Update from the Sunland
No.885
17.12.18 – 23.12.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Holy moly, Batman! At Michael Flynn’s sentencing hearing[792, 831, 883], U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan pulled no punches. He said from the bench, “I’m not going to hide my disgust, my disdain, for this criminal offense.” The judge went on to declare to Flynn, “Arguably, you sold your country out.” Those are pretty stiff words for a retired general and former national security advisor to the president. Yet, it is what came next that was the real shocker. Judge Sullivan asked prosecutor Brandon Van Grack, “Hypothetically, could [Flynn] have been charged with treason?” Van Grack answered, “Because it’s such a serious question, I am hesitant from answering.” The sentencing was delayed. Later in the day, Judge Sullivan said: “I wasn’t suggesting [Flynn] was committing treason. I was just curious if he could have been charged. Lots of conspiracy theories out there. Not taking any uncalled offenses into consideration. Was trying to consider benefit. I’m not suggesting treason.” Van Grack later added, “The government has no reason to believe the defendant committed treason.” The judge’s pronouncement in court certainly casts a very dark shadow over the prospect of Flynn avoiding prison time, despite the Special Counsel’s glowing recommendation regarding Flynn’s cooperation with the investigation.
In an odd twist of history, Governor Doug Ducey of Arizona appointed Martha McSally to fill the remaining duration (two years) of the Senate seat vacated by the passing of Senator John S. McCain III [871]. Kyrsten Sinema defeated McSally in the election last November. To McSally’s credit, she took a far more humble and conciliatory tone when she accepted the appointment, and signaled she would take a more cooperative and compromising stance than her BIC-like confrontational attitude displayed during the election campaign. We shall see if she carries that approach to performance in the Senate before she has to stand for election in her own right.
For all the chaos the BIC brings to this Grand Republic, the OSGOO signed into law the bipartisan Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person (FIRST STEP) Act[PL 115-xxx; S.756; House: 358-36-0-38(3); Senate: 87-12-0-1(0); 131 Stat. xxx] that establishes long overdue criminal justice reform. The law was passed by a significant majority of both parties in both chambers of Congress. Congratulations to all.
Congress passed the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 [House: 217-185-0-31(2); Senate: voice], to extend federal funding through 8.February.2019, for those departments and agencies of the federal government that were not already previously funded for the full fiscal year. However, the BIC in his infinite wisdom decided to listen to the hard right-wing talking-head pundits on television that the outgoing Congress was the last hope of him obtaining funding from the U.S. Treasury (We, the People) for his foolish southern border wall. So, he threw himself on the floor, pounded his fists on the floor and cried incessantly like a tempestuous toddler who did not get the piece of candy he wanted. The BIC boldly proclaimed he was “proud to shut down the government for border security.” First and foremost, the BIC’s wall on the southern border will never achieve border security. Some intelligent person reminded him that he has only a couple of weeks left of his Republican enablers. It is not surprising he threw a tantrum. It is the only leverage he has left. The Senate adjourned Saturday for the Christmas break. They return next Thursday, which leaves the BIC only a few days remaining to achieve some workable compromise. They are arguing over US$5B, which in turn is only about 20% of the total funding required for his entire 1,954 miles of our southern land border with Mexico.
The new House of Representatives may use an obscure section of a 94-year-old law to finally break the BIC’s unilateral stonewall, hiding his tax returns from public scrutiny. The law at issue is the RevenueAct of 1924 [PL 68-176; H.R. 6715; Chap234, p.253, Sess.I; public law no.176; 43 Stat. 253; 2.6.1924] and specifically, Part IV – Administrative Provisions; §257 – Returns to be Public Records (p.293). As a public employee, whether paid or not, the BIC is subject to §257 provisions of the 1924 law. If the House does follow that path, it will get very interesting.
We do not see events like this very often, so I feel compelled to be thorough. After the BIC’s incredibly short-sighted, impetuous, uncoordinated, and unilateral decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria and potentially from Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense Mattis resigned in protest. I include his resignation letter in toto to that end.
December 20, 2018
Dear Mr. President:
I have been privileged to serve as our country's 26th Secretary of Defense which has allowed me to serve alongside our men and women of the Department in defense of our citizens and our ideals.
I am proud of the progress that has been made over the past two years on some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department's business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong U.S. global influence.
One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the U.S. remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO's 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.
Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model - gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions - to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.
My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances.
Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position. The end date for my tenure is February 28, 2019, a date that should allow sufficient time for a successor to be nominated and confirmed as well as to make sure the Department's interests are properly articulated and protected at upcoming events to include Congressional posture hearings and the NATO Defense Ministerial meeting in February. Further, that a full transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September in order to ensure stability Within the Department.
I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that ensures the needs and interests of the 2.15 million Service Members and 732,079 DoD civilians receive undistracted attention of the Department at all times so that they can fulfill their critical, round-the-clock mission to protect the American people.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to serve the nation and our men and women in uniform.
James N. Mattis
We do not get to see such grace, dignity, elegance and integrity displayed at national executive levels these days. Thank you, General Mattis, for showing us good people still stand for high government office. To me, the salient sentence in the extraordinary Mattis letter is the BIC has “the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours . . . .” First, if I had to choose who to believe, General Mattis or the BIC, there is absolutely not a scintilla of hesitation or doubt in picking the former. Second, if I had to choose who had the qualifications, experience and judgment to make national security decisions, again, there is no uncertainty. The only folks cheering the BIC’s foolish decision are his bosom-buddy Putin, the Ayatollah of the IRI, and now President Erdoğan, who is chomping at the bit to eradicate our staunchest ally in the region—the Kurds. If there was a time to attack the United States of America, it is now! Given the chaos, confusion, uncertainty, abandonment of allies, isolation, and rejection of defense treaty responsibilities . . . we are at our weakest, more so than we have been in my lifetime and beyond. Despite his self-inflated ego, the BIC does NOT know more about anything than the generals. The BIC has managed to unilateral piss on our allies and cozy up to our adversaries as bosom buddies. He sees no reason to seek counsel on important matters of state; his gut sense is all he needs . . . after all, he is perfect, infallible and omniscient . . . oh yeah, and omnipotent (in his mind). We bear wittiness to the worst nightmare of the Founders / Framers, who entrusted the security of the nation to a singular executive. Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility all in the name of partisan party politics. Getting re-elected is more important than the welfare of the nation. Well, at least we have blatant evidence of that stark reality.
Adding insult to injury, U.S. special presidential envoy for the global coalition to defeat the Islamic State Brett McGurk also resigned in protest over the withdrawal from Syria decision by Twitter.
Once again, we bear witness to the chaos induced solely by the BIC. If chaos was our measure of success, the BIC would be the best president in history and will probably retain that distinction for the rest of history.
We learned that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had thoracic surgery in New York City, to remove malignant nodules from her lung. A statement from the Court claimed, “No evidence of disease remains.”
The Supreme Court also issued Order 18A615 that narrowly rejected the BIC’s appeal for a stay in the case of East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump [USDC CA ND case 3:18-cv-06810 (18.11.2018)]. The order records that Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would have granted the stay. Ginsburg reportedly voted on this appeal from her hospital room.
Y’all may recall that it was this case that sparked the BIC’s Twitter tirade against Judge Tigar, who he claimed was an Obama judge (FYI: no such thing), and the 9thCircuit Court of Appeals in the main [881]. This is precisely why Ginsburg’s health is so bloody important. The thought of the BIC gaining yet another nomination to the Supreme Court is staggering to the imagination. That aside, I imagine it is precisely this topic that enables so many Republicans to tolerate the BIC’s bad behavior, and look the other way and hold their nose.
A friend and frequent contributor sent along the following link:
that asked, “Should We Rethink Presidential Powers?”
The understandable and appropriate question instigated my reply.
Good question. As much as I disapprove of the BIC's character, conduct, interaction with people, and paucity of knowledge or even curiosity about history, international relations, and the welfare of this Grand Republic, my answer is no. Article II has stood well for more than two centuries. The BIC is an aberration, an anomaly of one. All other presidents, except the BIC, have conducted themselves with respect for the office they hold and the responsibilities they exercise. Even as much as I disapproved of Jimmy Carter’s performance as president, I respect him as a good man, with good intentions, and as a man who respected the office he held. So, no, I would not encourage constraining future presidents because of the gross failure of one. It may take several generations to overcome the damage done by the BIC, but we shall overcome.
P.S.: Until the 45th POTUS took office, I consistently and publicly stated my opinion that President Carter was the worst president in my lifetime, and perhaps all of history. Today, in comparison to the current occupant of the Oval Office (well, when he is in the office and not in the resident watching his television sycophants), President Carter appears as a saint. The BIC has clearly and emphatically established a new, low level of poor performance. The BIC is the new worst for me.
