Update from the Sunland
No.872
17.9.18 – 23.9.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The tit-for-tat, back and forth of the brouhaha between the judge and his accuser has been a sad and revolting episode in this on-going soap opera that is the Kavanaugh confirmation process [470]. On Sunday, it was reported Dr. Ford finally agreed to the terms and will testify in public session before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, next week (27.Sep). About the only thing this week was good for is revealing the underlying attitudes of far too many men. Since nothing specifically conclusive happened this week, we are left with the BIC.
I was amazed at how restrained the BIC was for nearly a week. Unfortunately, the urge to Tweet was simply too great. After days of uncharacteristic restraint, the BIC returned to his normal character and assaulted the victim. The BIC tweeted:
“Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a fine man, with an impeccable reputation, who is under assault by radical left wing politicians who don’t want to know the answers, they just want to destroy and delay. Facts don’t matter. I go through this with them every single day in D.C.”
5:56 AM - 21 Sep 2018
He added:
“I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!”
6:14 AM - 21 Sep 2018
And, that was not enough, so he continued:
“The radical left lawyers want the FBI to get involved NOW. Why didn’t someone call the FBI 36 years ago?”
6:29 AM - 21 Sep 2018
As always, the number of falsehoods in these statements is staggering, but they pale in comparison to the paucity of even a sliver of empathy and understanding in such circumstances. He has no clue the agony women like Dr. Ford go through in the aftermath of a sexual assault. The last set of falsehoods is the most damning from my perspective. First, if Christine had called the FBI 36 years ago, they would have properly informed her that sexual assault and attempted rape are state crimes, not federal—not their jurisdiction. Second, the request for an FBI investigation today is not about a criminal investigation, but rather a background, fact collection endeavor—part of the background check responsibilities for federal employees. If I was Kavanaugh, I would be demanding a proper investigation to clear my stained reputation. On the flip side, if I had done what I was accused of, or I might have done it, or I had done similar things in other occurrences, I would seek to avoid any investigation, to keep the scene as murky as possible. The White House is all too eager to run interference for their man.
Contemporary jurisprudence reminds us that the POTUS is the chief law enforcement officer of the government, and by definition, cannot be prosecuted while in office. And yet, in our contemporary times, the current occupant of the Oval Office has repeatedly and consistently not shown the impartiality necessary for the delivery of justice common to his predecessors. He demands his version of fairness for himself (actually, bias in his favor, after all, wealth makes him right) and his cronies, but he is incapable of showing the slightest fairness to processes of governance—one of which is the confirmation of presidential nominees by the Senate.
Aside from the politics of the current process, I will confess to being highly conflicted in terrible situations like this. I have a long history of advocating for equal rights for all citizens regardless of any one or combination of the social factors and equal treatment under the law for all citizens. On the other hand, I am deeply trouble by the paucity of due process of law. Lives and livelihoods are being dramatically altered by unprovable accusations. Additional factual evidence might be collected that would reflect upon the events that night in that room; but, we will likely never know for sure. In this latest instance, I believed there is no way on God’s little green earth to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what happened in that room 36 years ago.
I listened to much of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings live as well. Frankly, I believed Anita Hill, then and now. I think he was guilty of that behavior—a very entitled, macho-male conduct. That was one big reason, but not the only reason, I believed Thomas did not deserve to be on the Supreme Court, or any other high court, in my opinion. Thomas’ subsequent writing and reasoning on the Court have substantiated my opinion.
Yet, as is so often illuminated, past behavior is a pretty good indicator of future conduct. I am sorry to say I have seen the behavior Dr. Ford has accused Kavanaugh of pressing on her. In two instances, I encouraged the women involved to press charges; in both cases, they refused; both women offered one reason—they would not be believed. We do not have sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in this case, but the information we do have suggests it is likely true. While I think the thin information we have darkens the clouds above Kavanaugh, I doubt he was risk assaulting a woman in that manner, again; however, the attitude toward women that likely led him to act as he is accused, it portends a negative bias toward women in other unrelated cases.
