Update no.840

Update from the Sunland

No.840

29.1.18 – 4.2.18

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            Another astronomical rare occurrence came to us this week on Wednesday morning—a lunar eclipse and rare combination of super moon, blue moon and blood moon.  I tried mightily to capture the event; however, my cameras could not handle the thin, high cirrus clouds and low light conditions.  Lunar eclipses last longer than solar eclipses.  From our location, this lunar eclipse began at 04:30 [T] MST.  Totality began at 05:31 and lasted past the beginning of morning nautical twilight and local horizon moonset at 07:03, and well before local horizon sunrise at 07:39.

            The follow-up news items:

-- The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) on Monday invoked an obscure rule to release a classified Republican-authored memorandum that alleges surveillance abuses against an associate of President Trump dating back to the 2016 campaign.  As noted in last week’s Update [839], the Russian election meddling investigation [782, 804] continues unabated despite the persistent efforts of the fellow in the Oval Office and supportive Republicans to discredit, distract, derail, or at least create sufficient confusion to affect “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  The latest distraction: Representative Devin Gerald Nunes of California, Chairman, HPSCI, sought the release of a specific committee internal memorandum:

Date: January 18, 2018

To: HPSCI Majority Members

From: HPSCI Majority Staff

Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

The memorandum in question was classified: TOP SECRET/NOFORN, which is not particularly exclusive in the realm of contemporary classified material; however, only the President has the authority to declassify USG material.  On Friday, under the 2.February.2018 cover letter of Counsel to the President Donald F. McGahn II, the subject memorandum was declassified by order of the President.  At the outset, the memorandum states:

“Our findings, which are detailed below,
1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and
2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.”

            Prima facie, the memorandum has no direct applicability to the special prosecutor’s investigation other than as a distraction.  I also read nothing that would warrant classification, set aside the original mid-level classification.  Also, I could not find any direct implications regarding intelligence means & methods that raised the ire of the FBI, DoJ and others.  The entire memorandum impugns the basis of the multiple FBI requests before the FISC for electronic surveillance of Carter Page, as a suspected foreign agent; and yet, there is no indication whatsoever that anyone actually scrutinized the official submittal rationale to the FISC.

            As I stand back from this whole kerfuffle, I am the most disturbed (by an order of magnitude) by the overt efforts to restrict and control the access of We, the People, to relevant information.  Such conduct would be condemned in a court of law and must be equally condemned in the court of public opinion that they have all sought to sway with limited, biased, selective information.  The suppression of the Opposition is simply anti-democratic at its root.  We need at least a quasi-independent, trustworthy source to actually read the entire FISA application to properly assess the Nunes’ memorandum.

            Of course, the fellow in the Oval Office simply could not resist the urge to tweet.  At 09:40 [R] EST, 3 Feb 2018, Donald J. Trump tweeted:

“This memo totally vindicates ‘Trump’ in probe.  But the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on.  There is no Collusion and there was no Obstruction (the word now used because, after one of looking endlessly and finding NOTHING, collusion is dead).  This is an American disgrace!” (sic) [emphasis his]

He is his own worst enemy.  Why on God’s little green earth does he insist and persist in making himself appear so bloody guilty?

            As I imagine most of us did on Tuesday evening, I listened intently to the President’s constitutionally mandated State of the Union speech.  He stayed on script, reading from the teleprompter and certainly performed well as the nation’s cheerleader-in-chief.  The President tried to avoid the current hot button issues still active before us.  At the end of the day, the SOTU speech was not high on the list of exceptional public rhetoric; however, it was a good speech well delivered.  Yet, it is a few negatives that attracted my attention.

            I continued to be befuddled by his use of the term “clean coal,” as if somehow the various versions of coal can be magically scrubbed clean.  There is no such thing as “clean coal,” or even the application of scrubbing the byproducts of burning coal into some innocuous outflow.

            He speaks of eliminating regulation, as if it is some badge of honor.  It is not!  The reason regulations exist is not to protect corporations; it is to protect We, the People, from the bad conduct of some corporations.  Certainly, some of the regulations constrain corporations and thus restrict the profit they can generate at the expense of We, the People.  While there are likewise bad or inappropriate regulations that need to be negated, the current fellow in the Oval Office is going too far.

            Lastly, I cannot avoid the observation that his speaking mannerisms continue to remind me of the dictator Benito Mussolini, almost like he has used the Italian dictator as his role model for public conduct and speaking.  It is eerie to say the least.

