Update from the Sunland
No.868
20.8.18 – 26.8.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
On Saturday afternoon, Senator John Sidney McCain III, also a retired Navy captain [USNA 1958], Vietnam veteran, and former prisoner of war, passed away from an aggressive glioblastoma at his beloved home in Cornville, Arizona, between Sedona and Cottonwood. He will be sorely missed as a vanishing breed of politicians willing and able to negotiate, compromise and cooperate with the opposition to get things done for We, the People. He continuously reminded me of one of my political heroes from my youth—Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona. We can only hope younger generations find affinity in his noble conduct and unwavering belief in the foundational principles of this Grand Republic . . . to repair the damage done by my generation. His life and service are history.
Thank you President Trump for showing the appropriate respect, grace and dignity at the passing of Senator McCain, and putting aside your differences. I note the rare and unusual elegance in his simple and direct words.
“My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain. Our hearts and prayers are with you!”
5:44 PM - 25 Aug 2018
The tributes and State recognition of McCain’s service are flowing in appropriate, bountiful form and quantity. Godspeed and following winds, Senator McCain. May God rest his immortal soul.
As a footnote: I will say John McCain epitomized the human qualities I admire, especially in a public figure like a politician—self-effacing, humorous, humble, skilled and committed.
Several digital corporations reported aggressive hacking or influence operations against conservative U.S. think-tanks critical of Russia and Putin carried out by a group known as “Fancy Bear”—quite the irony, a Russian-based cyber-warfare unit. The attacks were principally against the Hudson Institute and the International Republican Institute. Russians have, of course, denied any involvement. The entire administration appears to be united in the accusation of the Russians. Even the National Security Advisor John Bolton has joined the chorus. Only the BIC is waffling and hesitant to accuse Russia, and furthermore to take action to protect the United States. The attacks continue and we face another election with continued attacks, and we have no guidance, direction, or reassurance from the BIC—the Commander-in-Chief is absent.
We can only hope the Special Counsel investigation identifies what it is that the Russians have on the BIC for him to fall so short of doing his primary job. So, we wait and hope.
Last Sunday (19.August), one of the BIC’s army of lawyers Rudy Giuliani publicly claimed, “truth isn’t truth.” I heard Giuliani say those words live and I was gobsmacked when he said those words. I really thought and expected a lawyer to be more careful and deliberate with his words, especially with respect to and in the defense of his client—the president. Truth is truth and always will be truth. With Giuliani’s backpedalling and damage control, I think he meant to say the perception of the truth is in the eyes of the beholder. In a he-said-he-said conflict, without corroborating evidence for one side or the other, it all boils down to who do we believe, and given the BIC’s penchant for “truthful hyperbole,” or more properly falsehoods, I imagine he feels an inherent resistance to his believability.
A month ago, after the public release of the first Cohen recording, the BIC publicly proclaimed to the nation and the world:
“Don’t believe the crap you see from these people — the fake news. . . . Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening.”
A reminder: only he is the keeper of the truth.
In researching this segment, I came across the following interesting and applicable article from one month ago:
“Trump's War on the Truth Has Officially Gone Full Orwell – Things are true and not true, all at once. Don't believe your eyes and ears.”
by Jack Holmes
Esquire
Published: JUL 25, 2018
Of all the bonehead things he has done, is doing and will do, the worst and most enduringly destructive to the very foundations of this Grand Republic is the BIC’s persistent attacks on and undermining of the Fourth Estate. What he is saying, what he is implying is, we are not smart enough to sort, filter and assess the news and information we receive. He is trying to convince us, only he knows and speaks the truth—only listen to him, only watch him. He alone in the entire universe is the keeper of the truth. What is worse, millions of Americans truly believe this fellow’s snake-oil is genuinely good for them, for all of us—the elixir that cures all that is bad or evil among We, the People.
This was not a good week for the BIC within the domain of the Judiciary, as a series of events occurred in court in this week alone, all of which have serious implications to his own legal standing.