Well, I guess the BIC was not particularly impressed by the letter of resignation from SecDef Mattis. On Sunday, as is his penchant to do, he tweeted:
“I am pleased to announce that our very talented Deputy Secretary of Defense, Patrick Shanahan, will assume the title of Acting Secretary of Defense starting January 1, 2019. Patrick has a long list of accomplishments while serving as Deputy, & previously Boeing. He will be great!”
8:46 AM - 23 Dec 2018
The OSGOO rejected Mattis’s offer of two months for transition, and unceremoniously implied “see’ya.” The BIC has so much class—NOT!
Comments and contributions from Update no.884:
Comment to the Blog:
“I don't see Prime Minister May herself or the UK as a whole as having a way forward with Brexit. Parliament can save face, to a degree, if they can organize a re-vote. I read a discussion, probably from the New York Times, of the British mindset. Besides both parties' internal divisions, they suffer from British exceptionalism, like American exceptionalism except for the country. As with our version, Europe isn't playing along anymore. I noted your other commentator's resentment, but it's neither here nor there.
“Chump had another outburst, this one on TV rather than Twitter (yawns).
“With respect to Chump's legal troubles, his payments to those women and their apparent violation of campaign laws is evident; therefore, obstruction of justice can't be far behind even if we only examine Chump's public statements. The obstruction charge can result in a conviction without the bother of proving the campaign contribution violations.
“My left-wing source, Popular Information, titled this morning's newsletter 'Wreck It Rudy'. This happened too late yesterday to be included in the blog, but it's important. I have forwarded the email to you separately because I don't know how to link email here. Chump's links to Russia are a whole other facet of his corruption, and Rudy Giuliani, his lawyer and spokesman, has also lost track of the storyline of lies, especially the dates. Chump's personal involvement with the Moscow Trump Tower project, per Giuliani, extended into November of 2016. Oops!”
My response to the Blog:
I suspect you may be selling Prime Minister May and the British people short. American exceptionalism leads to the Ugly American Syndrome. My opinion, for what it’s worth, remains that a Brexit re-vote would do more damage than it could ever do good. It is what it is, and they and we need to make the best lemonade we can and move on.
The BIC’s petulant outbursts are becoming very annoying; they remind me of how bad our situation is, and the deeper these things go, the longer it will take us to recover.
I think the BIC has already crossed the obstruction of justice threshold, and the Special Counsel’s report and findings will document that reality. Whether his documented transgressions are sufficient for impeachment and conviction is a whole other question. Impeachment would solidify the historical record, but only conviction can remove him and expose him to justice. He will not have (as he is incapable of) the grace required to resign. My current opinion is unless conviction can be reasonably seen or secured impeachment should not be attempted. I am leaning more to suspension of the statute of limitations for the BIC and indictment, trial and judgment in court once he is out of office. A court of law is far different from the political arena of the Senate.
I agree. I am guardedly optimistic the Special Counsel will clearly document the BIC’s multitudinous entanglements with Russia and former Soviet bloc countries to access money he was progressively being cut off from in the West.
. . . Round two:
“I'll see if I can find that article. The point that got my attention was that the English people they interviewed kept saying that the EU needed the UK so badly they were bound to make concessions. That harks back a century and a half to when Britain ruled the waves in the trade as well as the military sense, but the rest of the world believes that time has passed. So do I.
“I favor indictment and/or a motion to impeach. Our best U.S. parallel to this situation, Watergate, resulted in resignation. There's a reasonable chance this time would have that ending, too. If we just let Chump run, he'll continue with his destruction of this country.”
. . . my response to round two:
Great Britain may not have the bite it did 70 years ago, but it is still a force to be reckoned with.
The findings from the Special Counsel will have to be pretty serious, and unfortunately, the public outcry will have to be strong enough to induce the Republican Senate to act against their “leader.” As I said previously, I would not urge impeachment unless conviction is reasonably assured in the Senate; and, I’m afraid that will take a substantial public demand. We know his supporters will be vociferous and animated, and that support will have to be overcome. I am far more in favor of removing him from office by election landslide, followed by indictment, trial, conviction and sentencing to prison. That to me is the ultimate . . . to see him not just removed from office but put behind bars for a few years. But, like Hitler, he will talk his way to luxury accommodation in prison and hold court with his believers in the hoosegow. The BIC is absolutely incapable of resignation. Again, like Hitler, he would rather burn the house down rather than admit failure.
