Update no.827

Update from the Heartland

No.827

30.10.17 – 5.11.17

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- Special Counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller obtained the first indictments of the investigation he leads [804, 807, 826].  Former Trump campaign chairman Paul John Manafort, Jr., along with his colleague, Richard W. ‘Rick’ Gates, III, were charged with a series of felony crimes, including:

* conspiracy against the United States,

* conspiracy to launder money,

* unregistered agent of a foreign principal,

* false and misleading FARA {Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) [PL 75-583; 52 Stat. 631; 8.6.1938] [459]} statements,

* false statements, and

* seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.

None of the current charges stem from Manafort’s stint as the Trump campaign chairman.  However, additional charges are certainly possible.  Both Manafort and Gates were ordered to surrender their passports and abide house arrest.

            The charging document also publicly acknowledged the guilty plea of George Papadopoulos, a foreign-policy adviser to the Trump campaign, on the charge of lying to the FBI about his contacts with a professor connected to the Russian government.

            While we cannot see any direct connection between the special counsel’s investigation, the Trump campaign and Russian involvement in the 2016 election, the public information inches closer to the instigating issue. 

            I think we all knew it was only a matter of time.  On Tuesday, a driver entered a popular bike path in lower Manhattan and mowed down innocent pedestrians and bikers, killing at least eight people and injuring 15 other citizens.  It was the worst terrorist incident in New York City since 9/11.  The perpetrator was quickly neutralized and apprehended alive by police.  Law enforcement established in short order at least the driver’s inspiration by, if not outright affiliation with, ISIL; thus, the incident is a jihadi terrorist event.  We have every reason to expect this fellow will be tried, and if convicted, he will be appropriately punished under federal terrorism laws.

            The Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department has identified more than six members of the Russian government involved in hacking the Democratic National Committee's computers and stealing sensitive information that became public during the 2016 presidential election.  The Justice Department is independent of the Special Counsel and congressional investigations.  The case may provide the clearest picture yet of the actors behind the DNC intrusion.  U.S. intelligence agencies have attributed the attack to Russian intelligence services [782], but have not provided detailed information about how they concluded those services were responsible, or any details about the individuals allegedly involved.  If there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to affect the outcome of the election, the coincidences may well verge upon unprecedented in history.  We must be careful not to ascribe too much significance to this and other compounding facts; yet, my confidence grows that we will one day know what the Russian government did in 2016, and possibly whether the Trump administration colluded with the Russians to affect the election outcome.  If it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law with the associated rules of evidence, then I shall advocate for exoneration and termination of this corrosive debate.  If it is proven, then I want the culprits prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

            Just an FYI: if the President was involved, he cannot be prosecuted while in office; he can only be impeached, and if convicted by the Senate and removed from office, then he could be prosecuted for felonious crimes.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.826:

Comment to the Blog:

“The CNN analogy of an apple remaining an apple no matter how many times someone screams that the object is a banana is apt, simple, and memorable. Unfortunately, too many Americans, including your other correspondent, seek to believe a ‘leader’ rather than evaluate the information available to them. From what I understand, a growing majority of us are indeed evaluating the information we see and the sources of that information.  However, that still leaves millions of our countrymen blindly following the orange-haired personality flaw.  In another context, I would call him a false prophet.  Considering the number of self-proclaimed Christians among his followers, I might say that anyhow.

“The Catalonia story continues.  My ruling emotion about that right now is curiosity about whether the Spanish are sufficiently civilized that they can reach a peaceful resolution of some sort.  I hope so.

“Events develop today in Special Counsel Mueller's investigation.  Paul Manafort and his aide have been charged and have or will plead not guilty according to the last report I saw.  Another T-rump adviser, George Papadopoulis, was revealed to have already entered a guilty plea to lying to Federal agents about Russian contacts.  Wow.  The local news is discussing this as I type.  Evening news will follow.

“The sexual harassment discussion also continues growing.  More CEOs and a prominent actor have been accused.  The actor made a statement that seems to indicate he was in an alcoholic blackout and doesn't really know whether he did the specific act his accuser describes.  That would be a very honest statement.  The larger dialog involves power, abuse (including false accusations), work, sex and sexuality.  That's overwhelming, but we need a large, open national process to heal these issues.

