Update no.850

Update from the Sunland

No.850

9.4.18 – 15.4.18

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

            To all,

            Thefollow-up news items:

-- Senator Charles Ernest ‘Chuck’ Grassley of Iowa, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (a senior Republican Member of Congress, I must note), publicly announced his intention to put forward a bipartisan bill that would prevent Bob Mueller [804] from being dismissed without cause—the first major congressional action designed to protect the integrity of the criminal investigation into Russian activity during the 2016 election. This is a fairly clear shot across the bow to the BIC.

            As a footnote: the Mueller investigation is about Russian meddling in the 2016 election; it is NOT about collusion, Trump, election validation; it is about the offensive operations of a foreign power in the internal affairs of this Grand Republic.  If the BIC has not figured out that fact, yet, then there is little hope he will ever come to the realization of the facts.  The final report of the Mueller investigation will most likely be the definitive punctuation on this tragic episode.

-- Tesla announced the company decided to withdraw from a formal agreement to cooperate with a U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) probe of a fatal crash involving its semiautonomous driving system [848], contending the accord’s restrictions on the company releasing information were unsound.  I understand and appreciate that Tesla may not be accustomed to proper accident investigations, but this action by Tesla is really ill-advised.  There are very real, practical reasons for the accident investigating authority to control communications.  The process also provides for contribution, rebuttal and dissent (if necessary) before the investigation is complete and closed.  Nonetheless, we shall see the outcome in roughly a year’s time, with or without Tesla’s cooperation.

-- Sunday night, ABC News broadcast an interview of former FBI Director James Comey by George Stephanopoulos.  I watched with careful attention.  I recorded the program, watched it twice, and hit the replay button countless times to make sure I heard and saw what I think I did.  Although it matters not a hoot to anyone, I really struggled with this interview.  The editing was done for entertainment value, not as a disciplined research project; thus, correlating words became demonstrably more difficult.  Nonetheless, I took the time I had available to do the best I could.

            Early on, George asked the former director about his first post-election briefing to the president-elect.

STEPHANOPOULOS: “You also said you were struck by what they didn't ask?”

COMEY: “Very much. No one, to my recollection, asked, ‘So what-- what's coming next from the Russians?’  You're about to lead a country that has an adversary attacking it and I don't remember any questions about, ‘So what are they going to do next, how might we stop it?  What's the future look like?  Because we'll be custodians of the security of this country.’  There was none of that.  It was all, ‘What can we say about what they did and how it affects the election that we just had.’”

The former director went on to observe:

COMEY: “I had, obviously, concerns about that earlier, having watched him on the campaign that he is someone who is-- for whom the truth is not a high value.”

This, to me, is a direct reflection of the very essence of my criticism of the BIC.  He is obsessed with his image, his appearance in the Press and before the American people.  I believe Comey hit the nail squarely and firmly, and drove it home in a single stroke.  The BIC cares far more about himself than he does about this Grand Republic. The BIC apparently believes, or at least appears to believe, the Russia meddling investigation is about him, and thus he takes it very personally.  The Special Counsel investigation has never been about him.  Stephanopoulos illuminated one of a BIC tweet that “sparked the leak heard around the world”:

“James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

5/12/17, 8:26 AM

For time reference, the BIC fired Comey by tweet on 9.May.2017.  It was that particular tweet that instigated a series of actions that culminated in the appointment of the special counsel.  The interview continued:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Do you think the Russians have something on Donald Trump?”

COMEY: I think it's possible.  I don't know.  These are more words I never thought I'd utter about a president of the United States, but it's possible.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “That's stunning.  You can't say for certain that the president of the United States is not compromised by the Russians?”

COMEY: “It is stunning and I wish I wasn't saying it, but it's just-- it's the truth.  It always struck me and still strikes me as unlikely, and I woulda been able to say with high confidence about any other president I dealt with, but I can't.  It's possible.”

Then, toward the end of the hour-long program, we came to the real bottom line in this whole affair.

STEPHANOPOULOS: “You write that President Trump is unethical, untethered to the truth. Is Donald Trump unfit to be president?”

COMEY: “Yes.  But not in the way m-- I often hear people talk about it.  I don't buy this stuff about him being mentally incompetent or early stages of dementia.  He strikes me as a person of above average intelligence who's tracking conversations and knows what's going on.  I don't think he's medically unfit to be president.  I think he's morally unfit to be president.

