Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

JB: "He blames disinformation... and Elon Musk?  Lichtman is literally full of it."

Well, however you feel about it, 40%+ of the electorate got a constant drumbeat of the worst kind of BS there is coming in huge daily heaping helpings from Faux and friends. And Musk's X excrement was as bad or worse so to think that didn't have a significant effect is naive at best. 

Any at rate, Lichtman had earlier fessed up to being wrong and said so. That's his explanation and one can certainly argue over his methodology but the negative right wing media reinforcement of the democrats and the elevation of everything MAGA certainly played a major role...

By the way, this concept of the Trump voters being dupes who voted as they did because they fell for "BS" or "disinformation" is just another way for elites to sanctimoniously signal that the working class is too stupid to be trusted with the vote.   The working class has heard this message loud and clear, and are abandoning their overlords in the Democratic party in response. 

I do not think the predictable reaction to elite condescension is as important as the economy or immigration to understanding the 2024 election, but it is a factor.  Big picture though, this sort of condescension from the left created Donald Trump.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Huckabee is a pro-settlement occupation denier. Shockingly, Arab Americans upset about the war in Gaza voted for Trump, thinking Trump would do better. You are right. Trump has an uncanny ability to get people to vote against their best interests. Take the ACA for example. It's no secret that Trump and Johnson are coming for it. Things will worsen if they gut protections for pre-existing conditions and allow insurance companies to return to high-risk pools instead of treating us all the same. And where do most ACA participants reside? In red state areas, of course.

I don't think this is exactly right.  I read at least one article arguing a lot of the Arab Americans, at least around Dearborn, planned on voting for Trump, knowing he is strongly pro-Israel and knowing he was less likely to side with the Palestinians.  They planned this vote to punish the Democrats.  It is/was obvious the Democrats are just about as strongly pro-Israel as the Republicans, but for the left fringe.  Basically the Arab Americans were saying to the Ds, "take us for granted at your peril."

(FWIW, I agree with the vast majority of Americans and I am pro-Israel too.  Hard to dispute that Biden did not come through with an arms embargo, for example, as demanded by his left flank.)

p.s.  I read the MEMA chamber of commerce letter to Trump, and I think they are exaggerating quite a bit when they claim to have turned Dearborn red because of Trump's outreach.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Jim, I'd add that I don't think it's credible to call Lichtman a "leftist hack". He's about the only one who predicted Trump's win in 2016 in an election that surprised virtually everyone including Trump...

Ok.   Leftist hack is a bit much.  I guess I was channeling Richard!

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I got nothin’

Here is something for you to hope for, "An anonymous GOP senator told Fox News Digital, 'He will never get confirmed'"  

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/matt-gaetz-faces-gop-senate-opposition-after-trump-selection-attorney-general

Originally Posted by James Lacey

This is all just another bullshit excuse for Trump and his lackeys and enablers. There was no weaponization of lawfare. Instead, they were committing crimes. How about this? Stop committing crimes if you don't want the legal system coming after you. Simple. However, I predict Trump's administration will spend an enormous amount of time and money fending off litigation and doing their best to stay out of courtrooms. The clown show he's appointing will step into it simply due to their incompetence. He's planning on appointing loyalist who are utterly unqualified for their positions. We can hope that some of the career employees in the departments can help them learn on the job and maybe keep them from screwing up too badly. However, the Secretary of Defense is not what I would call a learn-it-on-the-job position. If Trump gets what he wants, it will be 4 years of chaos, confusion, and hopefully inaction.

Hi James:

I'd say it is not that simple.  The NY prosecution which earned Trump the title of "convicted felon" was a politically motivated farce.  Factually, Trump paid hush money to a porn star and he or his people booked it as "legal fees."  This might be a misdemeanor, but they bumped it up to a felony because of a poorly defined and unproven secondary crime.  One of the possible secondary crimes was election fraud.

For starters, it is inconceivable to me that the jury was instructed to consider three possible secondary crimes without requiring any finding meeting a burden of proof that any of the secondary crimes actually occurred.  I'd bet big money that this verdict is overturned for lack of criminal due process, unless the NY court and prosecutor drop the case to save face.  

