2025 - OFF TO A SHITTY START
.jpg)
HINDSIGHT - WRITE SOMETHING WORTH READING ABOUT OR DO SOMETHING WORTH WRITING ABOUT
Saturday, January 04, 2025
Friday, January 03, 2025
Thursday, January 02, 2025
NEW INC. MAGAZINE COLUMN FROM HOWARD TULLMAN
The President-elect and
the mayor of Chicago are great examples of how not to behave at critical
moments. Entrepreneurs, take note.
EXPERT OPINION BY HOWARD TULLMAN, GENERAL MANAGING PARTNER, G2T3V
AND CHICAGO HIGH TECH INVESTORS @HOWARDTULLMAN1
JAN 2, 2025
In the generous spirit of the
holidays, I’ve concluded that no one in government is completely worthless –
even the chaotic, disappointing, and destructive reign of Chicago’s current
mayor offers some modest learning opportunities for us mortals. As the saying
goes, if you can’t be a good example, at least you can be a horrible warning,
and Mayor Brandon Johnson is doing an excellent job of showing the world what a
professional government official should never do.
Unfortunately, it’s highly unlikely
that his behavior is going to change any time soon. So, the chaos of
present-day Chicago will continue.
Hizzoner blithely lies regularly to
the press and to the public about when and what he knew about crooks and other
bad actors in his administration – typically right after they’re outed and
discreetly shown the door. His stories about how much he knew about the
behavior of Ronnie Reese, his disgraced and departed communications director,
are just the latest examples.
Chicago’s finances will always be
dependent on the largesse of the state of Illinois and so he says that he and
his people are working closely with the folks down in Springfield, the capital.
The folks in Springfield, on the other hand, report that they barely speak to
him and his team about anything material and haven’t since he was elected over
a year ago.
He is still technically on leave from
but also on the ledgers of the Chicago Teachers Union (accruing time in
service, the actuarial benefits of salary increases, and bumps in his expected
CTU pension) while he bigfoots the Chicago Pubic Schools board. He has also
tried to rush through an expensive contract for union bosses, and claims to be
above the fray.
The list goes on.
But I think that Johnson has some
value for entrepreneurs who regularly find themselves in water over their heads
and for anyone else who’s concerned about what’s going to happen when Donald
Trump regains the Oval Office.
Whatever you think of the mayor’s
travesties, they’re just a preview of what’s coming down the pike. Think of
Trump as a supersize version of everything that Johnson represents. Our mayor
may have been a mediocre teacher for the few minutes that he tried that
“career,” but he seems intent on his administration following in Trump’s
footsteps.
The circus starts, of course, with
language. Brandon is a master of arranging fancy words that sound important but
mean nothing. He’s trying to bluff his way through questions and, when anyone
questions his comments or challenges his conclusions, he deploys the race card
and sulks off the stage.
Trump’s approach is actually less
about big words and BS and more about bullying and bravado. Trying to parse any
lengthy truth from Trump – even after the media sanewashes his material – is a
fruitless gesture. Every one of his all-cap pronouncements is its own word
salad.
Both mopes foment hate, and they
thrive on its adrenaline, which they foster and enflame every day. They spend
their time not building, but blaming; it’s always someone else’s fault.
Everyone is after them and out to get them for whatever the current reason or
excuse of the day may be.
They are the embodiments of the fake-it-‘til-you-make-it sickness that still
infects the tech world.
The lesson for someone struggling, as
every new business-builder does from time to time, to keep up with the constant
flow of concerns or to cope with unforeseen obstacles, uncertainty, and
complexity isn’t to point fingers, offer phony excuses, spew venom and threats,
or make up stories that no one believes. It’s to slow down, hunker down, learn
from your mistakes, focus on a few critical concerns, and shut your mouth until
you have something relevant and truthful to say. As Thumper’s mom cautioned the
little guy: “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.”