“A person who sees moral equivalence in Charlottesville, who talks about and treats women like they're pieces of meat, who lies constantly about matters big and small, and insists the American people believe it, that person's not fit to be president of the United States, on moral grounds.  Our president must embody respect and adhere to the values that are at the core of this country.  The most important being truth.  This president is not able to do that.  He is morally unfit to be president.”

The most telling of Comey’s words in the interview were:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “And-- and one of the things you write that was influencing the president and his administration was the assumption that Hillary Clinton would win.”

COMEY: “That is, all of us were operating in a world where the polls were showing that Donald Trump had no chance.  So I think what the president meant by that was the Russian effort is wasted, and so why should we help them by announcing what they're doing when their work is not going to achieve their goal?”

I wrote during the election campaign [737, 760] that Comey was between a rock and a hard spot in dealing with the Clinton eMail fiasco.  What history will likely record is Comey’s fatal mistake was injecting a political calculation in his reporting on the Clinton investigation.

            It only took a couple of teaser video clips hyping the ABC News program days before the actual broadcast to light up the BIC, who as a result turned to his medium of choice—Twitter:

 “James Comey is a proven LEAKER & LIAR.  Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the terrible job he did-until he was, in fact, fired.  He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted.  He lied to Congress under OATH.  He is a weak and.....”

5:01 AM - Apr 13, 2018

He continued . . .

“....untruthful slime ball who was, as time has proven, a terrible Director of the FBI.  His handling of the Crooked Hillary Clinton case, and the events surrounding it, will go down as one of the worst ‘botch jobs’ of history. It was my great honor to fire James Comey!”

5:17 AM - Apr 13, 2018

The BIC can rant and rave all he wishes—throw epithets like paper towels; the more he does the less believable he becomes . . . then again, less than zero is hard to achieve. James Comey’s words are measured, articulate, careful and infinitely more credible than those of the BIC. To put a fine point on it, Comey is far more believable than the BIC has EVER been or will ever be with his “truthful hyperbole,” which by the way is neither truthful nor hyperbole.  Frankly, the BIC is the real slime-ball in all this nastiness, and yes he is the duly elected POTUS—We, the People, elected him and placed him before that bully pulpit.  He continues to persist on being his own worst enemy with his extraordinarily foolish tweets.
-- In an extraordinary action, as the noose tightens, the BIC announced on Friday, his full and absolute pardon of Irving Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby [199, 203, 287]—the convicted former chief of staff to the Vice President of the United States Richard Bruce ‘Dick’ Cheney, otherwise known as the designated fall guy.  Of all the people he chose to pardon at this particular moment in time, it had to be ‘Scooter’ Libby.  The authority of the president to pardon anyone he wishes (including Libby) for any reason he wishes is unqualified and unquestionable [Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, provision 3]. However, the authority to do so does not make it correct, wise, appropriate, ethical or morally responsible.

            For those who may not remember, Libby was tried and convicted in federal court on four of the five counts against him (6.March.2007): two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice in a grand jury investigation, and one of the two counts of making false statements to federal investigators.  President George W. Bush (43) commuted his sentence of 30 months in federal prison.

            From my perspective, there is only one purpose for the subject, timing and objective of Friday’s presidential pardon of Libby—if you protect the BIC, he will pardon your criminal offenses.

            The BIC is rapidly bringing us to a full demonstrative test of his “I could stand in the middle of 5^thAvenue and shoot somebody” declaration [755, 23.January.2016].  He is acting progressively more desperate . . . quite like a cornered felon who would rather die than go back to prison.

            The Founders and Framers instinctively knew that deeply flawed men could become president despite multiple safeguards. English common law inherited by this Grand Republic stipulated the immunity of the sovereign (e.g., the president) from prosecution while in office.  They made provisions for the removal of a president from office for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” [Article II, Section 4].  They vested that authority in Congress: the House of Representatives to impeach, the Senate to judge the case and acquit or convict.  What the Founders and Framers never considered (at least in the recorded words of the day), they did not envision or make provisions for dealing with a Congress that might be complicit or enabling.  The Framers figured future generations might have to deal with a president’s criminal conduct.  What they could not imagine was Congress being an accomplice. We live in interesting times!

            Can you hear me now?

