Update from the Sunland
No.915
22.7.19 – 28.7.19
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Alexander Boris de Pfeffel ‘Boris’ Johnson [570] became the prime minster of Great Britain after the Conservative Party elected him to replace Teresa May as leader of the party, and The Queen asked him to form a government. My very best wishes to our British cousins for what lays ahead. The next we-shall-see has begun.
-- Wonder of wonders, the BIC filed suit to prevent the House Ways and Means Committee and New York state officials from gaining access to his tax returns [772]. There really must be a bunch of some-things in his tax returns that he does not want a critical audience to scrutinize. Unfortunately for the BIC, the law is very clear and unambiguous, and not on his side. The best he can hope for is to delay the inevitable.
-- On Wednesday, former special counsel Robert Mueller [804] testified under oath and in open session consecutively before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee regarding the Report [898] of findings in the Russian election intrusion and the obstruction of justice by the BIC. To put a very fine point of it, I was deeply disappointed in Mueller, who came across as feeble-minded, scatter-brained and not otherwise in command of the facts. The House sought to bring the words of the Report to life before the American people, since most citizens have not taken the time to read the Report. To that end, the hearings failed. However, none of this alters the facts clearly documented in the Report.
Numerous right-wing and Republican sources, and talking heads have bellicosely declared the death of impeachment dreams. I highly doubt those sources and individuals have read or tried to understand the Special Counsel’s Report either. First, if you read the Report, there was clearly, documented collusion with numerous Russian operatives during the BIC’s election campaign. What the Report also documents is they found no evidence of a conspiracy to commit collusion, i.e., no written or spoken agreement to commit collusion. Further, the Report documented 10 instances of obstruction of justice. What all the yammering talking heads fail to acknowledge every single time is, the Special Counsel faithfully held to his mandatory, i.e., he could not indict a sitting president due to the OLC memorandum, AND he could not even accuse a sitting president because of Justice Department guidelines and ethical fairness. While House members presumably hoped for an easy boost, the facts remain the facts. Bottom-line: there is no doubt in my little pea-brain that the president and his minions colluded with the Russians during the 2016 elections in direct violation of campaign election finance laws, and further and worse, the BIC himself obstructed justice on multiple occasions. The BIC deserves to be impeached, convicted and removed from office. In addition, the BIC deserves to be charged, tried, convicted and sent to prison for his crimes like any other criminal.
That said, I must reiterate that I do NOT support impeachment until there is a reasonable chance of conviction. To my knowledge as of this moment, the prospect of conviction in the Republican controlled Senate is low to non-existent at present.
-- The collateral damage due to the grounding of the Boeing 737-MAX 8 aircraft [878, 896] continues to mount. Southwest Airlines announced it will cease operations at Newark Liberty International Airport this fall due to the impact of the B737-MAX grounding. Further, Boeing announced it may have to suspend production of the aircraft, which would add incalculable program costs, if they ever decide to restart production.
A friend and frequent contributor sent along the following related article, which I had missed earlier.
“The Roots of Boeing’s 737 Max Crisis: A Regulator Relaxes Its Oversight”
by Natalie Kitroeff, David Gelles and Jack Nicas
New York Times
Published: July 27, 2019
My opinion:
In the main, I would say it is a reasonable presentation and disturbing. I will also say that the certification delegation system as reflected in the NYT article is not like any application I have worked with in other aviation companies. I noticed several over-statements by the authors that are not recognizable by me as an experienced aviation engineer. Nonetheless, the facts are on the side of the authors. The existing delegation system in successful use for decades appears to have broken down in the Boeing B737-MAX certification case, under what I suspect was excessive management pressure that over-emphasized time and cost.
A related side-note, the single greatest failure in the certification that I can see from the public information is allowing the reliance on a single, source sensor—Angle of Attack (AOA) sensor. The AOA sensor, by its design, hangs out in the airstream and is thus vulnerable to birdstrikes or other common damage.
This episode is a tragedy of epic proportions far beyond the death of 346 in the two accidents.