First, the BIC’s long-time attorney fixer plead guilty in federal court to eight criminal counts, including two violations of campaign-finance laws. Further, in his pleading, he declared that he broke the law at the explicit direction of “individual 1” (unspecified by name, but clearly defined). Like the others in similar circumstances, Cohen has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and the Special Counsel in the on-going investigations. The Cohen pleading struck very close to the bone, which in turn induced the BIC to tweet:
“If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen!”
5:44 AM - 22 Aug 2018
That was not enough. He continued:
“Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of campaign finance violations that are not a crime. President Obama had a big campaign finance violation and it was easily settled!”
6:37 AM - 22 Aug 2018
I guess it really did hurt his perception of himself and his vulnerability. He has publicly declared the law is not the law. The only law is what HE decides is the law, and only those HE decides should be punished will be punished. That thought process seems dreadfully familiar. Where oh where have we seen that thinking and conduct in history?
Second, his one-time campaign manager Paul Manafort was found guilty by a jury of his peers in federal court of 8 of 18 counts, and a mistrial declared on the remaining 10 counts. It is not clear whether prosecutors will re-try the remaining 10 counts. This was only the first of two trials Manafort faces, and he remains in jail with his bail revoke for witness tampering. To that judicial item, the BIC tweets:
“I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family. ‘Justice” took a 12 year old tax case, among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him and, unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to ‘break’ - make up stories in order to get a ‘deal.’ Such respect for a brave man!”
So, what is the message in all these judicial findings and the BIC’s actions?
Third, Allen Howard Weisselberg was granted immunity from prosecution for his cooperation with prosecutors in the Cohen case, which given Cohen’s guilty plea suggests the immunity has been or may be extended to other federal investigations and prosecutions. Weisselberg is the Trump Organization (TO) Chief Financial Officer (CFO)—the money man—who was hired by the BIC’s father as an accountant. He has been CFO of the TO since 2000. Of all the events this week, this particular item has to make the BIC very nervous.
Fourth, the BIC’s ‘friend’ and ardent supporter David J. Pecker was also granted federal immunity in the Cohen case. Pecker is Chairman and CEO of American Media, publisher of the National Inquirer, among other rags.
Both grants of immunity are as yet unspecified publicly in terms of their extent, constraints, limitations, conditions or applicability. My guess is, both grants go beyond just the Cohen case, or perhaps go through the Cohen case to other aspects of the federal investigation(s).
Fifth, Attorney General Sessions finally pushed back on the incessant antagonism of his tormentor—the BIC. Sessions responded to the BIC’s continuing criticism by saying, “While I am attorney general, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” Given the BIC’s vastly inflated ego, I cannot imagine the BIC took kindly to the pushback.
All in all, this was a very rough and telling week for the BIC. It is very hard to avoid the perception of a tightening noose as the investigators and prosecutors are closing in. The reality also heightens the near desperate need we have of seeing the Special Counsel’s findings. The paucity of leaks gives us very little genuine factual information with which to assess unfolding events. While the control of information by the Special Counsel’s team is laudable from a prosecutorial / judicial perspective, it leaves the scene wide open for the conspiracy theorists and the “deep state’ accusations. We really need the Special Counsel’s report.
In the category of the pot calling the kettle black, Vice President Pence publicly proclaimed on Friday, “Truth is, if we lived in more respectful times, Judge Kavanaugh would be overwhelmingly confirmed.” Really, Mike? Oddly, his exact same words apply directly to the unprecedented stonewalling of Senate Majority Leader McConnell and the Senate Republicans after the nomination of Judge Garland in the last administration. His sanctimonious myopia does not look good on Pence. Perhaps, Pence should remain silence and invisible, and leave the ironic, public drivel to the BIC, after all, his boss is a master at the snake-oil pitch.