            In an interesting juxtaposition, ABC broadcast an advertisement for the movie “The Post” immediately after the President’s State of the Union speech—a cinematic rendition of another troubled time in presidential politics.  This particular clip opened with the Washington Post leaders listening to Walter Cronkite’s news report of the New York Times imbroglio with respect to the Pentagon Papers publication.

            Representative Joseph Patrick Kennedy III of Massachusetts delivered the Opposition rebuttal in good form and content.  The tone was positive, and he tried to avoid partisan political intransigence.  I was not a particular fan of his chosen venue for delivery, but that is not my call. 

            The Wall Street Journal reported that they have obtained and reviewed thousands of text messages between discredited FBI agent Peter P. Strzok II and FBI attorney Lisa Page.  According to the WSJ, the trove of communications lays bare the lives of Strzok and Page, who were accused of bias against the fellow in the Oval Office and others.  Communications critical of President Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages between the two FBI employees—communications that also show dedication, ambition and no hesitation to criticize colleagues.

            I have not read any of the subject communications, but I trust the WSJ accurately represented what they reviewed.  I do not share the opinion of the fellow in the Oval Office regarding the broader application of this kerfuffle to the far deeper implications of the Russian meddling investigations.  What this disclosure brightly illuminates is a lesson for everyone who works for an organization, whether governmental, corporate or other.  You cannot and should not hold any expectation of privacy if you use work systems for personal communications.  Strzok and Page made a terrible mistake in believing their communications could or would remain private.  Further, such clear bias by a governmental employee is wrong in a number of ways and must be condemned.  However, the Strzok-Page mistake does NOT taint the entire FBI or render void their investigations.  Full stop!

            The fellow in the Oval Office has repeatedly and consistently touted his individual contribution to the surprising rise in stock market valuation.  So, will he also take singular credit for the falling of the market?  Or, will he blame the fall of the stock market on President Obama?

            Comments and contributions from Update no.839:

Comment to the Blog:

“The Democrats already gave up the DACA issue and should accept their pending election losses on that issue.  From here on, they work from a position of weakness on that issue.

“Some chance remains of Trump testifying under oath before the Mueller investigation.  As I considered your paragraph on that, I got an idea.  If we were considering a random person, I know a name for that trait of saying or doing whatever comes to mind without restraint.  In the learning disorder/developmental delay field, it's called lacking ‘executive function.’  (That's ironic in a ‘Chief Executive.’)  Lacking executive function is a common feature of ADD/ADHD and several other conditions.  I'm aware of this because of my own learning ‘disorder,’ and I'm living proof that the ability to put words together need not mean a person has clear ‘normal’ functioning.  Perhaps Trump will become the ultimate example of lacking executive function.  He's surely well on his way.

“Incidentally, people with some severe learning disorders (including me) can do tasks such as giving speeches or many other functions in certain settings.  Trump can no doubt give a good speech, written by someone else, with training and rehearsal, and in a distraction-free environment. In an unplanned task, he loses his self-control.  That doesn't mean the speech indicates his future actions.

“I would go along with Trump's deal on immigration.  We need to keep the DACA people here.  It's in the qualifications that they have no criminal records and that they work or attend college.  They will make better-than-average citizens because of those qualifications.  Immigration standards will change once campaign ‘donors’ realize how badly they need immigrants, who will not stay without their families.  Undocumented immigrants will keep coming as long as certain industries need them.  The means by which they arrive is a minor facet of this.  That only leaves the outlandish cost of the wall or barriers or whatever.  We can take that back after Trump resigns.  In any case, immigration, in general, has been blown up as a distraction from bigger issues, such as infrastructure, education, and economic inequality.

“Your interaction with your other contributor from last week makes a fine example of the battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.  I have learned through long experience that fact and logic only appeal to those who choose to listen to them.  Your other contributor was wrong in every one of his facts. The 800,000 number is DACA recipients, not all ‘illegals,’ family visas are not available to the undocumented, and on and on.  He will not accept correct facts, either, regardless of source or soundness.  He and millions of others are aggressively ignorant, accepting only sources of information and ideas that support their hateful/fearful outlook.  It's best to just see him as a troll.”

My response to the Blog:

            I am not so sure the Opposition has relinquished their position of advocacy for the DACA qualified folks—8.Feb is rapidly approaching.

