English novelist Robert Smith Surtees once said, “There are three sorts of lawyers – able, unable, and lamentable.” That view was never truer than this month as the United States Supreme Court hears from a lawyer who may be more controversial than the underlying case. In an election case that will require at least two conservative justices to join their liberal colleagues, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) picked one of the most polarizing and controversial attorneys in the country: Marc Elias.
Elias clearly has supporters and advocates who value his aggressive reputation and past work for Democratic causes. He is viewed as the unblinking, unhesitating advocate of Democratic candidates with a long background on election challenges.
Yet, many view his tactics and record as deeply troubling, including some on the left. (For the record, I have long been a critic of Elias due to his past controversies).
Generally, parties seek to focus courts on the merits rather than the lawyer chosen for an appeal. The DNC appears to have discarded that approach.
Elias is a previously sanctioned attorney who was also a key player in the secret funding of the Steele dossier, leading to the false Russian collusion scandal. Courts have also criticized his group for supporting raw partisan gerrymandering efforts. Making this even more curious is the fact that Elias has attacked the conservative majority, including calling them “increasingly hostile to civil rights.”
The Russian Collusion Hoax and Concealment
It was Elias who was the general counsel to the Clinton presidential campaign when it secretly funded the infamous Steele dossier and pushed the false Alfa Bank conspiracy. (His fellow Perkins Coie partner, Michael Sussmann, was later indicted but acquitted).
Clinton campaign officials denied any involvement in the Steele Dossier. When journalists discovered after the election that the Clinton campaign hid payments for the Steele dossier as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to Perkins Coie, they were reportedly stonewalled.
New York Times reporter Ken Vogel said at the time that Elias denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman later wrote that “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”
Notably, Elias was allegedly sitting next to John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, when he was questioned by Congress about the Steele dossier and categorically denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS.
Democratic Attack Lawyer
The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee were ultimately sanctioned by the FEC over the handling of the funding of the dossier through his prior firm.
Nevertheless, other Democratic groups continued to hire Elias. He unsuccessfully led efforts to challenge Democratic electoral losses. Elias was also the subject of intense criticism after a tweet that some have viewed as inherently racist.
While routinely billing himself as a “defender of democracy,” Elias was often accused of working against democratic choice. In Maryland, Elias’s team filed in support of an abusive gerrymandering of the election districts that a court found not only violated Maryland law but the state constitution’s equal protection, free speech and free elections clauses. The court found that the map “subverts the will of those governed.”
One media site accused Elias and his group of “making millions off gerrymandering efforts” while publicly denouncing Republican gerrymandering.
The New York Times reported that “detractors on the left fault him for empowering the ultrarich to exercise disproportionate political influence, and for pushing aggressive initiatives that have backfired at times, playing into the hands of the Republicans he strives to thwart.”
In 2024, Elias’s legal team was also accused of pushing “to bar third-party presidential candidates — including Cornel West — from swing state ballots where they might siphon votes from the Democratic nominee [Kamala Harris].”
Likewise, the New York Times reported that Elias’s firm’s work “on behalf of a Soros-funded PAC in Texas…was opposed by a left-leaning election watchdog as undermining laws intended to limit the influence of major donors.”
His group’s work for New York redistricting was ridiculed as not only ignoring the express will of the voters to end such gerrymandering but also effectively negating the votes of Republican voters.
In 2024, the Chief Judge of the Western District of Wisconsin not only rejected but ridiculed the Elias Law Group for one of its challenges. Judge James Peterson (an Obama appointee) said that the argument “simply does not make any sense.”
Attacks on the Conservative Majority
Making his appearance even more intriguing is Elias’s past criticism of the conservative justices individually and as a group.
Last year, Elias suggested that the conservative justices were fostering the MAGA agenda and observed that the Court is seen by the right “as a force multiplier in [Trump’s] authoritarian quest, rather than an obstacle. Long after this election is over, that may well be the legacy this Supreme Court leaves behind.”
He has also supported the criminal referral of Justice Clarence Thomas to the Justice Department and said that he is benefiting from a “two-tier justice system.”