The second failing that these
gentlemen share is a reluctance to do the work required to lead, no sense of
humor or curiosity, and a lack of interest in education, preparation, analysis,
or research. Not surprisingly, in both of their cases, it’s of considerable
value to know what you’re talking about and what you’re doing. They are
seat-of-the-pants and spur-of-the-moment cowboys who will say anything to get
through the day and disparage the efforts of the people who actually know what
the facts are and, more important, what the alternatives and consequences of
various choices and decisions may be.
Worse, these two may be the world’s
worst listeners, although they love the sound of their own voices and those of
the sycophants who shield them from reality. Actions are rarely based on advice
and analysis; everything is reactive. Trump, in particular, can’t go for a
moment without attempting to grab the spotlight, stir the pot, and dominate the
news cycle with whatever confused thought, threat, or lie might enter his head.
They’re both in a hurry to go nowhere fast. They never sweat the small stuff or
focus on the details and consequences of their actions – as every entrepreneur
incessantly does.
Because they don’t do their homework,
they don’t build effective teams or support organizations, and they don’t
listen to anyone who’s not telling them exactly what they want to hear.
Entrepreneurs appreciate and
understand the need for speed and quick reactions, but their mindset and
thought processes are entirely different from the ready-fire-aim methodology of
the culture war crusaders in Chicago and Washington. The best business-builders
I know – contrary to the media mythology – are careful, analytical to a fault,
and far more conservative than you’d imagine, because they focus as much on the
downside risks of any new actions to their people and to their businesses as
they do on the upside opportunities. They take intelligent risks, but never
randomly gamble – especially with the lives and livelihoods of others.
Trump and Brandon are more than happy
to burn down the buildings and blow up the lives of millions. They’re all about
optics – dressing up in racing suits and gilding everything with fake gold.
This is why Trump has bankrupted practically every business he’s ever touched
and why Brandon is well on his way to torching the central business district of
Chicago in his fevered quest to serve his progressive masters.
Trump is barred by the 14th Amendment from serving as President—why aren’t Democrats raising this?!
Trump is barred by the
14th Amendment from serving as President—why aren’t Democrats raising this?!
Time to take the FIGHT to Trump!!
|
|
From a legal point of
view, it’s clear that Donald Trump should be barred from holding federal office by way of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Trump had taken an “oath to
support the Constitution of the United States” when he was sworn is as
President and then he “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6 with the attack on
our Capitol by his supporters. That means come January 20, if Trump is sworn
in, he will be an illegitimate President.
The only question is: Will
Democratic leaders take the fight to Trump on this issue or roll over? And it’s
true that Democrats don’t control Congress but that doesn’t mean they
should “obey in advance” and not raise this legitimate issue in the media, in
Congress, etc. This is about defending our Constitution and if Democrats don’t
take the fight to Trump now, history tells us that aspiring autocrats like Trump will be even more
embolden in the future to break the law and violate the Constitution.
As a brief reminder, the
Colorado Supreme Court ruled in December 2023 that Trump was disqualified from ever
holding office again by way of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The court first determined that the Jan. 6 attack was
an “insurrection” as the framers of the 14th Amendment intended.
The court then concluded
Trump had “engaged” in that “insurrection” given Trump’s countless overt acts
after the November 2020 election to build support for the Jan 6 attack. As the
court wrote, “Trump fully intended to—and did—aid or further the insurrectionists’
common unlawful purpose of preventing the peaceful transfer of power in this
country.” Thus, the court concluded that “President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section
Three.”
It’s true the U.S. Supreme
Court later reinstated Trump to the ballot in Colorado but they did not
question the conclusion that Trump had “engaged in an insurrection.” Rather
the ruling’s focus was the enforcement of this section of the US
Constitution. The Court found that “States have no power under the Constitution
to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the
Presidency.” Rather, “enforcing Section 3 against federal
officeholders and candidates rests with Congress.”
The non-partisan Congressional Research
Service recently wrote about this Supreme Court
decision, “It is not clear if the Court’s opinion requires implementing
legislation for Congress to directly enforce Section 3.” That means arguably
Congress could use other means to bar a person from federal office for
violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment—such as both chambers voting in favor a resolution.