Over the years, I developed an opinion on how to deal with the serious issue of psychotropic substance abuse and the collateral damage done by those who feed and consume those substances (a future book evolving from that opinion). The last stage of that process is what I have notionally called “The Black Hole” (TBH). The first stage is an isolation camp where addicts can go to get high quality, uniform dosage drugs of their choice at no cost to them. The only requirement is they must remain in the camp and harm no one. I am beginning to see the same approach for federal politicians. Let us forget about reforming them, or their conduct, or forcing them to perform in a moderate, collegial manner; they are never going to change. For those who seek that particular seduction of power, let us happily send them off to Washington, DC, isolate the federal enclave, and give them billions of dollars to do with as they please, with only one proviso, they must remain in the enclave and do nothing to affect or harm another citizen. We will have to figure out a new form of governance; Washington, DC, is lost! The fellow who proclaimed to the World that he was going to drain the swamp has made the swamp far worse and more pernicious. He has also shown in spades that he has zero interest in controlling spending, as if spending for “his stuff” is not spending. Just when we thought the swamp could not get worse, we see another level of odiferous swampiness.
Comments and contributions from Update no.867:
“[A]fter a period for rare responses, I offer this small part of my reaction to Update No. 867:=
“1. Re. your lengthy responses to the capitalized contributor:
a. Why not criticize specific left wing propaganda just a strongly, as it selects facts and leaves out others? (i.e., Michael Moore, etc.)
b. Let's try to convince some brave Senators to propose legislation punishing ‘straw Man’ ownership of U. S. land, stocks, etc., for foreign individual, corporate, or national investors? If they are going to take over economically, we should at least be able to see it.
c. Maybe President Trump, our president, IS a private citizen, although a poor politician serving in the most important political position. As a student of the law and a former state court trial judge, I do not presently recall any constitutional limits on the First Amendment rights of a citizen duly elected to the Presidency. Enlighten me, or get over it, Cap.
d. Mueller vs Trump is an irrelevant subject, unworthy of your time and intellect. So Mueller is a gentleman and Trump is a bully. Forget the comparison.
e. I have always admired your optimism re. the future of ‘this Grand Republic.’ Keep hoping, and don't let the people's current choice offend you.
f. Let's not get started on the motivations behind presidential pardons, PLEASE. (Clinton, etc.)
g. Won't and can't argue with the latest of your LBGTQXYZ comments. Kudos.
“2. And wait a minute! Who said anything about our Muslim-raised former Apologist-in-Chief's ‘appearance?’ (Your accusation in response to one of your contributors). It seems you may have let your admiration of our duly elected President Obama lead you to unfairly perceive racial bias within fair good faith criticism. I assume it was an unintentional mistake or I have misunderstood.
“3. I too could be wrong, Cap. I was once. It was that time I thought I was wrong but was actually right.”
My response:
Re: 1.a.: I’ve not felt the need to review any of Michael Moore’s movies. Are you recommending one? I am an equal opportunity reviewer.
Re: 1.b.: I am all in for your proposal. I have been and remain adamantly against dark money of any flavor, which is just one of many reasons I have been so critical of the Supremes’ Citizen United ruling. Dark money is bad in any form, in any venue, and for any reason. Money is the American form of royalty, and how did the Founders / Framers feel about royalty?
Re: 1.c.: For the record and in accordance with the Constitution, a president must be a natural-born citizen and her/is citizenship is not suspended when he takes the oath of office. What does emphatically change is, who that person represents. S/he no longer represents her/himself. S/he represents the United States of America. I dare say that during your military service or your service as a judge, your spouting off about any old thing that popped into your consciousness and especially about a personal, self-serving topic would not have been looked upon kindly. You were accountable to We, the People; this particular POTUS undoubtedly believes he is immune from any accountability for anything he says or does. Does that sound like a servant of the People? Every citizen has the right to speak, but that does mean s/he should.
Re: 1.d.: OK!
Re: 1.e.: Thank you. I will do my best.