My serious concern in the current case is his sense of entitlement to macho-male behavior that could easily show up in future rulings. Alcohol is not an excuse, neither is age nor immaturity. In many ways, alcohol is like a truth serum, i.e., underlying attitudes are unleashed by the elimination of inhibitions under alcohol intoxication—we see the real man, not the façade. So, yes, I believe Dr. Ford, and I agree with her—he does not belong on the Supreme Court, or on the DC Circuit, either, for that matter. He cannot be tried and punished for his conduct, but it is indicative of his underlying attitudes.
-- The BIC ordered the immediate declassification of a number of sensitive intelligence-community and law-enforcement documents related to the current investigation into interference by Russia in U.S. elections [782 & sub]. The documents are related to a federal warrant used to obtain a covert wiretap on one of the BIC’s former advisers—Carter Page [840]. The BIC also ordered that text messages from senior Department of Justice and FBI officials be made public without redactions.
This is a clear and demonstrative example of the corrosive and destructive aspects of conflict of interest. The BIC is a prime subject of the Special Counsel’s investigation. The BIC has a deeply vested interest in discrediting those who are examining his conduct and the behavior of those around him. I do not trust him to make a fair and balanced assessment. History tells us he is declassifying those elements of the Page warrant documents that are beneficial to him and undoubtedly redacting those items that do not reflect well on Page (and him). What he is doing is emphatically NOT transparency; it is self-serving, and he is selfishly serving his purpose at the risk of compromising means and methods that could, and probably will, diminish our national security.
-- The trade war the BIC has unilaterally created [844 & sub] continues to escalate, as the PRC canceled talks with the USG on resolution of open issues.
The Senate passed their version of H.R.6 - SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, also known as the “Opioid Crisis Response Act of 2018” by a vote of 99-1-0-0(0). The House & Senate conferees must reconcile the differences before both chambers revote on the final bill. The bill as currently written is a good start, but only the first step on a long journey to remedy our contemporary problem.
A separate discussion thread began outside this humble forum and is relevant to the purpose of our debates. The discussion began with:
“Interesting opinion, but follow-up with the readers comments, very interesting.”
. . . to which I responded:
I agree with Nestor, not a particularly compelling argument. There is absolutely no question that the BIC is a far more destabilizing force in this equation, but at the bottom line, he is lazy. He won't do the study, has little to no curiosity about world events, and could care less about the future beyond his balance sheet. The really scary aspect is not WW3; it is the Supreme Court . . . and specifically to me, a citizen's fundamental right to privacy.
Round Two:
“I agree Cap.
“The trend vector is not looking so good about issues of privacy.
“My concern within similar context, is how people are being tried in the court of public opinion that is largely manufactured and controlled to achieve the agenda/trend. Call it targeted allegation assassinations.
“Many good marriages started with perhaps a consensual groping, but in cases where it was just an advance or overnight fling, this can be used against public figures thirty years into the future. Very surreal.
“So the question is, what is the bigger picture and purpose of this kind of climate?”
. . . my response to round two:
Interesting that you would ask. I have already written on this topic for this week's Update.
The Kavanaugh situation is a prime example.”
Round Three:
“Exactly! I shall look forward to your next Update!
“You and I both believe in Due Justice and processing allegations where they are thoroughly and professionally investigated, charged or litigated, and a judge & jury preside to determine an outcome based on creditable evidence. We have a local San Diego County Sheriff's deputy (SDSO) who has been arraigned on a host of allegations from women alleging he groped them or worse. Some were his prisoners, others were women he happened to have contact with from responding to calls. I tend to believe he is guilty in a percentage of the cases the D.A. is charging him with, thinking some of the women complainants are simply trying to get in on a likely class action civil $uit against the County of San Diego (I trust many thirsty if not opportunist lawyers are busy working this). However, the news media has portrayed this case almost as a given that the deputy is certainly guilty while giving overwhelming credit points to the alleged victims. More alarming is if you read the comments section on various articles or through social media, many of those writers make many assumptions and return the verdict the deputy is 150% guilty and then often suggest forms of punishment that are more severe than the late Charles Manson received for his heinous crimes he was actually convicted for.