But here is a fact
overlooked by many. Both a majority of the House and Senate have already voted
that Trump had incited an insurrection and is barred from holding office by way
of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. On January 13, 2021, the House considered a resolution
to impeach Trump titled, “Incitement of an
Insurrection” which included
a specific reference to this disqualifying provision: “Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any
person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States
from “hold[ing] any office…under the United States.”
The resolution then
detailed the acts Trump took “inciting violence against the Government of the
United States.” The proposed resolution concluded, “Donald John Trump thus
warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”
That article of
impeachment was approved 232 to 197—with ten Republicans joining. And it was that
very article of impeachment that included the reference to barring Trump by way
of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that 57 Senators in the Senate voted in favor after Trump’s impeachment trial—including seven Republicans.
If these two votes are
sufficient to trigger the Section 3 disqualification clause, then the only way
it can be lifted is by “a vote of two-thirds of each House.”
Given this history,
Democrats in Congress should be raising this issue. Will they succeed in
barring Trump? Very unlikely. But there are bigger issues here at play. For
starters, Democrats must make it clear they will be taking a very public fight
to Trump to preserve our Constitution at every turn. If Democrats are going to
“obey in advance” on the 14th Amendment, why wouldn’t Trump in future violate the 22nd Amendment and seek a third term? Or violate the First Amendment by
prosecuting media figures who criticize him?!
As Timothy Snyder warns in
his book, “On Tyranny,” about not obeying in advance, “Most of the power of
authoritarianism is freely given.” Snyder noted that, “After the
German elections of 1932, which brought Nazis into government…the next crucial
step was anticipatory obedience.” History is screaming at
us—as Snyder details—that, “Anticipatory obedience is a
political tragedy.”
Add to that, polls in 2023 and 2024 found that nearly 80% of Democrats believed that Trump was
disqualified from holding office again for engaging in an insurrection. If
Democratic leaders ignore what this huge chunk of the base passionately
believes in and simply rolls over, it will dampen the enthusiasm of the
rank-and-file Democrats. But vocally taking the fight to Trump—even if they
lose—will inspire the Democratic base since they are clamoring for fighters to
lead the party.
If Democratic leaders have
a strategic reason for not wanting to raise this issue, then tell us why. But
surrendering to Trump is not an option. After all, Democratic officials warned us that Trump was “a threat to our democracy and fundamental
freedoms,” that he “threatens the very foundations of our republic” and that he is
literally a “fascist.” They were right. Now it’s time for these same Democrats to
boldly act like Trump was the very type of threat they warned us he was.
Wednesday, January 01, 2025
Congress Should Object to Trump's Electors
Congress Should Object to Trump's Electors
Why do we have a mechanism
for objecting if we're not going to use it?
Allison Gill
Dec 31,
2024
I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the past few weeks
and I’ve come to a conclusion: Congress should object to the electoral votes on
January 6th.
I know, I know. We’re all
still reeling from the improper objections made by election deniers on January
6th, 2021; and rightfully so. Those objections were part of a nefarious (and
illegal) plot to toss legitimate electors and replace them with fraudulent
ones. Had the corrupt Supreme Court not stepped in and upended our founding
principle that no man is above the law, there would have been a federal trial
for those crimes in March of 2024.
In response, Congress
passed the Electoral Count Reform Act in 2022 to clarify the process of
objecting to electors (among other things.) Previously, only one senator and
one representative were required to object to a state’s electors. That was then
followed by two hours of debate, and then a majority vote in each chamber to
uphold the objection and toss the electors.
Under the ECRA, one-fifth
of the members in each chamber is required to make the initial objection to a
state’s electors, presumably because it would be harder to find one-fifth of
members to participate in anything untoward. But the fact that the ECRA attempted
to prevent improper objections to electors implies that there are proper objections
- and those proper objections can be initiated by one-fifth of the members from
each chamber.
The ECRA also clarified
the two grounds on which proper objections can be made. The first objection the
law allows is when “the electors of the state were not lawfully certified under
a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors.” We don’t have that
because all the states’ electors were lawfully certified under a certificate of
ascertainment.