Re: 1.f.: Not that it matters a hoot, but I strongly condemned Clinton’s blatant pardon of Marc Rich; his transgression was 20 years ago. We are dealing with the current fellow. I am certain, as a former judge, you are not suggesting that since Clinton did it, then it is OK for the BIC to do it. Again, he has the undisputed authority to do whatever the hell he wants; he is immune as he so publicly declared on 23.January.2016. So, I strongly and emphatically reject your inference that past transgressions by past presidents are a proper rationale for current transgressions. Full stop! For the sake of debate within this humble forum, are you suggesting that the BIC’s pardon of Dinesh D’Souza was the correct and proper thing to do, even though he had the authority to do so?
Re: 1.g.: OK.
Re: 2.: I stand by my statement.
Re: 3.: Heck fire, my friend, at least you admitted to being wrong once; that is far better than the BIC, who is incapable of being wrong. I am wrong all the time and freely confess to my mistakes.
BTW, have you seen “Death of a Nation”? If so, what was your opinion of the movie?
. . . follow-up comment:
“I confess that I have only seen brief highlights and biased praise and condemnations of Michael Moore's fare.
“Likewise, I am not proud of the fact that I have not yet seen Death of a Nation.
“Obviously I have work to do.”
. . . my follow-up response:
I shall make the exact same confession, my friend. The trailers for Moore’s movies have sparked no element of curiosity on my part; Moore has yet to engage my interest. The D’Souza offering did stimulate my sense of history and curiosity, beginning with just the poster. If you ever find a left-wing propaganda piece you feel is reviewable, please let me know; I would be happy to do so, even if I find no interest. As I said, I am an equal opportunity reviewer.
I recommended D’Souza’s latest offering because of the technical crafting and my lauding of his mastery of political propaganda. As I reported, for citizens who have NOT studied history and are inclined to support a man with the BIC’s character flaws, the D’Souza movie will be red meat—raw, bountiful and bloody. He deserves credit, just as Goebbels did.
Another contribution:
“AND BY DESIGN it’s the Democrats creating this Peyton Place by inventing issue after issue purposely to cause division and interruption ... it’s straight from Saul Alinsky’s Playbook.
“AND WHY SHOULD any President who just so happened to own businesses before he became president completely give up those businesses if he has adult children who are able to run them from four to eight years?
“WHY DO THEY NEED those clearances any longer???
“ABUSE ???
“OK ... NOW I WANT TO TEST you ... WHAT policies exactly are you referring to that OBAMA implemented to establish this steady growth rate ? Please describe those policies .. and how they worked.
My reply:
You ascribed considerable power to the Democrats, as if they are the puppet masters making the BIC do the things he is doing. I am quite surprised frankly. The source of my Peyton Place remark is solely the BIC’s words and actions, and the consequences of his actions. The number of people leaving the administration (for any reason) and being indicted (not just investigated) is reaching levels beyond Reagan, although not yet to the Nixon levels, but the BIC is still just in the first half of his first term. Oh no, the BIC is doing this all by himself.
Re: divestment. One simple reason . . . to avoid conflict of interest accusations. Do you really believe he has nothing to do with his businesses? Who do you think profits when he drags off the secret service and his enormous entourage to one of his resorts? The USG is paying millions to his companies for every freakin’ visit.
Re: “WHY DO THEY NEED those clearances any longer???” First, perhaps you are not aware, a clearance is nothing more than a validation of a background check of appropriate level. A clearance does not give any individual access to classified material of any kind. For actual access, an individual must have a “need to know,” which is a determination usually made on a case-by-case basis. Now, to your question; the reason is for current office holders to have access to individuals from prior administrations for sensitive information exchanges. In essence, the BIC has unilaterally and vindictively denied that access to any of his current office holders. It was a foolish, cut-your-nose-off-to-spite-your-face action . . . see Peyton Place above.
Re: “ABUSE ???” I see little point in addressing this question. If you see & listen to Ainsley Earhardt’s latest interview of the BIC on FoxNews, we have a full demonstration. For his loyalists, they see . . . yeah tell it like it is; to everyone else, they see an unhinged man serving only his ego and sense of self-worth rather than respecting the principles of this Grand Republic. No point pursuing this element. You have clearly stated your position. I have stated mine. We shall respectfully disagree.