On Justice Alito, he told former Senator Al Franken that he could not say whether the justice was voting on principle or just “his animus for Democrats.”
He also criticized how the conservative justices “constantly misread in how to act” or conduct themselves so not to harm the Court.
The Elias Factor
Elias’s predictions on the Court’s likely actions are equally sketchy. For example, he chastized other liberal lawyers for raising the “independent state legislature theory” before the Court. Elias dismissed the Court as a majority of virtual political hacks, warning, “given the composition of the Supreme Court, no one who cares about free and fair elections should be rushing to get the Supreme Court to potentially create any doctrine where none exists.”
The Court ultimately rejected the theory in a major victory for the left in Moore v. Harper.
To make this even more baffling, the Democrats will need every vote that they can get. This week, the Supreme Court delivered a blow to Democratic efforts to gain control over the House in the midterm elections. As Democratic states like California are further gerrymandering their districts to add Democratic members, Democratic groups are challenging efforts by Texas and Republican states to engage in the same redistricting. Given past gerrymandering in blue states, red states have more ability to add members in this tit-for-tat effort.
Now, on December 9th, the DNC will have Elias make its case in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, asking the court to strike down the coordinated party expenditure limits in campaigns.
Notably, Elias is not viewed by many, including some on the left, as a force for good on campaign finance issues. The New York Times reported that Elias “played a key role in carving new pathways for big money into the political process.”
Fortunately, for the Democrats, those conservative justices whom Elias has trashed appointed someone to defend the law (since the administration is supporting the challengers). They appointed Roman Martinez, a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts and then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who will offer an unburdened and likely strong case for preserving the law and prior precedent.
However, as good as Martinez is expected to be, he will then be joined by a counsel viewed as positively radioactive. Arguing for protecting the integrity of elections will be someone viewed by many as having played a critical role in one of the greatest political hoaxes in history, and someone who heads groups sanctioned by both the judiciary and the federal government for legal actions.
Before the normally staid Court, it is a moment not to be missed. I expect that the justices will show far more restraint than Elias has shown in his public attacks. (After all, these justices must decide these appeals on the law: not on the counsel or personal bias). Indeed, some may find the notoriety to be mildly entertaining. Yet, for many, using Elias to defend the integrity of the election process will be more than just “lamentable.” It borders on the laughable.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
PLEASE, PT, state the case referenced in the opening as NRSC v. FEC. A date is appreciated. This is a courtesy of navigation.
Thank you
^^ I have no clue but the money involved in PACs is huge and buys candidates and apparently free speech has limits and can be purchased. Gosh, surprising.
This must be about Citizens United v. FEC, 2010?
The Epstein files are really about ” Dark money” when donors aren’t disclosed thusly the pedophile hysteria comes into play when 17 year old Virginia told Andrew she was 21 may Epstein and Virginia RIP. The sleeping guards ignoring rules are of no concern and the cameras on the fritz.
I see…
I am pleased to see the new jonathan provided citation, links, reference, dates time and places with this article. This demonstrates ethical journalism. I can appreciate that in a era where such things are not determined to be important, withheld for obvious political narrative scripting.
thank you Jonathan…and yes, Marc alias is a scourge on the legal profession. He is a text book SCOFFLAW.
God Bless America
Turley is not a journalist. He is an opinion writer. OPINION.
How stupid can you be.
Not as stupid as an ANON!!
Menstrual day?
YES for you!! 24/7/365
^^^ I was asking for a statement in opening or before the opening of the blog.
Thank you
Turley Refers To “Russia Hoax”
Last week the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy position paper. Said document outlines U.S. foreign policy aspirations for Trump’s second term. Our European allies are appalled! The document essentially describes Russia as a U.S. ally while disparaging western democracies.
Below is coverage from the Anadolu Agency, the official news source of Turkey. According to them, the Kremlin is quite happy with Trump’s new strategy.
…………………………………..
The Kremlin said that the US administration’s new national security strategy document is “largely consistent” with Russia’s vision.