            Interesting observation with credence.  You call it “lacking executive function.”  I call it juvenile immaturity.  Whether the fellow in the Oval Office is clinically diagnosable is problematic.  As you note, he continues to exhibit more than a few associated symptoms.

            The sad but true reality regarding the public speaking of the fellow in the Oval Office is he has established a very low threshold.  His WEF Davos speech was good compared to his yammerings in unscripted situations and even more so when compared to his Twitter rants.  Even his best speech is orders of magnitude from the skill, eloquence and craftsmanship of Sir Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and even Barack Obama.  You are quite correct; his words have no substance or value.  He has persistently made statements, and then virtually the next day said or done exactly the opposite.  His positions vary sometimes by the minute, circumstance or audience; there is no solid ground.

            I am with you.  I am dismayed that the DACA solution has become so bloody political; logically, it should be a no-brainer.  Likewise, if spending a dreadfully wasteful amount of precious treasury on a foolish, inefficient border wall is what it takes to achieve a DACA (and here I will add the larger DREAMers) solution, then so be it.  Republicans are just as accomplished at borrowing money and increasing the national debt for their pet projects and largesse as the Democrats are.  The Trump wall will do little harm, other than waste taxpayer funds and tarnish our public image, so let’s get on with it.  We can tolerate his relentless boasting about winning.

            I try to listen to all voices (within reason).  The contributor took the time to express an opinion; that is what is valuable to me.  Most folks will not take the time to contribute to the public debate on contemporary issues.

 . . . Round two:

“We are largely in agreement this week, but I want to clarify the difference between juvenile immaturity and the lack of executive function in the ‘correct’ sense.  Either one causes pain and suffering in many forms for a person, more and more as they grow to adulthood.  If the issue is immaturity, the trouble causes the person to pause for at least a second and consider the best path to the result they seek.  Even psychopaths and other mentally ill people grow out of that immaturity.  People lacking executive function only stop those ‘instant’ reactions with professional help, if ever.  Not doing so causes unhappy consequences.  I'd be willing to bet that Trump's history of bankruptcies and other stressors results from a history of unfiltered reactions that he then has to live up to or escape the consequences.  The Electoral College and enough voters to swing the election have chosen to make the U.S. subject to this obvious trait.  I don't understand why.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Based on the principal difference being the capacity to learn and adjust behavior, I will agree with your assessment.

            I have tried to understand the attraction of so many citizens to the fellow who now occupies the Oval Office.  My current conclusion (as it may change with additional information) is they were so desperate for change of any kind outside the status quo that they found the means to ignore or discount his extraordinary collection of personality flaws.  Or, perhaps, they were blinded by the brilliance of his celebrity.  Or, maybe, they voted for anyone with Republican after their name regardless of any other factor.  Or, a combination of all of the above.  I am still seeking to understand why we are in the pickle we find ourselves.

 . . . Round three:

“I agree with the ‘desperate for [a] change of any kind outside the status quo’ analysis.  That was the clear difference between Trump and Hillary Clinton.  She was never the least bit outside of the status quo.  That is also why the Democratic Party should have learned from their internal defeat of Bernie Sanders. He would have made far better changes than Trump ever will and had a much better chance than Clinton of winning in the 2016 political climate, but the Clinton/centrist DNC prevented that.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            We could argue Bernie’s better changes, but that is all a matter of perspective.  My opinions regarding Hillary are unchanged; however, her status quo would have been preferable to the chaos we endure today.  I’m just sayin’.  We can draw some comfort from the reality that . . . this too shall pass.

Another contribution:

“Cap the massive audit of funds given to immigrants will not be dependent on cooperation of the undocumented .. It will be accomplished by the data retrieved from the social programs' records of funds allocated to non citizens .. Assuming they have records to provide .. Just like FISA texts they most likely will be suddenly unavailable ...misplaced, lost, whatever the Dems can do to hide truth.”

My reply:

            I do believe you seriously underestimate the complexity of performing and validating such a comprehensive audit of federal, state and local records.

            Interesting, last time I checked, the Republicans are in control of the entire federal Executive Branch and both chambers of the Legislative Branch.  How on earth do you think the Democrats can hide anything?

 . . . Round two:

“How can they hide things? Put it under the jurisdiction of the FBI who is notorious for ‘losing texts/emails’ etc .. The speech was spot on last night .. Not about Trump ..about America .. ‘Our children dream too’ .. Big statement and truth .. Let immigrants become citizens and pay income taxes like the rest of the country before they get financial assistance!”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            So, now, you are claiming that the FBI is a puppet agency of the Democratic Party.  Is that correct?