            On Monday morning, the FBI executed a federal search warrant on the office, residence and hotel room of Michael Dean Cohen—the BIC’s “personal” attorney, his Mister Fix-It, his less cool Ray Donovan.  The Mueller investigative team apparently supplied the substantiating evidence to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), who in turn sought the federal search warrant.  Given the highly sensitive nature of the Cohen-Trump relationship, I suspect they have considerable evidence of criminal wrongdoing.  I would not be surprised to see an indictment and formal charges soon.  If the BIC held any hope that his affairs would not be under scrutiny by the Special Counsel, I believe all doubt has been vanquished.

            Then later that day, at a previously scheduled Press event regarding the Syrian chemical attack last Saturday, the BIC made an opening statement that whined about the Cohen search.  The BIC said quite a number of outrageous and false statements, far too many for the limited capacity of this humble forum. I shall illuminate just a few:

“[T]hey broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys.”

To be precise, they (the FBI) did NOT break into Cohen’s properties.  They executed a proper federal search warrant authorized in accordance with the law by a federal district judge.

“And it’s a disgraceful situation. It’s a total witch hunt.”

Again, to be precise, by definition, it cannot be a witch hunt since due process was followed exactly as outlined in the law.

"[I]t's a disgrace.  It's, frankly, a real disgrace.  It's an attack on our country in a true sense.  It's an attack on all we stand for."

OK, if this was anymore than his personal opinion, I would call it exactly what it is—an outright lie and a falsehood of the highest order.  The only attack on this Grand Republic has been and is his conduct and behavior. The divine right of kings does not exist in the Grand Republic, despite what you have believed for seven decades. You are NOT above the law.

“[The FBI] is the most conflicted group of people I’ve ever seen.  The Attorney General made a terrible mistake when he did this, and when he recused himself.”

As a private citizen, the BIC is entitled to his opinion about anything.  As POTUS, he is NOT!  His persistent and relentless efforts to undermine the Justice Department, the FBI, and anyone who disagrees with him, who does not bow down to him, or who he perceives is or even might be a threat to his image of himself are incalculably damaging to this Grand Republic.  Attorney General Sessions did exactly what was required by the law, when he recused himself.

            Let us all remember, under our system of jurisprudence, law enforcement and prosecution must present sufficient evidence to a federal judge for probable cause that a crime has been committed and that associated evidence is in jeopardy unless seized by the government. For any government agency (law enforcement or otherwise) to obtain a federal search warrant in this instance required an even higher level of judicial scrutiny due to the potential of compromising attorney-client privilege.

            The BIC’s outrageous statement coupled with his pardon of Libby make his intentions very clear.  He will do whatever it takes to protect his precious image of himself . . . this Grand Republic and We, the People, be damned!

            The BIC was either ignorant of or chose to disregard the wise counsel of ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt—“Speak softly and carry a big stick.”  Early Wednesday, the BIC taps out yet another of his infamous tweets.

“Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria.  Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart!’  You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!”

3:57 AM - Apr 11, 2018

Why is it he still sounds like an adolescent, schoolyard bully?  My gun is bigger than your gun.

            Well, the BIC pulled the trigger and lobbed several dozen cruise missiles at Syria.  Of course, Russia was none too pleased.  Counter claims were thrown back and forth in the Security Council.

            A friend and regular contributor sent along the following, related article:

“This is what I consider while others argue the morality of a given military action.”

http://fortune.com/2017/04/07/syria-airstrikes-tomahawk-missile-boeing-raytheon-stock/

“Syria Airstrikes Instantly Added Nearly $5 Billion to Missile-Makers' Stock Value”

by Jen Wieczner

Fortune

Published: April 7, 2017

 . . . to which I replied:

            So, if I understand the inference, the U.S. military-industrial complex made arrangements to drop barrel bombs with a mixture of chlorine & a nerve agent on a Syrian town to raise the stock price of the missile manufacturer.  Correct?  If that is the implication you intend, I cannot agree.  Occasionally, events are exactly as they appear.

 . . . and follow-up comment:

“We need no conspiracy theory in that kind of detail to understand that Raytheon and the rest of the military-industrial complex invest in chosen politicians, marketing (mostly not advertising), and think tanks.  Those investments return handsome dividends.  Nobody at Raytheon or in their industry needs to give specific instructions to their tools.  The government is set up to repeat policies that have failed the country and profited the corporations back to the Cold War.  I see a parallel to the pharmaceutical industry that treats so many illnesses without curing them.  Don't kid yourself, Cap.  None of this is about ethics or ideals for the people who make the underlying decisions; it's about income streams.”