“The adjustments we’re seeing, I’d say, are largely consistent with our vision,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin in an interview, a fragment of which was shared on his Telegram on Sunday.
Peskov expressed Moscow’s hope that this could be a “modest guarantee” that they will be able to continue joint constructive work on finding a settlement in Ukraine.
Peskov also said that Russia supports the language in the document, which he said contained statements “against confrontation and in favor of dialogue and building good relations.”
In separate remarks from an earlier interview with the Russian state news agency Tass, published earlier in the day, Peskov was quoted as saying that Moscow considers the new document a “positive step” and that it intends to study it in detail.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/kremlin-says-us-national-security-strategy-document-largely-consistent-with-russias-vision/3764360
………………………………….
The Steele Dossier was no hoax. Donald Trump is tied to Vladimir Putin for reasons not entirely clear. But the truth may come out eventually. Until then, we can only hope our standing in the world somehow survives Donald Trump.
ATS – not the slightest interested in what YOU or Left wing agencies or the Kremlin or … have to say about US policy.
You told us all what some Trump alleged document said.
You do not seem to understand that fewer and fewer people believe ANYTHING you say – particularly about Trump.
You have been caught in so many lies.
Link the actual document and we will read it ourselves and decide whether there is anything to be concerned about.
Hopefully the Ukraine Russia War that DEMOCRATS helped to cause will be over shortly.
AFTER that we need to normalize relations with Russia.
Whatever vile things you might say about Putin and Russia – the US has actual allies that are worse.
Like it or not we must live in a world with leaders and nations that do not share our values and do horrific things.
With specific respect to Russia – prior to the Collusion Delusion HOax which MANY of us have known that Biden and Obama were involved in and NOW finally the left wing nut MSM is reporting on that, the US relations with Russia under Obama – except for the brief period when Hillary fomented a coup in Ukraine, were otherwise improving.
Obama the left wing nut Messiah actively sought good relations with Russia – it was the Obama administration that approved Russia gaining significant control over 1/3 of US Urainium.
I do not know what the Trump administrations plans are for Russia – and I do not trust YOU to report on them.
But I HOPW the US is seeking better relations with the nation that has half the worlds nukes.
Your last sentence is chilling. It betrays 75 years of US foreign policy to face down nuclear weapons intimidation. Our policy will be based on OUR national interests, and any foreign interests that conflict with our interests will be disregarded, nuclear weapons or not. We built nuclear weapons for defensive deterrence only, not to coerce others through brandishing them in public parades. Putin recklessly bluffs starting a nuclear war to bully and cajole.
My read of the Foreign Policy Strategy paper is that normalization of relations with Russia will await a new regime that puts aside all aspirations of military expansionism. It wasn’t stated, but was implied, since it voices the goal of a free and independent Ukraine as an enduring outcome supported by the U.S..
“Your last sentence is chilling. It betrays 75 years of US foreign policy to face down nuclear weapons intimidation.”
What does this even mean ? Russia acquired nukes about 5 years after the US. They developed the Hydrogen Bomb shortly after we did.
They may have beaten us to the ICBM. Even today their nuclear stockpile is not only larger than ours but larger than the rest of the world.
Regardless, US policy was NOT to face down nuclear intimidation for 76 years – it was to ENGAGE in nuclear intimidation.
It was clear at the end of WWII that the US had neither the will nor the forces to take on Russia in a conventional war.
One of the reasons that Truman used Nuclear Weapons on Japan was to intimidate Stalin. It is likely that Russia as much as Germany was a factor driving the Manhattan project.
US policy with respect to the USSR was that we WOULD respond to a conventional attack on western Europe with a NUCLEAR response.
We did not face down nuclear threats we WERE the nuclear threat.
Most americans supported that policy.
It is impossible to predict what would have happened without the US nuclear threat
But it is not unreasonable to conclude that the USSR would have used military force to expand its reach across europe, the mideast and Africa.
Regardless the US threatened nuclear war in response to Soviet military moves and mostly that preserved the status quo,
and eventually the USSR collapsed because Socialism is an absolutely stupid form of govenrment and economics that always fails.