“I also would like to see final release of all the JFK documents.  The notion that some national security concern would prevent that fails my bullshit detector.  In the case of TWA Flight 800, I also doubt national security issues matter, but opening that one could potentially result in firings or even possibly legal issues for the guilty.”

My response to the Blog:

            Well, on the “Facts First” advertisement, I would tend to agree.  Blind loyalty can be very dangerous on a variety of levels.  The same blind following is true on both sides.  I saw the same phenomenon in reverse during every administration as far back as I can remember; it is part of the political intransigence we endure to this day.  People know their representative spends money, but as long as he is spending money on them, they keep electing their guy . . . and that is why we have what we have in Congress.

            I hope you are correct about the Spain-Catalonia situation.  We do not need more blood to be spilled.

            Charges from the Mueller investigation . . . the net tightens a little more.  This investigation appears to be a long way from over, and I suspect there will be many more charges.  Worse, they are serious charges “conspiring against the United States” verges upon treason.

            Yeah, I’ve seen the press reports.  Unfortunately for Spacey, alcohol is not an acceptable excuse for criminal conduct.  Oh my, yes, we need a much larger dialogue with respect to this issue.  We have a lot of culture to correct.  Behavior associated with the Doctrine of Coverture has been unconstitutional for 35 years.  We still have Neanderthals among us who believe in and practice the divine right of kings; we must confront those aberrant individuals wherever and whenever we witness that behavior.  We have looked the other way for too many years and look at what we have for it; bad behavior is not self-correcting.

            Yeah, the national security rationale for the remaining JFK documents fails the smell test in so many ways.  If there are consequences to the aftermath of TWA 800, then so be it . . . as it should, let the chips fall where they may.

Another contribution:

“Oh, this is beautiful!  Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful!  Should I have put that in all caps?  Perhaps the commentator forgets why the people who need to know the apple is not a banana are not watching CNN, and CBS, NBC, ABC, and MSNBC.  People got tired of being duped, misled, and lied to by the left-backed media.  That may be why Fox was able to prosper.  Yes, Mr. serpent, tell us how good that red juicy apple is.”

My reply:

            Whoa dawgy!  The Press are human beings; they are not automatons.  There is no “left-backed” or right-back media; there are only people doing their best to report on facts.  It is our task, and ours alone, to evaluate sources, corroborate information and develop our opinions; it is NOT the responsibility of the Press.  Yet, at the end of the day, amid all this kerfuffle, facts are facts.  We can argue over what the facts mean and what significance those facts play in our opinions and perspective, but the facts remain the facts.  The Press is not Satan, nor vice versa.

. . . Round two:

“I knew I should not have read The Update and jumped into this.  There is no debate over facts being facts.  And let us begin there.  So you say there is no left-backed media.  What, prey tell, is your explanation for why the, shall we say non-Fox media decides to not cover, cover minimally, or cover by contextual manipulation/deletion?  I call that being duped, misled, and lied to—outright or by omission--, a brazen example being that of continually touting Russian collusion regarding the election outcome, but paying little to no heed—perhaps until recently—the fact that Hillary had her legs spread big time for the Russian Bear, allowing tens of millions of dollars to flow into the Clinton slush fund while Slick Willie rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars for speaking engagements, all while selling out the American people by facilitating the flow of additional uranium to Russia; all this taking place under the watchful eye of 0bama who would claim he did not know about it until he saw it on the news—if he happened to be watching a news source that would enlighten him as to what’s going on.  Need I mention the lack of interest, or deflection, by the non-Fox media regarding the 0bama regime directed/sanctioned/obliviousness regarding the IRS and their appalling treatment of conservative organizations/donors; only recently with some reparation for some of the harmed, but, not surprisingly no criminal conviction(s), as people in government seem to not be held accountable for their misdeeds.

“No, I will give you the press may not be as Satanic as my allusion, but do you deny there has not been an arguable demise in journalistic ethics over the years as the liberal extremist hypocrites have sought to corrupt impressionable American dolts with their immoralist views?”

 . . . my reply to round two:

            We shall respectfully disagree; of course you should jump in.  A vigorous public debate is essential to every viable democracy.  It is important for us to disagree and debate issues.

            Re: “There is no debate over facts being facts.”  Perhaps not with you or between us, but the fellow in the Oval Office has a long history of calling an apple a banana.  The debate is with him.  He is not entitled to the divine right of kings or his own rendition of facts.