Also, Hillary Clinton paid for a bogus opposition research document (The Steele Dossier) through her lawyers.  They booked the payment as "legal fees" to hide the sourcing of the dossier from the public.  I have cites from congressional investigations proving this activity in an older post, if necessary.   It is not illegal to pay for oppo research, and it is not illegal to pay hush money (or as Rich would say, to enter into a non-disclosure agreement).  The crime is apparently putting the payment on the books as "legal fees."  The analogy to Clinton's payment is seamless.  The secondary crime could be election fraud in either case (hiding material information from the public during an election).  If I recall correctly, Clinton was fined by the federal election comission when her payment was discovered.  Trump was not.    I think even listing the election fraud as a secondary crime in the Trump case is bogus too, but apparently the NY Court found it persuasive.

Did NY prosecute Clinton?  Hell no.  The NY case against Trump is bogus and weaponized lawfare of the worst sort.  Half the population calls Trump a "convicted felon" because of this travesty, and I can appreciate why he is angry about that.

It is hard to say whether the GA case is bogus lawfare or a legit prosecution.  The prosecutors in GA messed it up so badly no one can tell.

Did Trump illegally withhold records in violation of the law, resulting in the DOJ asking Jack Smith to prosecute him?  Of course he did.  But so did Biden, Clinton, and apparently Pence.  No prosecutions there.  You can argue, and I appreciate, that Trump's lack of cooperation exacerbated the crime, but he did not destroy evidence like Clinton did.  Here we have at least the appearance of a weaponization of justice.

I was looking forward to hearing the evidence, as it came in at trial, in the J6 case.  Smith again, of course.   Maybe Trump broke the law, maybe he did not, we will never know.  Rod makes a pretty good argument that he did.

I am very comfortable however, saying that 3 outa 4, the NY, GA, and the documents cases were "lawfare" and a unique weaponization of justice.  It is my profound hope that Trump rises above and does not retaliate, but that is, of course, a fool's hope.  The Democrats screwed up immensely when they prosecuted Trump in NY, GA and in the documents case.  Where this ends, I sure do not know.  I know where it started though, and the Ds who cried about the weaponization of justice throughout the campaign were gaslighting and the voters knew it.  J

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I'm sorry, Jim. I can't buy the idea that Trump was mistreated. Besides that, during his first term, Trump used executive office power to go after his perceived enemies. The only reason he wasn't more successful was that, in some cases, people on the inside prevented him from acting. In other cases, law enforcement entities found nothing to charge people with.

Trump spoke publicly all the time about wanting to use the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, or the DOJ to investigate darn near everyone.  There have been plenty of first-hand eyewitness accounts regarding how Trump wanted to act on his public statements but was rebuffed by the likes of John Kelly, his former chief of staff, and Donald F. McGahn, his former White House counsel. There are plenty of other well-documented accounts where the law enforcement offices investigated but found nothing to charge, such as in the case of John Kerry speaking with Iranian officials after he left office.

So, I'm sorry, but Trump is no victim. The investigations were legal, and frankly, I don't see the double standard you insist exists.

I agree that Trump is not a victim, in that he is not "innocent."  Not innocent legally, or morally.    I think Trump is a profoundly corrupt human being, which is largely why I voted for Harris.  Even so, I believe that 3 out of 4 criminal cases would not have been brought against another politician, even a corrupt one, and in the case of the NY prosecution, I am sure the conviction will not stand up on appeal.  I also feel strongly that the NY trial and jury instructions should not have been used to criminally prosecute anyone.  So, my own belief that justice was weaponized against Trump stands.   Do you really think Alvan Bragg was not politically motivated?

Maybe because of my training, I do not see any inconsistency with this conclusion.  I firmly believe that a mob boss with cold blooded murder on his hands should walk, if the prosecutor and court ignore his due process rights.  