 . . . along with my follow-up reply:

            Oh, I do not kid myself.  I have my eyes wide open.  We have recorded the consequences of yellow journalism and the Spanish-American War (1898).  We have read Smedley Butler’s indictment of his version of the military-industrial complex in his essay: “War is a Racket” (1935).  And, we also know President Eisenhower’s parting shot admonition regarding the military-industrial complex (1961). We certainly understand the potential and the risks; however, that does not make every such event a corporate conspiracy to make money on the lives of innocent people.  In this instance, I believe, the BIC was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.  Action is better than inaction.

 . . . and a follow-up to the follow-up comment:

“I don't understand why you say ‘conspiracy.’  There's no need for a conspiracy in any direct or correct sense.  The choice of politicians to buy and thorough marketing support make events like this inevitable.  The oligarchs have no need to guide the details. They will make money whether it's Syria, Yemen, or some other place such as Niger.  In actual results, it's all of those and more without any direct instructions from Raytheon, GE, or any of the other profiteers.”

 . . . and my reply:

            I don’t believe I ever used the word conspiracy in this thread.  The dimensions of money and profit are inexorably woven into our decision processes, thus will remain a perpetual vulnerability and object of criticism.

Erratum: My bad! I clearly did use the word “conspiracy.”  What was I thinking?

            Comments and contributions from Update no.849:

“It feels like Mueller is the only one left who can save our democracy.”

My reply:

            I certainly understand the feeling. I have faith in the resilience of this Grand Republic.  We shall overcome and become stronger for our endurance of this continuing insult.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“I guess the other piece of optimism is the activism of the young people.  Saw a quote that 4 million 17 year olds will turn voting age by November.  They are the future.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            Indeed, quite so!  They are the future.

Comment to the Blog:

“From the Special Counsel’s investigation, Alex van der Zwaan got thirty days, but also a $20,000 fine.  Perhaps the penalty is more tailored to the defendant than most.

“The PRC will take the trade war seriously, and will win if winning is possible.  I agree, as do others, that China has committed abuses of trade against us, but addressing them indirectly will fail.  Our benighted President is probably trying to ‘negotiate’ without actually making a statement to that effect.  If that’s what Trump is attempting, it will backfire.

“Using the military as law enforcement is another mark of tyranny and an added distraction in the entire immigration ‘issue.’  If we really wanted to debate that issue, the starting point would be a real discussion of whether immigrants, even the undocumented, do more good than harm on balance.

“Trump denies trying to hide his extramarital adventure(s).  I cannot understand that.  Trump, even more than Clinton, could have dealt with the original accusation by saying,  ‘Sure, I did that.  So, what?’ Clinton had a thin monogamous image to defend.  Not much, but some.  Trump never had or seemed to want such a picture of himself, publicly or privately.  Why bother?

“You and I share our opinion of law enforcement being used to shut down Backpage.com.  That will do little or nothing for the few who actually are trafficked and will harm most of those who voluntarily make a living satisfying others’ sexual desires.  I still believe the morally repressive are being used by the greedy who are actually making the decisions and taking the actions. If there were no money in it, those moral ‘conservatives’ would be taking the ‘moral high ground’ of not involving themselves with prostitutes.  The greedy would find other targets.

“As far as any attempt by the current administration at diplomacy, the only suggestion I have is prayer.  That is a sincere suggestion.

“A follow-up to the discussion of autonomous vehicles: northwest of me here in Columbus, Ohio, is a stretch of US 33 that has been featured on local news as a test route for autonomous tractor-trailer rigs.  The interviews with developers of those rigs clearly and specifically stated the goal as driver-less cargo shipping, which entails unemployment for 3.4 million professional drivers.  I’ll get around to finding quotes on the automobiles, but I believe I have seen that for them as well.

“I find it interesting that your other correspondent mentions Oliver (or ‘Ollie’) North. My only published writing to date is a series of articles for a blog site on the decline of the rule of law in the United States, based on a book by Glenn Greenwald.  Oliver North features prominently in the chapter on the Iran-Contra mess and the subsequent escape from its consequences of most of the criminals involved.  If Mr. North is your correspondent’s idea of a hero, he stands opposed to ‘a government of laws, not of men.’”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: Zwaan.  Perhaps so.  At least the sentence was not suspended.