But the second objection
is for when “the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given.”
“Regularly given” means a very narrow set of legal problems with an elector’s
vote, such as an elector voting on the wrong day, an elector being bribed, or
an elector voting for an ineligible candidate.
I’m not a lawyer. I’m not
a constitutional scholar. But I’m pretty sure Donald Trump is not an eligible
candidate because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
No person shall be a
Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and
Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,
or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of
Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support
the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But
Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
But I’ve run into a
problem at this point of the thought exercise: The Supreme Court ruled earlier
this year that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not self-executing. They
decided that Congress would have to pass legislation declaring Trump
ineligible. But let’s say Congress did somehow get enough votes to pass
legislation declaring Trump ineligible. Would you still need to go through the
electoral objections, or would passing the legislation be enough? I tend to
think it’s the latter.
Contrariwise, would
objecting to electoral votes on the grounds that Trump is ineligible under
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment require Congress to pass legislation declaring
him ineligible? I don’t think so, but I’m not that smart, and the Supreme Court
would probably disagree.
I imagine that if enough
members of congress objected to enough states’ electors on those grounds, the
Trump campaign would sue and we’d be back at the Supreme Court - who very well
might say that legislation is required pursuant to the rule they created this
past March. But then wouldn’t that pose a separation of powers issue since
Congress is empowered to object to electors? And would the Supreme Court care?
And what would it look like if he were disqualified by legislation? It would
seem that if he were disqualified by legislation, Vance would take his spot.
But if he were unseated by congressional objections to electors in enough
states, Harris would win. So it feels like one doesn’t rely on the other.
I’m certain that there
aren’t the votes in the Senate to pass legislation declaring him ineligible.
I’m also certain the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Trump if there were a
case before them since they wrongfully declared that Section 3 of the 14th
Amendment isn’t self-executing.
But that’s not the point.
We shouldn’t refuse to fight simply because we might not win.
You may remember there was
a lot of discussion about whether democrats should bother impeaching trump
(both times) since they likely didn’t have the votes in the Senate to convict
him. Prevailing voices decided it was worth a try because we were duty bound to
impeach him regardless of what the Senate did.
In that spirit, I think
Congress is duty bound to introduce legislation disqualifying Donald Trump. And
if that fails, I think democrats are obligated to object to electoral votes
“not regularly given” because Trump is ineligible. In the end, both may be
losing battles, but they’re battles worth fighting.
If the ability to object
to electors isn’t for Donald Trump, then who is it for? Section 3 of the 14th
Amendment does not require a criminal conviction of insurrection, and the
Supreme Court never ruled on whether Trump participated in one. If you took an
oath to uphold the constitution, that has to include Section 3 of the 14th
Amendment.
Democrats seem to be
worried that if we object to electors, we’re no better than the MAGA election
deniers that ran the “Green Bay Sweep” in 2021. That misguided fear presumes
that we’d be objecting for unlawful purposes as opposed to the very legitimate
reasons that are allowed by the Electoral Count Reform Act.
Again, I am by no means a
legal scholar, so if I’m missing something, please reply below with your
thoughts on this.
~AG
What Elon Musk Really Wants
What Elon Musk Really Wants
The Tesla and X mogul has long dreamed of redesigning the world in his own extreme image. Trump may be his Trojan horse.
In Elon Musk’s vision of human history, Donald Trump is the singularity. If Musk can propel Trump back to the White House, it will mark the moment that his own superintelligence merges with the most powerful apparatus on the planet, the American government—not to mention the business opportunity of the century.
Many other titans of Silicon Valley have tethered themselves to Trump. But Musk is the one poised to live out the ultimate techno-authoritarian fantasy. With his influence, he stands to capture the state, not just to enrich himself. His entanglement with Trump will be an Ayn Rand novel sprung to life, because Trump has explicitly invited Musk into the government to play the role of the master engineer, who redesigns the American state—and therefore American life—in his own image.