“Again not sure what the endgame is here, maybe it is just the mob mentality we witness...just look at some of Trump's base (some might accuse me of making a cheap shot there ;o? ).”
. . . my response to round three:
Yes, precisely, due process of law is our standard, our objective. However, it is important to note in these cases several significant points.
1.) As much as we wish and as hard as we try, our judicial system is not perfect—never was, never will be. However, we continuously strive for true justice.
2.) In these “Me Too” cases, I am afraid we must go through a period of catharsis. I am very leery of expanding or eliminating the statute of limitations; there are very real, hard reasons prosecutorial limitations exist and should exist.
3.) We are living a major cultural correction that is long, long overdue. For millennia, women and children were (in some instances still are) considered property of the husband-father. It was documented and essentially codified in English common law (and thus American common law) by the Doctrine of Coverture (1765). The law essentially believed a man could do what he wanted to “discipline” his property. This is part of what I call the macho-male syndrome—women are to serve men.
The law has done as much as it can do. The Supreme Court drove the final nail in the coffin for the Doctrine of Coverture with its ruling in Kirchberg v. Feenstra [450 U.S. 455 (1981)] [571]. However, the cultural foundation of centuries of legal precedent take a very long time to be expunged from our culture—similar and applicable example is the extraordinary and excessive time to expunge racism from our culture—a process that is still on-going.
That said, we must endure this cathartic period. Innocents will be injured by malevolent accusers. There is no due process of law available. We must suffer this period as our society resets itself to enforce the equal rights and equal treatment under the law for females in our society. We must strive for the day when our sisters, our wives, our daughters and our female friends believe they will be treated fairly and equitably under the law to come forward when events occur as they occur. We would not be in this situation if Dr. Ford had felt safe and protected to face her assailant that day or the next. Our society taught her to feel shame, self-doubt and subservience, which is quite likely why she did not charge her assailant when it happened. We may not see that day in my remaining lifetime, but that should be our goal.
So, Kavanaugh may well be innocent, but he is part of the process of correction. Personally, I see the very limited information (not even evidence) we have suggests to me that it quite likely happened as Dr. Ford has disclosed, including the identification of her assailant. There are more than a few reasons I believe that. I do not think he is worthy of a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.
In this matter, I stand with women, period, full stop! I stand with Dr. Ford.
One last opinion from yours truly for this week . . . for what it is worth . . .
Pro-Life is a clear, real and obvious misnomer. The so-called Pro-Life movement is actually and precisely anti-abortion, or more broadly counter-female. If they were truly pro-life, they would demonstrate at least a modicum of sympathy and empathy for the living—the real, actual, living children—as they do for a single-cell, fertilized ovum. They do not! They do not even care about the living woman. They never have and I doubt they ever will. They are solely and thoroughly focused on and committed to dictating and controlling what happens within a woman’s body as well as her actions regarding anything and everything even remotely related to procreation. So, let us stop perpetuating the falsehood; we really should call it, as it is, not allow them to paint some pretty, noble face on reality.
Comments and contributions from Update no.871:
“I don’t know what ‘the weight of justice’ is. What broke Manafort was fear and possibly a guilty conscience.
“The ‘median’ income as distinguished from the ‘mean’ or ‘average’ income can be deceptive. That change in the median could mean simply that the top 1% of incomes rose dramatically. In any case, even if it’s progress, the progress is slow. Overall, ordinary people have lost ground ever since the 1970s.
“I agree with you about the poisoning in Moscow. I don’t expect it to result in a negative impact on the Moscow regime.
“I offer my sympathy and any help I can render to all of those affected by Florence in all her phases. Trump spouting nonsense is not newsworthy.
“U.S. politics has become as adversarial as the legal system whence many of our politicians originate. I submit that it has become more important to oppose the dangerous oligarchs currently having their way with our nation than to resume courteous discourse. The rest of that comment screed eludes me, except that the writer seems to have a ‘blame the victim’ mentality I’ve seen many times. I will note that Americans’ attitudes, in general, come to us from those we see as leaders, especially politicians chosen by corporations.