“Our policy will be based on OUR national interests, and any foreign interests that conflict with our interests will be disregarded, nuclear weapons or not.”
Correct.
“We built nuclear weapons for defensive deterrence only”
False, the only nation in the world ever to use Nuclear weapons in war was the US – and we used them OFFENSIVELY.
However our nuclear policy regarding the USSR and Russia (and China) has been based on Deterance.
“not to coerce others through brandishing them in public parades. Putin recklessly bluffs starting a nuclear war to bully and cajole.”
Putin has threatened a Nuclear response to conventional threats – that is EXACTLY what the US did for most of those 75 years you rant about.
“My read of the Foreign Policy Strategy paper is that normalization of relations with Russia will await a new regime that puts aside all aspirations of military expansionism. ”
Russia’s post soviet military actions are complex – trying to claim that they are all based on nuclear expansion is a very weak argument.
First even prior to WWII the territory of Russia was much larger than today. Russia has historic claims to Lands up to Poland and the Baltics. Further there is a reason that was Russia more than a century ago – That was a defensable border. In the past Russia was an expansionist power surrounded by OTHER expansionist powers. The 19th century borders of Russia were defined by its self defense.
NEXT, At the collapse of the USSR the US promised that NATO would NOT expand to withing 1000km of Russia.
A promise the Russians and particularly Putin took seriously.
For a significant period after the collapse of the USSR the nations surrounding Russia – which were prety much arbitrarily defined were little more than Russian Vassal states. They had their own government – but that Government was aligned and supported by Russia.
Russia and Putin were content with that. The US actively sought to replace pro-russian governments with pro US governments and in every instance that resulted in Russian military action.
You can condemn that but that is no different from the US response to a Soviet alligned Cuba.
The Ukraine lost Crimea when Hillary Clinton staged a Coup against the Russian aligned Ukrainian govenrment.
Every single Russian act of Aggression against Ukraine, or Georgia was trigger by the US installing a pro western govenrment – often by Coup or by the US starting serious discussions about adding a country directly bordering Russia into NATO.
Again the Russian response is little different from the US response to a Soviet aligned Cuba.
Imagine what the US response to a soviet aligned Canada or Mexico would have been ?
The US has invaded Canada and Mexico before.
It is historical ignorance to presume that the generally peaceful nature of the american people has been universally reflected in our foreign policy.
While the US has NOT had the aspirations to empire that European powers have, that is just about the only redeeming quality to US foriegn policy. US meddling in foreign countries – including Ukraine has been abysmal. If anything despite lack of colonial ambitions, the US has acted stupider and more disasterously than European powers. While not setting European diplomacy up as anything to be used as a model, the US has still managed to do WORSE.
Further with rare exceptions our foreign policy and foreign actions have been completely at odds with our values as a nation.
Russia should not have invaded Ukraine – despite very significant US provocations.
But it is white washing history to pretend that the US conduct in Ukraine was not disasterous.
Aside from the idiotic efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO which Russia mad clear would not be tolerated – Exactly as Kennedy mad clear to the USSR that Russian missles and forces in Cuba would not be tolerated by the US.
We also have the other meddling of the US – We have the Coups that Hillary and Nuland fomented.
We have the Uranium 1 deal, We have the graft that the Clintons and the Biden’s extracted from Ukraine and Russia.
Is this your idea of the moral behavior of freedom loving americans ?
The US misconduct throughout nations adjacent to Russia does NOT justify Russian aggression.
Btu that does not atler the FACt that we provoked ALL Russian aggression.
Absent the bad behavior of the US that Russia used to justify its military actions, it is probable that Russia would have been content with the status quo.
I would further note that – Ukraine and Georgia, are not and have never been in the US interests. While the governments of the nations surrounding Russia has ALWAYS been in the national security interests of Russia.
Only morons deny the moon landing and super morons deny the Russian hoax perpetrated by DEMs.
“. . . the Anadolu Agency . . .”
That’s your source?! That is the propaganda arm of Turkey’s authoritarian government.
You might as well take your marching orders from Xinhua — communist China’s “news agency.”