Musk’s pursuit of this dream clearly transcends billionaire hobbyism. Consider the personal attention and financial resources that he is pouring into the former president’s campaign. According to The New York Times, Musk has relocated to Pennsylvania to oversee Trump’s ground game there. That is, he’s running the infrastructure that will bring voters to the polls. In service of this cause, he’s imported top talent from his companies, and he reportedly plans on spending $500 million on it. That doesn’t begin to account for the value of Musk’s celebrity shilling, and the way he has turned X into an informal organ of the campaign.
Musk began as a Trump skeptic—a supporter of Ron DeSantis, in fact. Only gradually did he become an avowed, rhapsodic MAGA believer. His attitude toward Trump seems to parallel his view of artificial intelligence. On the one hand, AI might culminate in the destruction of humanity. On the other hand, it’s inevitable, and if harnessed by a brilliant engineer, it has glorious, maybe even salvific potential.
Musk’s public affection for Trump begins, almost certainly, with his savvy understanding of economic interests—namely, his own. Like so many other billionaire exponents of libertarianism, he has turned the government into a spectacular profit center. His company SpaceX relies on contracts with three-letter agencies and the Pentagon. It has subsumed some of NASA’s core functions. Tesla thrives on government tax credits for electric vehicles and subsidies for its network of charging stations. By Politico’s tabulation, both companies have won $15 billion in federal contracts. But that’s just his business plan in beta form. According to The Wall Street Journal, SpaceX is designing a slew of new products with “national security customers in mind.”
Musk has only begun to tap the pecuniary potential of the government, and Trump is the dream. He rewards loyalists, whether they are foreign leaders who genuflect before him or supplicants who host events at his resorts. Where other presidents might be restrained by norms, Trump shrugs. During his first term, he discovered that his party was never going to punish him for his transgressions.
In the evolving topography of Trumpland, none of his supporters or cronies will have chits to compare with Musk’s. If Trump wins, it will likely be by a narrow margin that can be attributed to turnout. Musk can tout himself as the single variable of success.
It’s not hard to imagine how the mogul will exploit this alliance. Trump has already announced that he will place him in charge of a government-efficiency commission. Or, in the Trumpian vernacular, Musk will be the “secretary of cost-cutting.” SpaceX is the implied template: Musk will advocate for privatizing the government, outsourcing the affairs of state to nimble entrepreneurs and adroit technologists. That means there will be even more opportunities for his companies to score gargantuan contracts. So when Trump brags that Musk will send a rocket to Mars during his administration, he’s not imagining a reprise of the Apollo program. He’s envisioning cutting SpaceX one of the largest checks that the U.S. government has ever written. He’s talking about making the richest man in the world even richer.
Of course, this could be bluster. But it is entirely consistent with the rest of the right’s program for Trump’s second term, which involves dismantling the federal government—eliminating swaths of the politically neutral civil service and entire Cabinet departments and agencies. It is exactly the kind of sweeping change that suits Musk’s grandiose sense of his own place in human history.
This isn’t a standard-issue case of oligarchy. It is an apotheosis of the egotism and social Darwinism embedded in Silicon Valley’s pursuit of monopoly—the sense that concentration of power in the hands of geniuses is the most desirable social arrangement. As Peter Thiel once put it, “Competition is for losers.” (He also bluntly admitted, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”) In this worldview, restraints on power are for losers, too.
With his government contracts—and his insider influence—Musk will become further ensconced in the national-security state. (He already has a $1.8 billion classified contract, likely with the National Reconnaissance Office, and, through a division of SpaceX called Starshield, supplies communications networks for the military.) At a moment when the government is confronting crucial decisions about the future of AI and the commercialization of space, his ideals will hold sway.
At Tesla, Musk assigned himself the title of “technoking.” That moniker, which sits on the line between jokiness and monomania, captures the danger. Following the example set by Trump, he wouldn’t need to divest himself from his businesses, not even his social-media company. In an administration that brashly disrespects its critics, he wouldn’t need to fear congressional oversight and could brush aside any American who dares to question his role. Of all the risks posed by a second Trump term, this might be one of the most terrifying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)