“I’ll note something from your third comment. More ‘coastal liberals’ and others voted for Secretary Clinton than his claimed, ‘we the people’ voted for Trump. He needs to avoid claiming a mandate because he doesn’t have one. Trump (or his owners) gamed the system legally, but they didn’t persuade a majority of the voters. Also, I’d like to remind both of you that democracy is a political system and does not commit a nation to a particular economic system, in this case capitalism.”
My comment to the Blog:
Apparently, you have a far keener ability to see into a person’s thoughts and motivations than I do. I shall bow to your ability.
You are correct in your statistical presentation . . . although I suspect the sampling is far larger than would be necessary for that effect.
Quite right, Putin will ensure the forensic assessment is either not done or will never be made public. I would not be surprised if Verzilov does not survive the hospital.
Sad to see the magnitude of road closures across the entire state of North Carolina, and the worst of the flooding in many locations is forecast to be another week away. I wish I could ignore the BIC; I find I cannot for one reason and one reason only—he is POTUS.
In the legal system, at least we have a judge who is by design supposed to be a neutral referee for order and decorum. There is no such referee in politics. After that observation, I must now contradict myself in recognizing that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has establish the wealthy as quasi-royalty; they are more equal than the rest of us . . . far more so. And, the money belongs with corporations and those who run those corporations. Given the tragedy of Citizens United, I do not see a remedy anytime soon. If there is any positive, it is corporations do not vote and dollar bills do not vote.
OK. I can accept that assessment. Capitalism is not written in the Constitution.
. . . Round Two:
“My ‘insight into a person's thoughts and motivations’ is not especially deep. Fear and/or guilt bring about any criminal's bargain with prosecutors. (The innocent also find themselves making deals that way, but innocence is not an issue for Trump’s henchmen.)
“You have not contradicted yourself. Judges and especially Supreme Court Justices are indeed neutral ‘by design’ (in the Constitution). The design has been avoided by politicians with agendas. However, much of that damage could be undone by an ethical Congress. I don't foresee that coming as long as corporations finance both parties, but I could be wrong. Historically, we reach a certain level of corruption, then someone like Teddy Roosevelt comes along and leads a change.
“The notion that money doesn't vote has been disproven, although it doesn't apply equally to all elections. I read an analysis of that by fivethirtyeight.com yesterday. Money can influence some elections more than others, and adeptly applied cash is definitely part of our national distress.”
. . . my response to round two:
As a general observation, I would agree. I only suggest, we do not know specifically what produced Manafort’s resistance breakdown. The diminishing potential of a presidential pardon may have contributed, or perhaps his conscience eventually convinced him. Fear is not the only motivator in such cases.
Thank you for that pass. Yes, much of the damage could be undone if Congress somehow found its loftier principles beyond the current entrenched tribalism. Likewise, I do not foresee that more enlightened day coming anytime soon.
OK; I’ll bite. How does money or corporations vote? Yes, absolutely, money is a highly corrosive and toxic element in contemporary politics, thanks in large part to Citizens United. If We, the People, are not willing to dig deeper beyond the fancy advertising, true fake news, social media abuse, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum, then we fall victim to that destructive propaganda. At the end of the day, the responsibility to look beyond the effects of money belongs to us—not the wealthy or corporations.
. . . Round Three:
“You can wax lofty about ignoring the effects of money but in the end, the ability to hire better campaigners, more creative and effective speechwriters, marketers, and all the rest of those effects will add up regardless of who we try to hold responsible. Depending on the innate wisdom of the people without facing the realities of politics, psychology and logistics is unrealistic. That has a lot to do with how we got here.”
. . . my response to round three:
Wow! I read your words, and I was compelled to go back and re-read my words. I am baffled as to what gave you the impression that I was “wax[ing] lofty about ignoring the effects of money.” My words are quite the contrary to my understanding of the English language. Corrosive and toxic are rather contemptible words for the effects of money on political intercourse.
I think we are seeing what the Founders / Framers feared in constructing our presidential electoral system. It is also one of several reasons why it took 54 years for all white male citizens to achieve the vote, 132 years for white female citizens to achieve the vote, and 188 years for all citizens to be able to exercise their right to vote, despite the guarantees of the 14thAmendment.