The Steele Dossier was no hoax.
Even the Democrats who illegally paid a Russian spy to write it – and were fined for doing so – no longer believe their Democrat Useless Idiots will continue believing that lie. And your opening lie about the National Security Strategy are an even more pathetic lie.
Don’t dump your lies and then run away to hide – at least tell us how you came to be elected by our allies to speak on their behalf.
In re Turley’s comment below on the EU fining Musk:
Thank God we have a real President instead of a mannequin or a cackler!
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1998127452195852468
Trump is already annoyed for their interference with his attempts to end the Ukraine war. This totalitarian attack on X and Musk only feeds the furnace of his anger.
No matter how it turns out this by the EU was worse than a crime; it was a mistake.
Excellent – now DO something.
John,
Like you I am hoping more will be done. It has to be. But this is early days on this issue and we are so accustomed to very swift and, effective action from Trump we expect it in everything.
This is more complex but remember past administrations and how with them even only a statement like this from the President would have been a political earthquake. So much is implied for future relationships. Other administrations would have slipped the issue into committees, Trump is known for doing things. I think the EU is beginning to recognize that this is only one of many costly mistakes. Trump is unpredictable beyond being predictable in that he is very likely to do something. And it might work.
Mostly I agree – but thus far Trump has done very little in response to similar – actually worse actions taken under the Biden administration by Brazil.
Yes. That’s true. I would hope for more regarding Brazil.
Well what do you know. trump lied on his mortgage application
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-mortgage-fraud-florida-principal-residences_n_69379c82e4b064dbeeeffaee?k7a
“In 1993, Trump signed a mortgage for a “Bermuda style” home in Palm Beach, Florida, pledging that it would be his principal residence. Just seven weeks later, he got another mortgage for a seven-bedroom, marble-floored neighboring property, attesting that it too would be his principal residence.”
“President Donald Trump branded one foe who did so “deceitful and potentially criminal.” He called another “CROOKED” on Truth Social and pushed the attorney general to take action.”
So based on trumps actions and hsi own words
trump himself is CROOKED and deceitful and potentially criminally criminal.
But we always knew that when trump accused someone else of doing something wrong, he was really talking about himself.
You did not read the actual document – the one YOU linked to.
It does not say what you claim it does.
It specifically allows the Borrower to opt out of using the property as a primary residence, and requires that the lender consent to that request.
Is there a similar clause in the James and Crooks and Schiff mortgages ?
I would note that the mere presence of a near manditory opt out clause means there is not and can not be mortgage Fraud.
The text of this mortgage makes it CLEAR that there is no irrevocable commitment to even live in the property – that means the mortgage was priced to reflect the worst possible legitimate scenario in the mortgage.
This is NOT the same as the James case.
But the James case gets EVEN WORSE. Few mortgages require you to use a property as your principle residence FOREVER.
And if a mortgage did require that the courts would find that term non-binding.
The normal for Fannie/Freddie guaranteed mortgages is 18 months.
But the mortgage is NOT the big deal – the Insurance is the big deal.
Insurance is renewed annually. The insurance for investment properties is radically different than for homes.
James has been insuring her home as her residence for years. That is insurance fraud.
Baby trump can’t even remember what he says. What is wrong with trump? He Grandad needs his meds and guided back to his cell.
Scott: Mr. President, you said you would have no problem with releasing the full video of that strike on September 2nd off the coast of Venezuela. Secretary Hegseth now says –
Trump: I didn’t say that. That’s – you said that, I didn’t say that. This is ABC fake news.
Scott correctly noted, “You said that you would have no problem releasing the full vi(deo).”
Right on. Left off.
ATS – actually read the document linked – as is typical of left wing nuts – when you provide sources – they do NOT say what you claim – atleast not unless you selectively edit them.
The primary residence clause in this mortgage is NON BINDING – The borrower can opt out without penalty and the lender is obligated to accept that opt out.
If you find a similar clause in the James of Vrooks or Schiff mortgages – then DOJ should drop the charges.