Re: “TEST” OK, I’ll bite. Try this USG chart of GDP over 10 years.
If the hyperlink does not work, try loading the URL in your web browser. As you will note, that is a Federal Reserve chart, not some propaganda construct. The recovery from the Great Recession began long before the BIC even declared his candidacy. Just as the BIC gets credit for the current economy, so does Obama get credit for the recovery. As for his policies, I’ll cite the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009[PL 111-005; 123 Stat. 115; 17.2.2009] [374]—a companion effort with Bush 43’s Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008[PL 110-343; 122 Stat. 3765; 3.10.2008] [355]. They worked hard to stop the bleeding and to apply sufficient stimulus to begin a smooth, steady recovery. The linked chart tells the tale of their success, and today, the BIC is the beneficiary, which I will not deny.
. . . Round two:
“LESS EXPENSIVE in the MILLIONS than Obama’s ultra expensive family vacations for instance the one to Africa ??? Google that one and report back to me the taxpayers cost in just THAT one !! At least if there were any expenses they were minimal on Trumps part just by using one of his own resorts!! Think of the costs otherwise if the taxpayer had to cover hotel expenses elsewhere? Don’t forget that Trump is not taking a salary.. in the end we can do a cost comparison between the two administrations and see just how much less was spent by Trump.
“Who won with that act? Try finding the paper trail of a huge amount of funds going to unions which in turn went back to the DNC ... I will take a look at the chart but I have seen that the GDP barely budged during Obama’s administration.. That act consisted of $3T of taxpayer funds and can you say where those funds went .. have you asked yourself that? New mosques in Pakistan? Yes .. New roads and bridges in the US? No ... aid to the Middlle East? Yes .. aid to the military, the veterans, the homeless of Americans ? NOOOO !!!
“And please respond to this .. nuclear fuel, centrifuges, bomb making materials, and $150,000,000,000 in cash (and not USD .. foreign currency) to the number one sponsor of terrorism and our enemy ... IRAN !! All orchestrated by the TIC (Treasonist in Chief), Barrack Hussein Obama, born in Kenya Africa, the man who tried to fundamentally change our GRAND REPUBLIC and it’s constitution.
“If the Democrats would just start working WITH Trump instead of daily resistance imagine how much even BETTER this country would be, but the Democrats are like children who if they can’t have control they go into tantrums.”
. . . my reply to round two:
This constant Obama did it, so the BIC can do it, just does not cut it, especially when most to the things the BIC accuses Obama of are absolutely false, but because he says it, the believers see it as truth. The BIC claimed he was going to “drain the swamp” and reform Washington, DC. So, your argument is, he’s just another politician . . . but presumably, you might add, but he is our politician, so his corruption and swampiness is OK and acceptable, because he is our swamp master. That is the argument I hear in your words. Is that really the argument you wish to put forward in defense of the BIC? Further, by your response, you apparently see no conflict of interest in the BIC’s conduct. Is that correct?
Re: Obama ultra-expensive vacations. I have not seen a tabulation of expenses comparing the costs of Obama’s vacation trips a few times each year, and the BIC’s trips every weekend to one of his resorts, so that he can make more money from his federal employment. I suspect such a tabulation would be rather one-sided and not the direction you might think. I believe you misunderstand the level of federal, state and local government support to move the president anywhere.
Yes, I have in fact lauded the BIC’s decision to not take his legal salary, and especially to donate his accumulated quarterly salary to organizations who can and should use the additional funds for the benefit of We, the People. He deserves credit and I give him that credit. However, his generosity does not validate, condone or immunize his bad behavior. Full stop!
I would love to see those cost comparisons between this and previous administrations. I have not criticized the BIC’s penchant for leaving Washington, DC, on the weekends and every chance he can find. Winston Churchill did exactly the same thing during the worst days of the war. Franklin Roosevelt took exceptionally long trips away from Washington, largely for his declining health. I do not fault the BIC for wanting to get away. What I do object to is his company profiting from his visits. So, using your implied argument, it is OK for the BIC to do whatever he wishes—he’s your guy.