I think we are in violent agreement, so to speak. Regardless, I am appreciative of your continued contributions.
. . . Round Four:
“Just for clarity, you said ‘dollars don't vote’ or something very close to that. Dollars do, in fact, change votes in knowable ways. We can blame the voters or whoever we choose, but the fact is money changes votes. What the Founders feared is ultimately open to question, but I don't think they envisioned the rule of the very wealthy. As others have voiced, I see Trump as the result, not the cause, of our stress.”
. . . my response to round four:
First, yes, absolutely, the BIC is a simple symptom; he is NOT the cause. He is a good and accomplished snake-oil salesman, who recognized an opportunity to sell his elixir for his profit. He did exactly what he is good at—sold his elixir to yearning people. We witness in this humble forum alone the strength of that yearning. The BIC did not use force of arms; he simply sold sufficient people what they wanted to believe in, and enough people bought what he was selling.
I do understand your contention that money influences votes, but my point is, money is no different from the BIC’s snake-oil. The reality of life is, far too many citizens either do not possess the skills or simply do not care to do the work necessary to sort through conflicting information, i.e., to evaluate the snake-oil for whatever value it provides. My point: money does not mark the ballot or flip the selection lever; only an individual citizen-voter does that. The corrupting influence of money cannot be exaggerated. Dark money is even worse. I think we would be foolish to think the money actually buying votes has not and is not being used.
We have only the words written by the Founders / Framers to judge their fears and intentions. There is certainly sufficient question regarding their motives. However, I think there is no doubt they did everything they could to negate the influence of royalty in any form and nullify the effect of a powerful few of any means. On the flip side, when the Constitution was ratified only white, male, educated, property owners were entitled to vote. The common citizen (as it was very loosely defined in 1787) was not trusted with the right to vote. Further, back then, senators were selected by state legislatures, not the voters (until 1913). To my lame appreciation of history, they tried to induce consensus in federal governance. They were not perfect, and we see the weaknesses of their attempt, as you have consistently illuminated in our Electoral College debates.
Another contribution:
“The word SWAMP was intended to represent the do nothing, corrupt, special interest controlled, taxpayers money hoarding and misusing RINO and liberal politicians that have been part of our government system far too long ... Trump is NOT one of THEM .. I like Businessmen In Chief and your reader who converted it most wisely. Henceforth, when I see it used in your blog I will begin associating it that way !!!”
My reply:
Actually, I do agree with you. The BIC is not one of them . . . yet. However, more than a few of the people he has chosen to “help” him are as swampy as they get. Nonetheless, I will hold my judgment until I can read the Special Counsel’s report. I fear you will be terribly disappointed when we learn how he conducted his business. Perhaps not. However, nothing, yet—no evidence quality signs. If the investigation proves he is an innocent choirboy abused by his friends and colleagues, I will be the first to acknowledge my mistake. There is just an awful lot of smoke.
By all means, you (and anyone else) are quite free to see my chosen moniker as you wish.
. . . a follow-up comment:
Smokescreen more like it .. I think YOU will see that their repeated ongoing investigations into this and that have been distraction and stall mechanisms/lies. Democrats are masters at that ... Saul Alinsky and George Soros are their mentors .. nothing to be proud of if I were them. And if you are a follower as well, I am concerned.
. . . my follow-up reply:
Tomato (tuh-mey-toh) . . . tomato (tuh-mah-toh) . . . call it what you will. It is what it is no matter what you call it.
You know I truly hope you are correct . . . the BIC is the innocent, pristine, lilly-white angel you make him out to be, and the victim of an over-zealous prosecutor. Eventually, we will see if you are correct . . . or not. I trust that you will accept the results, as I will. That said, based on the accumulating peripheral evidence, it is not looking good for the BIC.
One more thing, I am left with the impression that you subscribe to the Democrats = bad—Republicans = good hypothesis, i.e., your tribe is the only good tribe and all other tribes are bad tribes.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
-->