If you found a similar clause in the James mortgage – the GJ would not have indicted.
Regardless, please actually read the stuff you link to.
It is rude to force others to correct your misrepresentations of your own source materials.
Long term interest rates have been rising under trump. Gee, I wonder what he’s doing wrong? He’s god. This can’t be real.
You do not specify what interest rates you are refering to.
Fed interest rates have been dropping since August – that nearly always results in drops of all other interest rates.
Regardless, do you mean long term TBill rates ? Long term mortgage rates ?
Regardless, I can not find any evidence of any long term rate that is not dropping.
The interest rate on long term bonds has dropped a full 1/2 percent since June.
And Freddie Mac is reporting that 30 year mortgage rates are DOWN
So WHAT long term interest rate is it that you are claiming is rising ?
The Fed controls overnight borrowing rates offered to banking institutions. These are the shortest term rates.
Long-term (10, 20, 30-year) loan rates are determined by the market of investors deciding where to park their money. While these rates sometimes move in parallel, they can just as easily do the opposite.
The only thing they share in common is the term “interest rates”. Trump confuses the two, thinking he can wield power over long-term rates by appointing a supplicant to the Fed. The only tool Trump has is to reign in government overspending, which will shore up faith in the US $. The Fed Chair has zero say over Congress getting its fiscal house in order.
“The Fed controls overnight borrowing rates offered to banking institutions. These are the shortest term rates.”
Correct, but those rates control the cost of money to major lenders and that in turn controls the reate at which they loan money.
The Fed also controls the money supply which determines interest rates and inflation.
“Long-term (10, 20, 30-year) loan rates are determined by the market of investors deciding where to park their money. While these rates sometimes move in parallel, they can just as easily do the opposite.”
They can sometimes move in opposing directions for short periods of time.
It is economically impossible for not merely the rate of institutional lenders – but today the rates of even foreign central banks to run the opposite direction as the US Fed.
The interest rate decisions of the US federal reserve dictate monetary policy – accross nearly all the world.
“The only thing they share in common is the term “interest rates”. ”
As I asked before – What do you mean ? Long term TBill rates ? Long Term Mortgage rates ?
“Trump confuses the two,”
And you are clearly even more confused than Trump.
I personally have massive problems with the Federal Reserve. They caused the great depression, they caused the great recession.
WE have not had a more stable economy since the creation of the Fed than the disasterous mess we had before when it was controlled by Congress and the Treasury.
So the Fed has done nothing to correct the economic volatility that existed before.
But it has been the SOLE SOURCE of inflation since its inception.
From the founding of this country through to the creation of the Fed long term DEFLATION was the norm.
Slow Deflation is GOOD – it is a clear sign of a growing economy, it is the natural consequence of a stable money supply, the laws of supply and demand and growing production efficiency. Even since the advent of the Fed – deflation in REAL DOLLARS has still been the norm.
The only clear consequence of the Fed has been steady inflation.
Trump wants political control of the monetary policy of the US – that is a mistake – we did that before it did not work.
But it also did not work any worse than what we have now.
I am not personally a “Gold fanatic” – there is nothing fundimentally special about gold. All money – including gold is ultimately fiat money.
The use value of gold is far lower than the current price of gold.
But if you really want a long term stable pro growth economy you need a stable foundation for money supply that can not be manipulated by men or politics.
“thinking he can wield power over long-term rates by appointing a supplicant to the Fed.”
I do not disagree that is Trump’s goal. Nor that that is a bad thing. We tried that before and it did not work.
But the Fed has not worked any better.
In fact it has worked WORSE. In addition to economic instability do to bad monetary policy we have also gotten massive long term inflation.
” The only tool Trump has is to reign in government overspending, which will shore up faith in the US $.”
I absolutely hope Trump does a better job of reigning in spending. There is already ample evidence that he is doing a far better job than Biden. BUT he is not close to doing enough and shows no evidence of actually intending to do enough.
We have a deficit of 1.7T – that is the minimum we need to be looking to cut spending. Maybe not overnight, but we can not run deficits like this forever.