Re: “Who won with that act?” Oh my, this opens up a whole new area of debate. The banks and financial insurance companies benefited. I was and still am not a fan of Bush 43’s action in response to the Great Recession. Once that course was set, Obama continued and expanded that process to stop the bleeding. We can argue whether Bush chose the correct path and whether Obama’s decision to extend that decision was also the correct approach; however, those policies did accomplish the objective, namely stopped the bleeding of our financial system and stimulate a return to growth.
I believe you are misinformed regarding recovery funds being funneled through unions to the DNC—more conspiracy nonsense.
Re: “have you asked yourself that?” I most certainly have and I continue to ask that and related questions. The money has gone to banks and insurance companies to ensure liquidity during the financial crisis. I will not dignify wild conspiracy accusations.
Just an FYI: the money that went to the IRI was their money that had been impounded years ago. It was not Treasury funds, not tax money.
We have been through the Obama birthright. Your continued persistence in those false claims is not worthy of further discussion. Facts are facts. Full stop!
I ask you, what is the opposition supposed to do when they disagree with the BIC’s unilateral actions and his foolish notions? The opposition has worked with the Republicans where there is sufficient compromise. In fact, a joint congressional proposal on immigration reform was presented to the BIC at his request, and he rejected it. In essence, they have tried to work with him, but he keeps changing his demands. The BIC is a very unstable participant in the legislative process.
. . . Round three:
"Your words/debate is non existent when I send you a link to a reputable website such as Judicial Watch and you cry MISGUIDED??! And you watch CNN which I do too because the majority of media today is left oriented and full of its own propaganda and lies. But I send you a link to a true site that is funded by the American people and organizations who want to investigate what is really going on in the American government system and I doubt you even pulled it up? The site explains the investigations Judicial Watch is and has been active in .. these are true investigations unlike those of Muellers.”
. . . my reply to round three:
Wow! Those are quite a few accusations in a short space.
I don’t see much point in arguing credentials and experience. The best I can say is, let’s see the results of these investigations, so they can be examined in the hard, cold, light of day, rather than presuppose the outcome based on some predisposition.
I would also say the accumulating factual evidence is mounting at a quicker pace in the Special Counsel’s investigation . . . more convictions, confessions, indictments and grants of prosecutorial immunity than any other investigation I am aware of; and these progressive results are assessed by the procedures and standards of courts of law, i.e., far more rigorous and public. Anyway, rather than argue this out at a preliminary stage, how about we wait for the findings of all these investigations, and then we can judge the veracity of those investigations.
Just a footnote for the record: I did pull up the website you linked, and I went through the whole thing. The beauty of freedom of choice . . . we believe what we wish to believe.
. . . Round four:
“What I sent was a chapter from the book ... did you bother to look at it? It goes into horrid details of the early morning home invasion made at the direction of your lovely Bobby Mueller against Manafort and his wife. Can you say Hitler and Gestapo and Bobby Mueller in one breath? It’s those men who ‘speak so eloquently’ you really have to watch out for ... I am always surprised at their true persona... ‘character is what we do when we think no one is looking’.. Jackson Brown quote.
“I do intend to finish the book .. it’s a best seller and the left is up in arms over it .. but I have not heard any rebuttals of the facts ...”
. . . my reply to round four:
Re: “horrid . . . home invasion.” Really? Surely you are just jerking my chain, now. The FBI executed a federal search warrant, which required sufficient factual evidence to justify to a federal judge that probable cause existed. The Special Counsel had to convince several levels of the Justice Department, the FBI, and an independent federal judge; they did so; and in so doing, you are attacking, or at least corroding, the essence of this Grand Republic. So, as the snake-oil you’ve swallowed has apparently convinced you, if you destroy this Grand Republic—burn it to the ground—what do you proposed to replace it with? I am truly curious. There is an old axiom: criticize as you wish, but propose a solution. So, what is the solution?
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