            Re: “What, prey tell, is your explanation for why the, shall we say non-Fox media decides to not cover, cover minimally, or cover by contextual manipulation/deletion?”  The explanation is rather straightforward and simple.  No Press outlet can cover everything; every editor must select stories to publish.  Even the world’s best national intelligence services cannot cover everything; even they must select and filter information.  I absolutely and categorically reject the notion that we are being “duped, misled, and lied to.”  I truly wish every citizen could have served a stint in the intelligence world to experience the profound difficulty everyone has in filtering information.  If we are being misled, I would blame that on a lack of curiosity in collecting and assessing information on our part, not the Press.

            Re: “allowing tens of millions of dollars to flow into the Clinton slush fund while Slick Willie rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars for speaking engagements.”  I understand and appreciate your not being a fan of the Clintons.  I will only say, I believe every politician of any accomplishment has capitalized on his/er service.  There are plenty of things by which to criticize Bill and Hillary as we have noted earlier, but exorbitant speaking fees cannot be one of those items.  To my knowledge, neither of the Clintons has done anything (at least with respect to their speaking fees and foundation operations) that even remotely verges on illegal.

            I understand and accept that some citizens are so politically calcified, rendering them incapable of seeing anything good in the conduct of other citizens from other political affiliations or perspectives.  This process has become rampant and extraordinarily divisive over the past few decades.  Both sides fall victim to the same intransigence.  We see the persistent demonstration as the pendulum swings from side to side.

            Re: “do you deny there has not been an arguable demise in journalistic ethics over the years as the liberal extremist hypocrites have sought to corrupt impressionable American dolts with their immoralist views?”  Wow; how do I unpack all that?  First, at the most basic level, I cannot agree with your hypothesis.  As I have stated above, journalists are human beings and just as susceptible to political bias as the rest of us—always have been, always will be.  Our task, again, is to collect, assess, absorb, evaluate and decide on the information available to us; Press outlets are but one set of sources; we must look beyond the Press as well.  Simply put, I cherish the opinions of other citizens, the Press, and anyone who chooses to express his/er opinion.  “Immoral” is rather steep, if you ask me.

 . . . Round three:

“It seems you may have addressed some of my initial reply to you by taking things out of context from my paragraph al la our dubiously reliable media.  For example, you addressed only the following portion [in black text] which allows you to conveniently dispense with the point of my rebuttal to confirm that humans are not infallible and can only filter through profound difficulty the information that they choose to filter perhaps strongly influenced by their own, coerced, or mandated biases.  In other words, I am trying to caution against paying attention to the man behind the curtain, as are others, telling us the apple is an apple when we have learned it to not be true too many times.  On that note I will have my potassium for the morning.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            That accusation is always available.  It is difficult to interpret words not our own, as the reader cannot see into the thoughts in the writer’s mind behind the words.  We do our best, but it is an impossible task.

            I certainly appreciate your caution.  However, “the apple is an apple when we have learned it to not be true too many times” . . . are you suggesting the object you see on the screen is not an apple?  It seems we are getting far too many elements and aspects wrapped up in this discussion.

            The Press works hard to corroborate information they obtain, just as the intelligence services do.  They are also just as susceptible to misinformation.  They usually inform us when they do not have independent corroborating sources.  It also seems we occasionally ascribe blame to the Press when misinformation is discovered.

            The filtration of information is our responsibility.  It irritates me when a reporter does not know the difference between an aileron and an elevator, but I just throw that realization into the filtration algorithm.  We evaluate information of all sorts . . . among friends, among colleagues . . . and it is no different among the Press outlets.  Let us not get wrapped around the axel on this; let us just apply our filtration algorithm.

An opinion from a different contributor:

“The left wants total socialism .. they WANT the poor to rely on government .. they use the poor as a big part of their agenda.. if they have their way, MORE of America will become destitute and be FORCED to accept government handouts...they shout out that Trump' s tax plan only aids the wealthy, before they even fully read and understand the plan.  Nancy Pelosi herself said when Obama's administration came up with the health insurance plan known as Obamacare, SIGN it so you know what it contains!!!  Trump needs to appeal to the masses and disclose on every level the benefits his tax plan will have for them .. the poor, the middle class should be informed of the benefits so they can push their congressmen to vote for the plan if it is in fact beneficial to them .. we don't need the left crying foul before we even get a chance to review the major aspects of the plan as they have also done with Trumps efforts to provide better health insurance.  Pelosi and Schumer have just said "we have to STAGNATE the economy to take back control of the country " .. they are nervous about the positive numbers they are seeing.”