. . . Round three:
“That election landslide may not happen, given the management of the Democratic Party and Chump's ongoing foreign support. Waiting for a conviction to be assured is a fool's errand; no conviction is ever assured.”
. . . my response to round three:
So you say. None of us can predict the future.
. . . Round four:
“I agree that none of us can predict the future. Who would have predicted our current mess?”
. . . my response to round four:
Exactly! My point precisely. Just wishful thinking.
Another contribution:
“The President of the United States is adamant about the border wall because his voters were adamant and still are about keeping out intruders who mean harm and financial upset to our welfare systems ... they are sucking us dry and only want to come here to take advantage of all they can get free from our taxpayers. This too will NOT pass .. we will pursue even if his supporters are the ones who ultimately kick in to help fund. So you Cap will be a beneficiary at no expense, will that make you happy? Maybe YOU are the shallow spineless one who doesn’t stand up for our country, you were fine with Obama traipsing around the world apologizing for our “arrogant “ nation and fine with the way servicemen were treated under his administration .. you overlook the homeless veterans on the streets and put blinders on when told illegal immigrants are receiving benefits for living here especially in sanctuary states.”
My reply:
If I did not know you, I would see your contribution as trolling, i.e., purposefully inflammatory remarks intended to instigate a reaction in the target. However, I do know you, and I believe you seriously believe as your words reflect. So, I shall take the time from my writing to unpack and respond to your seriously held beliefs.
Re: “Maybe YOU are the shallow spineless one who doesn’t stand up for our country . . .” Wow! So, my 25 years of service in uniform, under arms, and prepared to lay down my life for the People of this Grand Republic has no value, no meaning. Spineless . . . really? How much time have you spent standing watch at the gate in harm’s way for this Grand Republic?
I have no interest in defending President Obama. However, I will emphatically state, I abhor the Ugly American Syndrome as displayed by anyone, anywhere, anytime. I condemn such conduct regardless of whether from a simple tourist-citizen or the president of the United States. We have neighbors; they are equals. We are NOT some street tough, schoolyard bully dictating to all within his reach that everyone will conform to his will. There is a very real, palpable reason I refer to him as the Bully-In-Chief (BIC), because that is exactly as he acts. If I have to choose between a street bully and an apologist, I’ll take the latter every time, and make no apologies for my choice. I will continue to condemn the BIC, as long as he continues to act like the ultimate Ugly American. Full stop!
If you had served in the military or were a student of history, you would know and recognize that no single line of defense has ever been successful. I share your concern for illegal entry by anyone into our country. I advocate for serious immigration reform on a broad level to make a far better effort to control entry to this Grand Republic. Where I differ with you and with the BIC is the means to accomplish genuine immigration control. The BIC’s damn wall will NOT accomplish what he claims it will. The BIC’s wall is just another Maginot Line—an enormous expenditure destined to failure. Any good military historian will validate that reality. The only defense that will work is a defense in depth. Federal immigration reform MUST engage the states, counties, municipalities and all employers to be truly effective.
Like so many of our countrymen and FoxNews, you demonize immigrants in toto. Are there abusers, criminals and bad hombres among those who enter this country illegally, yes absolutely and without equivocation. We must deal with those bad people. What the divisive rhetoric of generalization does NOT do is recognize the glorious contribution of many immigrants who enter this country. I shall dare say the majority of illegal immigrants are hidden contributors to our greatness. Let us not demean them all for the badness of a comparative few among their lot.
If we really believe in our greatness, then we should act with greatness, rather than cowering in fear and isolationism behind some foolish wall that will never do what it is intended to do.
How on God’s little green earth can you possibly say that I “overlook the homeless veterans on the streets and put blinders on when told illegal immigrants . . .”? I can only surmise that you do not regularly read my words, so you may have missed my many words on immigration. One more time, please read and re-read my words here, I absolutely agree that we must control all forms of entry into this Grand Republic. I have been and remain a long-term, staunch advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. I believe in immigrants. We need immigrants as we have always needed them since the first immigrants in the 17thCentury. Our internal birthrate has not been sufficient for decades to sustain our growth; we need contributory immigrants.
So, in conclusion, rather than vilify me for disagreeing with your vaunted BIC, how about we have a proper debate about how to achieve the objective we both seek?
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
-->