-- The BIC won one . . . at least in part. The Supremes voted 5-4 strictly along ideological lines in the BIC’s appeal of a 9th Circuit ruling regarding the diversion of appropriated Defense Department funds to feed his vaunted Border Wall effort [907]—Trump v. Sierra Club [588 U. S. ____ (2019); No. 19A60]. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part from grant of stay. The fundamental issue was not decided; however, the Court’s granting of the stay to the 9thCircuit’s ruling meaning that the BIC’s process of reallocation can proceed for the time being.
In the category of I’m-surprised-it-took-this-long, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Daniel Ray ‘Dan’ Coats has resigned, effective early next month. Coats has repeatedly and consistently defied the BIC when the physical intelligence evidence did not comply with the BIC’s preconceived notion of reality. Coats apparently decided his integrity and commitment to this Grand Republic exceeded any perceived loyalty to the BIC. The BIC indicated he intends to nominate Representative John Lee Ratcliffe of Texas, to replace Coats as DNI. I watched Ratcliffe’s performance in the Mueller hearing. Ratcliffe has all the markings of a political hack, not a serious intelligence official. God bless you Dan Coats for your service to We, the People, and this Grand Republic. Like Jim Mattis before him, Coats’ integrity was more important than the BIC.
Comments and contributions from Update no.914:
“Good day Cap. Yes we all await the news-who will our next PM be? We’ve heard today that if Boris is elected our excellent Chancellor will step down-who could blame him? Not I for one.”
My reply:
Today is the day, so they say. We anxiously await the decision of the Conservative Party. I imagine the chancellor will not be the only casualty of a Johnson premiership. I know if the BIC called me to service I would say, no thanks.
. . . follow-up comment:
“Yes Boris, as predicted, is to be our next Prime- Minister. Of course one of the first to call was your man, they do seem to get on well. I suppose that’s not a bad thing especially with what’s going on with the oil tanker thieves turning up the wick. We shall see.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
So, we shall see how Boris does as PM. Yeah, Boris & the BIC seem to be kindred spirits, which I must say is NOT a good thing. I pray he does not do the damage to your country that the BIC is doing to ours.
I’m not sure what can be done about your pirated tankers short of shooting. A trade will not be a good optic. There is no way the seizures are equivalent. The window for armed recovery has closed I fear. We should have been more prepared.
Now, we have the Russians violating RoK sovereign airspace and warning shots fired. The prospect of a major shooting war is growing.
. . . follow-up to the follow-up comment:
“Cap-good day-yes last night’s ‘storm’ here reminded me of some people I know, those who make a lot of noise but labour not.”
. . . along with my reply:
Great observation and analogy. So, The Queen gives her assent to the new PM today. We both need good luck now.
Comment to the Blog:
“Chump needs to shut up about people going elsewhere. His grandfather did that and had an unhappy outcome. Friedrich Trump left Kallstadt, Bavaria, Germany, made money in the Klondike gold rush, moved to New York, and wound up marrying a woman from Kallstadt. Mrs. Trump didn't like New York and the Trumps spent a year trying to go back home. No soap. They were denied residence because Friedrich had skipped the draft and had failed to do the paperwork to emigrate. New York has been stuck with the family ever since. So much for ‘legal’ migration, huh?
“I'm still considering Chump's comment about the disastrous governments whence the Squad ladies come. Does he mean Michigan? Rashida Tlaib's from there. Michigan's a mess. Flint still doesn't have potable water, among other things. Chump is part of that.
“Senator Graham clearly has a mind. He chooses to use it in service to Chump, whose own mind isn't working well.
“The Chump's base of support is white men who believe in their own superiority and aren't hurting but fear loss of their perceived status. (Reason has nothing to do with it.) I believe more and more that's who most of them are. Obviously, you and I (and many other white men) don't support the tyrant either, but too many do.
“I don't see the fact that Chump disgraces our nation as legal grounds for impeachment. There are plenty of other reasons. The immediate question is whether those in charge of the Democratic Party have the backbone to stand up to their sponsors. I doubt it, but maybe they will if there's enough pressure put on them.
“Boris Johnson, the apparent successor to the UK's Prime Minister job, comes across as another Chump. I don't wish them to share our misery, but I can't stop them.”
