocritical since in 2016 he stood in front of Joe Biden in the US House of Reps and said that electors FOR Trump should be thrown out?  :'(

Then he headed up the Jan 6th committee, where the left violated the US House rules.

He was charging Donald Trump for the same action that Jamie Raskin himself took in 2016, attempting to get Donald Trump electors thrown out.    

What do you think of that? 

I do think Raskin is a politician to the core of his being, and thus selective in his outrage and hypocritical.  I don't think I am as incensed as you are about it. 

As I have posted many times over the last 4 years, I think Trump's behavior on and after J6 was reprehensible, repugnant, and disqualifying as far as my vote is concerned.  I do not think his behavior was an impeachable offense, a criminal act, insurrection, or treason.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

" I do not think his behavior was an impeachable offense, a criminal act, insurrection, or treason."

I'm not sure what more Trump would have had to do on January 6th to convince you otherwise other than actually joining the mob which he had planned to do if it weren't for the fact that the secret service refused to drive him to join in with the rest.

Off the top of my head Rod, the sort of things that would change my mind would be:

- an email or phone record of Trump coordinating a riot with the Proud Boys or some other group.
- a memo or internal communication suggesting that if Trump could incite a riot it might stall the certification.
- credible testimony that Trump himself planned (in advance) more than a speech.  i.e. that he intentionally incited a riot.  

That sort of thing.   I do not think that Trump's speech, which was indeed incendiary, is enough.  His speech had some ambiguity to it, and it was a political speech.  I also do not think the existence of the big lie is enough. (The big lie being that the election was stolen).   Losing politicians often bitch, moan, and lie that the election was stolen without any rational basis at all.  

Last but not least; Jack Smith has not charged Trump with insurrection or treason.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

" a memo or internal communication suggesting that if Trump could incite a riot it might stall the certification."

“It shows intent, a sophisticated plan, a blueprint to illegally and unconstitutionally overturn and steal the election” by Trump and his team based on false and misleading information and legal arguments,.."
"When Pence refused to intervene, Trump turned on his vice president, attacking him on Twitter even as the insurrection at the Capitol was unfolding on January 6."


"The Eastman memo laid out a six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election for Trump, which included throwing out the results in seven states because they allegedly had competing electors. In fact, no state had actually put forward an alternate slate of electors – there were merely Trump allies claiming without any authority to be electors."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/20/politics/trump-pence-election-memo/index.html

Add to that Steve Bannon's statement of January 5th claiming "Come to the capitol on Jan6th, it's going to be wild" and his refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena to explain how he would know that in advance and his subsequent refusal and imprisonment, it becomes evident there was significant preparation for the event with foreknowledge of its proceedings...

The Eastman memo goes to the charges of "conspiracy to defraud" and "conspiracy to obstruct" I was sloppy with my original post, I had forgotten that the charges were not insurrection based.  You have demonstrated that Jack Smith might have been able to prove a crime on the actual charges.  I'll revise my original statement to say that I'd gladly accept the criminality of Trump's actions if Jack Smith had proved the conspiracy and obstruction charges.  We'll never know now since the DOJ is currently dismantling the prosecutions in view of yesterday.  As I mentioned, none of this proves insurrection or treason, obviously, since Smith did not even bring those charges.  I'll admit that I overstated myself though, Trump's actions might have been criminal, but I do think Smith had an uphill battle proving a crime with this sort of evidence.

Bannon's silence proves nothing.  Also, "It's going to be wild" hardly proves a pre-planned riot.  All in my opinion of course.   No criminal prosecution like this can ever be a slam-dunk though.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Her supporters were packed in and instead of even coming out to talk to them, her spokes dude came out and told them she wouldn't be speaking. 

Yeah, she would have been tough enough to stand up to Xi, and Putin, and Kim, and..... well maybe not.

She's no Margaret Thatcher is she?

Vice President Harris delivered a moving and gracious concession speech this afternoon.  I hope you, and everyone else, had a chance to see it.  If you have not seen it yet, it is probably all over youtube.

In my opinion, Harris hit the proper tone, appropriately encouraged her young audience at Howard U to accept the election results but to never give up their passions, and most of all demonstrated a level of grace and composure that is really a testament to her inner strength. 

The contrast with how the president elect handled his defeat in 2020 really could not be more stark.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Trump will abuse his power again and almost certainly spark a constitutional crisis. I don't care what kind of speech he gave. There is no way this guy has suddenly changed. He has shown us exactly who he is countless times, yet we still elected him. We will deserve whatever he dishes out, but Democrats won't just sit back and let it happen. They will provide opposition where they can.

It will be wild and chaotic for at least two years until the midterms when we can correct the course. Maybe we will get lucky, and Democrats will control the House, put Hakeem Jefferies in charge as speaker, and provide some check on the GOP. Assuming Democrats do get control of the House, I will not be surprised if they impeach Trump again due to some as-of-yet unknown offense.

The robust system I talk about so much, the one that will curb Trump's worst impulses, relies on the "out" party pushing back vigorously.  I am counting on the Democrats providing opposition at every turn.  I am also counting on the Courts continuing to check executive overreach, which is common when either party has the Executive and the Legislature.