The conventional rules regarding fiscal responsibility do not as clearly apply to the US – the US is the dominant economy in the world. We are the worlds reserve currency. If the US gets the sniffles the world catches Pnuemonia.
You discuss faith in the US $ and that is important. But as bad as out monetary and fiscal policy is – the rest of the world is WORSE.
Even when the US is doing all the wrong things – we are STILL the best and safeest investment in the world.
That unfortunately divorces those who control our monetary and fiscal policy from the consequences of their actions.
It is NOT the monetary and fiscal policy of the US that has protected us from our massive monetary and fiscal mistakes.
It is the MASSIVE strength of our economy and therefore the dependence on the world on our economy.
“The Fed Chair has zero say over Congress getting its fiscal house in order.”
Correct.
Our fiscal house is not in order.
But our monetary house is not in order either.
The fiscal problems are more important right now than the monetary ones – though I would note they are related.
Bad monetary policy has contributed to bad fiscal policy. It has divorced politicians from the cost of their actions.
Just to be clear – I do not want Trump to have his way with the Fed.
Inflation remains a problem – not nearly as bad a problem as under Biden, but still a problem.
The Fed managed to get inflation for near 10% down to 3% without causing a clear recession – that has never been done before.
But while we did NOT have a recssion – we did have incredibly low REAL growth.
And inflation is STILL too high and we can not get it to stay below 3% – we need to get it to 1% or less.
I do not think that is possible without a recession – even now. I hope to be proven wrong.
Regardless I do not beleive there is such a thing as a painless fix for past fiscal and monetary mistakes.
If that actually were true moral hazard was cause us to self destruct.
Most everyone wants interest rates down right now.
I want interest rates down – One of my businesses has been nearly obliterated by high interest rates but will come roaring back as interest rates drop.
But regardless of what I want – reducing inflation even further is more important in the long term.
The monetary choices of Carter, Volker and Reagan caused a great deal of pain. They also resulted in 30 years of solid sustained growth that was unprecedented.
My response to ATS was specifically to note that his claims on long term interest rates had dropped not risen.
That is a FACT. And ATS was lying.
The discussion of what SHOULD be happening is completely different.
Trump should not be threatening the fed to drop rates.
The Fed should probably raise rates until inflation goes down to 1% rather than hoovering arround 3%
We shoudl be cutting spending by 1.7T/yr
we do not need to do that in one year – but we need deficits to go down and more rapidly than they are.
It is likely that doing what we SHOULD do will cause a recession.
And that would with certainty flip the house and the senate.
Carter did the right thing for the economy and it cost him his presidency and congress.
Reagan continued what Carter started and it cost him congress.
But it also resulted in the longest sustained period of growth in US history.
I would love to beleive we can do the wrong thing. Repent and have no consequence for our prior bad choices.
But not only is that not the case – but I do not think it is possible to make the world work if it was.
It appears that we share the same understanding that we must get our fiscal house in order – we must cur spending.
It appears we part ways in that you think our problems are solely or primarily fiscal.
They are not. Since its inception the Fed has rarely done better than Politicians and treasury before it – that is pretty bad.
Contra ATS long term interest rates are not rising – but they SHOULD be – inflation is stuborning hoovering at 3%.
Sustained long term growth requires it to get down close to 1%. or better yet mild deflation, but the Fed will never allow that.
That is not what the Fed wants, it is not what Trump wants, it is not what I want. But it is What we NEED.
And that is in addition to fiscal responsibility.
“Long term interest rates have been rising under trump.”
That’s a lie. (Imagine that.)
The important rate to consumers is 30-year fixed: December 2024 — about 6.7%. Today — about 6.15%.
According to old math, that’s falling (not “rising”).
Was the ShamWow! guy not available to the DNC?
Promoting yourself will get you nowhere.
“Quiet, Quiet Piggy”
*. Tomorrow’s real time SCOTUS audio can be heard by Google: C-span.org or NPR.org. popcorn and cocoa ready…
^^^ 10: A.M., EST
One hour divvy 15 minutes each speaker, Elias last 15 minutes.
GREAT