Trumps abuse and/or "attempted but thwarted" abuse of political power is only relevant to the question of "who started it."  It is not relevant to the question of whether or not justice was weaponized against Trump.  As me and a lot of folks predicted, the prosecutions against Trump backfired politically, because they were politically motivated, at least in part.

I probably should have lead with this, but our correspondence has clarified something in my mind.  I am defining the process of "weaponizing justice" as a criminal prosecution against a politician that is in large part politically motivated, and which has not in the past been the sort of prosecution brought against politicians, even the corrupt ones.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I'm sorry, Jim. I can't buy the idea that Trump was mistreated. Besides that, during his first term, Trump used executive office power to go after his perceived enemies. The only reason he wasn't more successful was that, in some cases, people on the inside prevented him from acting. In other cases, law enforcement entities found nothing to charge people with.

Trump spoke publicly all the time about wanting to use the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, or the DOJ to investigate darn near everyone.  There have been plenty of first-hand eyewitness accounts regarding how Trump wanted to act on his public statements but was rebuffed by the likes of John Kelly, his former chief of staff, and Donald F. McGahn, his former White House counsel. There are plenty of other well-documented accounts where the law enforcement offices investigated but found nothing to charge, such as in the case of John Kerry speaking with Iranian officials after he left office.

So, I'm sorry, but Trump is no victim. The investigations were legal, and frankly, I don't see the double standard you insist exists.

I see perfect symmetry between the payment Trump made to Daniels,  through his lawyers,  which he booked as "legal fees" and the payment Clinton made to Fusion GPS through her lawyers, which she booked as legal fees.  https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93

One got prosecuted, one did not.  Bragg applied a clear cut double standard.  I believe he applied the double standard because he was politically motivated.    

The DOJ prosecuted Trump for keeping documents, but did not prosecute Biden or Clinton for the same crime.  Again, this is a double standard.  Interestingly, Trump could have gone after Clinton, but did not.  Also, in Biden's case the special prosecutor made the right call given Biden's dementia.  Garland is the one applying a double standard here.  The AG does not hire Jack Smith unless he is out for a prosecution.   The AG chose a much more reasonable prosecutor to investigate Biden.

The fact that Trump asked for it or "deserved it" is irrelevant to these obvious double standards.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

You two forgot about his conviction on business fraud in NY.

Seems like he lied on a loan application and was slapped with enormous civil penalties.  I am curious if NY has ever before gone after civil penalties against businessmen who lie on a loan application, but then pay the loan back on time and with interest?   I am also curious about the scope of the damages, which have been reported by Trump's allies as being unprecedented.  

Someone must have looked into these issues, I have not.  If this is a typical civil fraud case and the damages were calculated rationally, even if on the high side, then I have no problem with it.   If this is an unprecedented civil case and the damages are irrational under any circumstances, (a) I reckon it will be fixed on appeal, (b) I would only call it "lawfare" if the unprecedented case/damages were politically motivated.  

Unlike the Bragg prosecution, I have not looked into this one enough to have an opinion, just laying out the analytical framework I would apply.

One last point for James, I don’t have a problem legally with politically motivated prosecutions that are otherwise legitimate. So, I don’t have a problem legally with the J6 prosecution or the documents case.

I do have a problem with the legality of Bragg’s New York prosecution, which is of course the only one that has tagged Trump with the descriptor “convicted felon”.   The New York case should never have been brought, and the way the trial was handled and the jury was instructed is a travesty of justice. The ends never justify trampling on a criminal defendant’s due process rights.

Politically, I do think the documents case was a bad idea. It is reasonably clear that all of the prosecutions backfired, and although it may be a minor factor in Trump’s electoral college romp, I think it is a factor.  The J6 case backfired too, but at least it raised important issues that are unique to Trump.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

There's a big difference. Trump denied having them (he lied), then he refused to turn them over.

Yes, I mentioned that in my original post in this sub-discussion, post # 12, but without much detail.  Those differences apply to the comparison with Biden, though, not with the comparison to Clinton’s server, which she destroyed.

 Like I just noted above, I don’t think there is any legal problem with the documents prosecution. Politically, I think it was a really bad idea.