My response to the Blog:
The “Chump needs to shut up about people” . . . ain’t gonna happen. That is like asking the sun not to rise in the morning. He has proven repeatedly and consistently that he is incapable of acting like a mature adult. His talking head sycophants are trying to sluff this off as clumsy idle talk. No joy! His words are very clear; there is no doubt or equivocation; I do not care what his motive(s) is(are). He is a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, juvenile bully who equates loyalty with patriotism, and vice versa. He is wrong—completely, absolutely, and without qualification or exception.
Re: “Does he mean Michigan?” To be blunt, I do not care, and it does not matter . . . whether Minnesota or Somalia. His words are fatally wrong! . . . no matter how he chooses to cut it.
Re: Graham. Quite so. He has apparently sold his soul . . . and not for much. He has demonstrated what he is.
I will not be broad or generalize to that extent. This afternoon, Jeanne had lun-ner at a Sweet Tomato restaurant in Scottsdale. A rather grizzled woman of advancing years with sun-beaten, light skin pigmentation who was proudly wearing her new T***p 2020 hat sat in the booth behind Jeanne and facing me. Yes, I think there is a segment of the BIC’s supporters who are desperate to hold onto their sense of superiority. The numbers are not on their side, and I believe the 2020 election will prove it. Then again, too many eligible voters may once again disappoint me by not voting. We shall see.
The BIC disgracing this Grand Republic . . . yes, I believe that is grounds. Impeachment is not about the law, although there is a legal foundation for the process; it is about politics. That said, I still believe that unless there is a reasonable shot at conviction, impeachment is a waste of time and effort. If sufficient public pressure is applied to Republican senators to have a reasonable shot at gaining at least 12 to favor conviction, I would fully support impeachment, conviction and removal from office. He should have never achieved the office; but, he did. He should have been removed long ago. Unfortunately, his status in office is not up to you or me. To be blunt, it is up to 12 unspecified Republican senators.
Re: Boris Johnson. That is my assessment as well. We should find out today.
. . . Round two:
“A couple of notes: The Democrats are trying to make an issue of voter suppression. They probably have a complaint coming, but eligibility is not motivation. Presidential-election turnout will improve if voters believe their effort is not wasted on either major-party candidate. The Democrats have yet to convince enough potential voters of that, including me.
“My current issue about impeachment is about the Democrats. Based on Watergate, the Republicans will come around when they see their votes vanishing. Whether the Democrats that control their party will ever find the moral courage to bring charges is an open question. I doubt that will happen unless the Establishment loses a lot of primaries.”
. . . my response to round two:
Frankly, there is a case to be made for voter suppression on multiple fronts. You are of course quite correct; eligibility is not motivation. We have a long history of far too many eligible voters not exercising their citizen’s obligation to vote. Although I have no proof or evidence, I suspect many, if not most, of those eligible non-voters have no interest in politics, no interest in doing the necessary information collection and analyses to form an opinion upon which to vote. Far too many vote their emotion or a preconceived party line, which is hardly informed choice. As you say, many rationalize their non-participation with the simple justification that each of them is only a single vote among million . . . why bother? It is that simplistic failure that corrodes democracy.
I am a very long way from making a choice or favoring any particular candidate. From what I have seen and heard so far, I see more than a few who would make a worthy choice. It is not yet clear whether the BIC will face a primary challenger. However, the Tea Party ideologues have sufficient power to likely eliminate any challenger. The Democrats are a long way from a solidified candidate.
Yes, exactly, my point precisely. Public opinion must be mobilized to convince sufficient Republican senators that their “livelihood” is in jeopardy if they do not change course. That is the pivotal point I am looking for and has not arrived yet. Again, just as every prosecutor must decide in every case, an important, if not essential, element in her/his decision process is the likelihood of conviction. Most responsible prosecutors will not bring formal charges unless they feel the evidence substantiates a reasonable conviction outcome. The same decision process applies to the House as the charging chamber. That said, there are never any guarantees, e.g., the O.J. acquittal in the face of overwhelming hard evidence.
. . . Round three:
“Given the history and apparent character of Chump and of Hillary Clinton, I was simply unwilling to vote for either of them. You may decide I'm apathetic or uninformed, but tens of millions of others shared that position. It will happen again unless at least one party runs a candidate worthy of our votes.”