            No one wins a trade war from my knowledge and opinion.  The worst part of a trade war, We, the People, will ultimately pay the price.  If it is a good guy / bad guy negotiating position, it was desperately ill-conceived.  Yes, it is quite likely to backfire.  On the positive side of a very negative action, if the BIC follows-up to activate his threat, it will definitely show the PRC we are no longer tolerating their financial and economic abuses.

            Re: military on the border.  Quite so!  It is call the Posse Comitatus Act{§ 15 [20 Stat. 152]} of An Act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year [PL 45-II-263; Chap. 263, p.145, session II; 20 Stat. 145 (1878); 18.6.1878} [199].  It is my understanding the National Guard troops have no law enforcement authority and will not be deployed in direct action roles.  This has been done before.  So far, the USG is complying with the law. Unfortunately, I think the BIC is using the military as he is using the DACA folks . . . he is that desperate for his bloody border wall.  For all the largesse and waste pumped by Congress, I say give him his damn wall, so we can get some real things done.

            Oh my, spot on!  He has created, reinforced, amplified and otherwise made this whole situation far worse and more threatening than it ever would have been if he had done as you suggested.  Surely an extramarital affair was nowhere near as bad as shooting someone on 5^thAvenue.  He has made it far worse by his foolish denials and mindless attacks. Exactly . . . why bother?

            I cannot vouch for or support the socially repressive element of our population being used by the greedy.  However, we are agreed, these laws and worse the zealous enforcement of these foolish laws are a gross intrusion upon our freedoms and rights for very little gain.  It punishes everyone with no consequence to the real perpetrators. The real bad guys will simply go underground, as they always have, as others have done under similar moral prohibitions, e.g., alcohol.  If we really want to stop human trafficking for sex rather than just hiding it from public view, then we must legalize and regulate the sex industry in all its forms, to protect consumers and providers.

            A most appropriate suggestion in our current state . . . prayer.

            I cannot argue with your thesis. However, I would offer a slightly different slant . . . reducing the cost of transport rather than unemployment of drivers as the objective.  Perhaps I am just trying to put lipstick on a pig.

            I confess my unabashed bias regarding ‘Ollie’ North.  While he does not know me, I have known ‘Ollie’ since we attended the Naval Academy; he was two years ahead of me (as was Jim Webb); ‘Ollie’ prepared me, and a few others, for Jungle Warfare School in 1967.  I will say, others (higher ups) abused ‘Ollie’s sense of duty and loyalty. He deserves credit; he served his penalty with dignity for his transgressions.  He deserves more respect than he is given.  ‘Nuf said.

 . . . Round two:

“The goal of autonomous trucks, as stated by the corporations developing them, is to eliminate the need for people to drive the trucks.  In the near term, that applies to controlled-access highways.  Eventually, these entities seek to completely automate cargo transportation.  I'll take their word for it.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Your reply is the first I have heard of “controlled-access highways,” presumably meaning vehicles must have qualified automated systems to use the roadway.  That appears to me, at present, to be a bridge too far, constraining freedom of movement.  We shall see.

            On a related note: the airspace has been undergoing evolution for quite some time now.  There are airports and the airspace around those airports that require a certain level of automation far beyond most general aviation aircraft to enter into or land at the airport.  For decades, flight above 18,000 ft MSL has required specific items of equipment, approved flight plans and qualified pilots to operate the aircraft at those altitudes.

            Automobile automation is in its infancy, or at best toddlerhood, in comparison to aviation automation.  It will be interesting to see this evolution progress and mature.

 . . . Round three:

“‘Controlled access’ highway is a technical term for what is known as a freeway, except that it includes toll roads.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Ahso.  I jumped into too many assumptions.  My bad!

            Yes, quite so.  An interstate highway does not have cross-traffic, or pedestrian traffic, or even vehicular traffic that does not meet basic requirements, e.g., minimum speed of 40 mph—a much more benign environment that a busy city street.

Another contribution:

“Most interesting reaction to your objectionable correspondent.”

My reply:

            I thought so as well.  The great thing is the contrast in opinions, perspectives and approaches.  This is a forum for public debate.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)

-->