I don't deny that Trump will abuse his power again.  I also totally expect a blue wave in 2026.  Such is the way things have gone in politics for years.  I sure as heck hope and pray that if the Ds do take the House in 2026 and they are considering impeachment it is for something huge, nefarious, grossly illegal, and unambiguous.  The Democrats, the DOJ, Bragg and Willis martyred Trump in the eyes of a crucial slice of the electorate.  Please be sure this is not me condoning Trump.  As I've posted on countless occasions, I think most of the actions taken against Trump were legally justifiable.  (NY was completely bogus though.)  At the same time I think as a matter of political strategy that the lawfare and impeachments were a horrible idea.  

Here is why - The election was close in gross numbers, but among the few persuadable voters, or those that chose to stay home after voting for Biden, the election was not close.  This group obviously favored Trump massively.  I think the legal martyrdom of Trump was a factor in this critical shift among swing voters.  (I think the economy was a bigger factor of course).

More random thoughts.  The blame game is in full swing.  There seem to be two camps.  

The first camp blames the voters.  In particular they blame the misogynistic, racist, ignorant, bigoted, mean spirited, and hateful voters who chose a horrible person like Donald Trump to be president.  The voters who make many of my friends "embarassed to be Americans."  The blame the voters crowd is huge on my wife's Facebook feed and it is overwhelming in the punditry.  

I get it that there are strong headwinds for a woman candidate of color because racism and and sexism are real, but placing the blame on the sexism and racism of 70,000,000 voters is mostly virtue signaling by disappointed elites, and in my opinion the reason Trump exists.

The second camp, places the blame internally.  There are a lot of variations on this, including but of course not limited to, blaming Biden for leaving the campaign so late, blaming Harris for not defining herself, various gaffes, failing to primary Biden and so on.  All of these blames have some level of legitimacy, but I personally think focusing merely on campaign details misses the larger point.  

According to Bernie Sanders, the Democratic party has abandoned the working class.  I think this is obviously true.  The election was close, but the thin slice of persuadable voters (plus those who chose to stay home) broke overwhelmingly for Trump.  Why?  I think it was primarily because of inflation and immigration as it was perceived in that thin slice of persuadable voters, and the Democrats offered them nothing.  Campaigning with Liz Cheney or Beyonce is swell, but what is in it for the union guy whose family is having a hard time making ends meet?  Forgiving student loans over and over again is a wonderful pitch to elite youth, but the 25 year old truck driver knows quite well whose taxes are going to pay for such a program.   I could go on and on.

I seriously doubt Trump sincerely cares for the working class, but he at least says he does.  He campaigned on this theme endlessly.  The Democrats, through their policies over the last 4 years, and during the campaign turned their backs on the working class and minorities.  How could they be so shortsighted?  Everyone knew that inflation and immigration were the big issues this election, yet the Democrats though they could pick off the persuadable voter by fear mongering off of the countless flaws in Trump's character plus rah-rah from the cool kids like Obama, Oprah, Springsteen, Gaga, and Liz Cheney.  Whether this seismic shift in political alignment is permanent is the big political question of the next few cycles.  How will the Democrats win back the working class?  Their only hope is that Trump's economy is even worse than Biden and Harris's for this thin slice of the electorate.

Image credits:

https://www.ft.com/content/392e1e79-a8c1-4473-ab51-3267c415b078
https://www.thefp.com/p/no-the-problem-isnt-the-voters

Originally Posted by James Lacey

If Trump's team and the GOP are stupid enough to crash the economy in this way, then the electorate will punish them severely in the midterms. Another thing that will backfire on them is a wholesale repeal of the ACA. If they kick tens of millions of people off their healthcare without any viable replacement, they will get crushed in the midterms. Wildly popular provisions of the ACA are no annual or lifetime maximums, pre-existing condition protections, and the ability to insure your kids till age 26. It will be a monumentally stupid move if they mess with any of that.

I may be naive, but because you are 100% correct on all of this, I personally do not believe Trump/Congress will be inclined to deliver on Trump's poorly though out campaign promises.  Congress will not want to get kicked to the curb in 2026.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I talked to the guy who manages my assets at JP Morgan wed morning. He has been telling me for some time Trump would win, and the market will roar. He actually is not at all naive about Trump when I ask him specifics about how Trump will impact the economy. Yes, ANY self-respecting expert/advisor worth ANYTHING will tell you tariffs are inflationary and a tax. What he said was that Trump's not likely to do nearly what he said about tariffs in practice, and even if he did, the tax code changes will more than make up for it in terms of growth. Yes, he said there will be winners and losers in all of this, but he's very confident that the market has got a bull run in store over the next few years. Obviously, no market is without volatility, but the trend will be significantly up in his view. He could put our money to work on pretty much anything, but US equities are a favorite of his right now. This is a guy that will soon become President of JP Morgan Wealth Management, so ignore him at your own peril.

I've got the future president of JP Morgan Wealth Mgmt. and more importantly James Lacey and presumably you agreeing with me, so maybe my optimism that Trump won't/won't be allowed to implement draconian tariffs is not naive after all.  Fingers crossed.  Thanks for sharing these insights.

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Nov 6 he announced 10-20% tariffs 'across the board' and much higher ones for China.  "Promise made, promise kept", he said.

If he 'won't be allowed' to do so who will be the ones to not allow it?


https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/06/companies-race-to-get-imports-to-us-with-trump-win-vow-on-new-tariffs.html

Dave

His policy advisors, Congress, the Democrats, but ultimately the economy will rein him in.

Originally Posted by James Brown

His policy advisors, Congress, the Democrats, but ultimately the economy will rein him in.

Of course he will implement stuff we all regret, but the above checks will force him to backtrack.    The courts too, if he oversteps, but  tariffs are within his authority.