. . . my response to round three:
Am I interpreting your implied missive correctly . . . you did not vote in the 2016 election? I would never decide you are pathetic or uninformed. Quite the contrary actually! I know other citizens chose not to vote, or worse just ignored their obligation to vote altogether. If you choose to affiliate with a political party to participate in the selection of that party’s nominee, then you can help choose a party nominee. In the general election, it is every citizen’s obligation to vote for the best candidate on the ballot. Abstention is not on the ballot. The best candidate on the ballot is worthy of our vote.
. . . Round four:
“I voted, but for neither Chump nor Clinton. I refuse to hold my nose and vote for the ‘lesser evil.’ You may choose to believe people are obligated to vote for the candidates offered but in the event, most voters are presently unwilling to do so. I don't think it will change that to make voting easier. No inspiration, no vote.”
. . . my response to round four:
Whew! I was a bit concerned there. I will only say . . . as did I. We both fulfilled our obligation to this Grand Republic.
Thank you for sharing your opinion regarding a citizen’s obligation to vote. To argue my point, let us take this issue to the extreme to test the threshold. What if no citizen votes? When does democracy cease to exist? Or, perhaps, when does our form of governance (representative democracy) cease to exist? If the vast majority of us refuse to vote, who then controls the government?
Republican (Tea Party) voters chose their candidate. They also turned out to vote. Was he the best candidate in the field?
. . . Round five:
“It's not that your alarm is inappropriate but that it doesn't address reality. Mrs. Clinton was the better candidate (she received millions of more votes), but she didn't win. Beside the unfairness of the Electoral College, the unwillingness of a majority or near-majority of eligible voters to do so expresses their voice. "Neither of these" is, in a functional sense, their vote. Many of us already believe our votes will not overcome the oligarchy in the absence of true change in at least the Democratic Party.”
. . . my response to round five:
We have discussed the 2016 election popular vote count and the consequence of the Electoral College. Nothing has yet changed your mind or mine.
I am intrigued by your statement that “our votes will not overcome the oligarchy.” How does your alleged oligarchy vote? I believe our votes are the ultimate power within our system of governance. I am having some difficulty visualizing the oligarchy you allege. If the oligarchy does exist as you allege, how does it exercise its power? If we all voted, how would the alleged oligarchy exceed that decision? Are you suggesting the alleged oligarchy acts extrajudicial and extracorporeal in some manner?
Back to you.
. . . Round six:
“I find it difficult to believe you are as naive as this comment reads. I, along with tens of millions of others, see the wealthy, primarily corporations, as successfully buying politicians, largely through campaign funding. To believe they can't do that is to believe that campaigns and their funding don't influence voting. Really?”
. . . my response to round six:
Yes, really! Let us begin this item with a definition. Oligarchy = a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution. We have discussed multiple times and I believed we were in agreement that money has corrupted our political system, and further that wealth has given certain individual citizens inordinate influence within our political system. That said, there are huge steps between inordinate influence within and control of this Grand Republic. Thus, I cannot agree with your characterization of our system of governance. We are a very long way from an oligarchy.
Naïve I may well be. Nonetheless, we have discussed, and I believe fully agreed, that the corrosive influence of money in our political system is wrong in every way, despite the opinion of the Supremes. My point is, there is a huge difference between unworthy and undue influence, and oligarchy. I objected to your oligarchy claim, not the obscenity of money’s corrosive properties within the body politik.
. . . Round seven:
“The money comes from the oligarchy. I don't understand your distinction.”
. . . my response to round seven:
The operative word in the distinction is control. Influence does not equate to or ensure control.
. . . Round eight:
“You really don't believe the sponsors control the politicians? Oh, my!”
. . . my response toround eight:
Again, I freely acknowledge that I may well be naïve. No, I do not; again, there is a huge difference between influence and control. I absolutely agree that influence is wrong, since their influence is inherently unequal and unfair. However, that falls short of control. Some have sold their souls, but not all.
. . . Round nine:
“You may believe what you must believe. I believe those who pay the piper call the tune.”
. . . my response to round nine:
No argument!
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