            “Let immigrants become citizens and pay income taxes like the rest of the country before they get financial assistance!”  I say, amen!  I am compelled to add the proviso that the process of naturalization must be reasonable, consistent and equitable, rather than discriminatorily preferential.

 . . . Round three:

“There are remaining FBI members from the previous administration(s) who are obviously suspicious .. being a CNN viewer almost solely .. or NBC .. I would bet you haven't heard about a memo the people want to view but the Democrats are rebelling against it becoming public?  They are so busy distracting with Russian collusion nonsense that the MSM is purposely not talking about it.  It's all a cover-up.

“I would like to hear your version of a reasonable, consistent and equitable process of the naturalization process .. are you aware that Mexico only allows citizenship if the persons can offer something valuable to the country, I.e. doctor's, etc .. they are very strict.  Why can not we cap our immigration to those who earn a living and pay taxes?”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            I have not yet see the infamous Republican memorandum or read it, but I most certainly will do so when publicly available (since reviewed as noted above).  I am waiting to see how it is released.  Regardless, I find it extraordinarily disturbing that the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has cast off any vestige of impartiality in the important Russia meddling investigation.

            I do not know how you would know what news sources I tap.  All I will say is, they are widely varied from extreme right to extreme left and many in between.

            BTW, the Democrats are against release of the memo, as is the FBI and other intelligence agencies, because it is incomplete, including the cherry-picking of intelligence and the partial presentation with a clear attempt to bias the narrative; what they are primarily against is the direct effort to silence the Opposition.  They insisted that if the Republicans insisted on releasing their version that they jointly release the Democrats’ version with it.  The Republican rejection of the joint release is what I find the most disturbing; they are seeking to only have We, the People, hear their perspective without the Opposition.  When the Opposition companion memo is released, as it will inevitably be, the Republicans will take on a very narrow, parochial hue.

            Q: how on God’s little green earth can you say the “Russian collusion nonsense”?  I am still waiting to see the evidence—either way.  Where is the evidence . . . well, other than the incessant denial whining of the fellow in the Oval Office.  If, at the end of the day, evidence is not presented, then I will be the first to say the investigation was much ado about nothing.  Until then, the investigation must play out . . . despite the direct, consistent obstruction by the fellow in the Oval Office that makes him appear so bloody guilty.  Me thinkst thou doth protest too much.

            First, there is a huge difference between the naturalization process and the green card (authorized resident) process, as well as simple visitor visas et al.  The process to become a full-fledged citizen is long, precise and detailed.  “Why cannot we cap our immigration to those who earn a living and pay taxes?”  Amen sister!  You may not recall that I was responsible for the immigration of 100+ British engineering personnel during the mid-1990s, roughly a quarter sought and obtained full citizenship.  It is my understanding of the naturalization process (for full citizenship) requires judgments regarding productivity, contribution and paying taxes.

 . . . Round four:

“All I can say is there is only ONE truth ... May it be reported correctly and may they finish all investigations quickly so Trump is able to do his job without so much drama ... from what I see, the whining and lies are coming from the far left ... Pelosi and Schumer are the worst of them ...”

 . . . my reply to round four:

            Have you ever wondered whether you could be wrong in your unswerving loyalty to the fellow in the Oval Office?

            Yes, the truth is the truth.  Yet, as is so often the case, we have seriously incomplete information and facts, and despite that paucity of facts, we are compelled by instant communications (and political parochialism) to make judgments and take positions that often calcify before sufficient facts are known.  In a transparent, open debate, why on God’s little green earth would anyone want to limit the access to broad analysis of facts?  Opposition in a viable democracy is absolutely vital and essential.  Why would Republicans seek to suppress the Opposition?  Regrettably, one day the shoe will be on the other foot.  The actions of Representative Nunes and his Republican supporters are about as undemocratic as it gets (at least I hope).  And now, the fellow in the Oval Office has joined them, if not coerced them, into this very undemocratic action.  Proper public debate and intercourse depends upon disagreement, argument, presenting various analyses of facts and such.  Suppressing the Opposition is wrong, wrong, wrong . . . no matter who does it.  Suppression of opposition is a common trait of dictators and must be condemned whenever it occurs.  It is NOT the President’s or Representative Nunes’s place to decide what we should see, hear, read or consider. (emphasis mine)

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)