My response:

            I do believe your words are painting with over-broad strokes, but hey, that’s just me.  There is no question that the left leans heavily toward the socialist / communist end of the spectrum . . . just as the right leans heavily toward unchecked / rampant capitalism end of the spectrum; which is precisely why I have difficulty supporting either end.  To me, stability lays somewhere in the middle.  Unfortunately, the calcification of contemporary partisan politics has made the stable middle ground almost untenable.

            I am still learning about the proposed tax plan unveiled today.  I do not have an opinion either way . . . as yet.  More to follow.

 . . . Round two:

“I would swear you are not in the middle but much closer to the left .. Trump is already making great strides in reducing the expenditures in other areas so the American people benefit .. be patient, ye shall see as long as your buddies on the left and your right wing establishment buddies don't continue to block Trumps every move.   Obama and Clinton STOLE from the people and increased the national debt tyrannically!! Just bringing in untold numbers of poor Muslims, many with bad intentions, Obama ruined us!!!  Satan!!!”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Thank you for your continuing contribution to the public debate.  Your contribution is very important.

            Well, I suppose that is the burden of a moderate independent citizen like me . . . the right thinks I’m way left, and the left thinks I am too far to the right.  If I must self-describe my political orientation, I would say I am:

-- Non-affiliated independent

-- Socially liberal

-- Fiscally conservative

-- Committed to national security, open global commerce, and a staunch advocate for the smallest government possible to keep all levels of government out of the private affairs of citizens and protect the common good (not the wealth of the 1%).

The closest political party to my political orientation is the Libertarian Party, although I have plenty of elements of divergence there as well.

            That said, I do not share your admiration for the current occupant of the Oval Office for myriad reasons.  Further, I resoundingly reject your hypothesis that Obama and Clinton “stole” from the people.  If you want to blame anyone for the national debt, you need look no farther than Congress—they spend the treasury, not the presidents.  Also, you should really look at Bush 43, who chose to heavily borrow funds to fight two major battles in our current war rather than mobilize the nation for war, as he should have done.

            “Obama ruined us!!!  Satan!!!”  I categorically and emphatically reject your accusation, and concomitantly, I defend your right to express your opinions no matter what they are . . . well, as long as they are not inciteful of violence or chaos.

 . . . Round three:

“first of all violence and chaos is represented by the left .. even the KKK and vicious slaveowners were Democrats and not one Democrat voted to free the slaves ... How did our deficit during Obama go from about $9 Trillion to over $19T ???  And tell me what did we get for that $10T ?  Where did it go?  We do now have ISIS in America, thanks to Obama .. why do we have to pay other countries to keep out of war ??  That's a crazy reason to give out money .. And how does Obama afford three houses worth millions on a $400k salary ... and what happened to a wonderful Libya when Libyan people-loved Kaddaffi was killed by Obama/Sec of State Killary (we came, we saw, he died) .. and mysteriously 150 tons of those peoples' gold disappeared ? Kaddaffi was good to his people ...And now ISIS rules Libya and that beautiful territory has crumbled in the last 9 years   ... blame Bush, Cheney (9/11), AND Obama ... Obama and RINO Bush are partners in crime .. Oh and $3T was allocated in Obama's first term for infrastructure "Shovel Ready", he called it ... not one road or bridge/structure was repaired, no new construction except maybe funded by the state governments and the homeless situation was worsened ..”

 . . . my response to round three:

            I considered whether to respond, and then how to respond to your latest missive, which is chockablock full of conspiracy theories.

            I will also say, again, you appear to be painting with over-broad strokes.  Violence at left-leaning protest is predominately perpetrated by anarchists seeking chaos and the breakdown of government.  Further, the suggested affiliation between the KKK and the Democratic Party is not even historically accurate; if you had said, the Southern Democrat coalition I would have accepted that affiliation 50 years ago, but certainly not in the last bunch of decades.

            Your accusations are misapplied, erroneous or outright wrong . . . but, that is just my opinion, and you know how that goes.  You are entitled to your opinion, as well, and I respect that.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)