Update from the Sunland
No.903
22.4.19 – 28.4.19
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The House Oversight Committee sought the BIC’s tax returns [900] as part of the Article I oversight responsibility and in accordance with the RevenueAct of 1924 [PL 68-176; 43 Stat. 253; 2.6.1924] [885] and the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [PL 83-591; 68 Stat. 730; 16.8.1954] [553]. The House issued a subpoena to obtain those records and fulfill their responsibility. Every president since Nixon has voluntarily released their tax returns in the spirit of transparency and assurance to We, the People, and to avoid conflict of interest accusations; there was no need for subpoenas with prior presidents. An interesting, related article:
“Why Should Congress See Trump’s Tax Returns? – Congressional-committee disclosure goes back almost a century and was never so politicized before.”
by Jay Starkman
Wall Street Journal
Published: April 21, 2019; 3:05 p.m. ET
These are only some of many reasons. Perhaps voluntary precedent is no longer sufficient when We, the People, elect a fellow like the BIC and give him the extraordinary power of POTUS. Precedent should become law. The BIC chose to violate that long-standing precedent. The BIC openly defied Congress and filed suit in federal court to seek an injunction (see below).
-- The BIC helplessly denies he ordered McGahn to “fire” Special Counsel Mueller. The BIC is the FAKE; multitudinous Press sources accurately reported the Special Counsel’s Report of findings. From the Report, the BIC used the word “removed” multiple times. Is there any difference in the meaning and consequence? (See below; my review of Volume II of the Special Counsel’s Report)
Sunday evening [21.April.2019], CBS’s 60 Minutes program aired in its first slot a report titled: “A Marriage Made in Hell” that dealt with the Russian government’s vast cyber-warfare activities—the marriage of criminal hacking with State offensive espionage operations. The report illuminated just one of the accomplished Russian hackers—Yevgeniy Michalyovich Bogachev (born: 28.10.1983)—a master criminal hacker and eventually a Russian government operative. Former Justice Department official John Carlin provided the poignant conclusion: “I think increasingly today the Russian government is a criminal syndicate. It’s a rogue state when it comes to cyber activity and it’s causing harm to countries, companies and people throughout the world.” This is who we are dealing with. This is who the BIC and his cronies were and are cozying up to. You cannot listen to information like this and read the Special Counsel’s Report without feeling a disgusting admixture of deep chill and nausea.
Part II
The Special Counsel’s Report
(Part I is covered in Update no.902)
Volume II deals with potential obstruction of justice issues (Volume I dealt with Russian interference with the 2016 election). The Special Counsel illuminates 12 major areas of investigation regarding the obstruction of justice accusations; they are:
A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Comey
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
G. The President's Efforts to Prevent Disclosure of Emails About the June 9, 2016 Meeting Between Russians and Senior Campaign Officials
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort, HOM .
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen
L. Overarching Factual Issues
Even if all anyone does is look at the titles for those areas of investigation, a rather chilling image emerges. For those who have no curiosity to read the Special Counsel’s findings, I will summarize . . . the contents are far more damning than the titles.
The opening sentence of Volume II of the Special Counsel’s Report states: “Beginning in 2017, the President of the United States took a variety of actions towards the ongoing FBI investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice.” (my emphasis) The Special Counsel’s introductory legal foundation analysis refers a 2000 Office of Legal Counsel 38-page memorandum for the Attorney General that concludes: “Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.” (my emphasis) {For those who may wish to read the OLC governing document, the precise title is: “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution -- The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” dated: October 16, 2000. Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General, signed by: Randolph D. Moss, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel. [38 pages] (the text can be found via a simple Internet search.) FYI: interesting date, no?}
Side note: I have been voting since I was 21 years old [the 26th Amendment had not yet been ratified (1971)]. I must confess my ignorance in all that time; I never realized that electing a president placed a citizen employed by We, the People, above the law, contrary to everything I had always been taught—no one is above the law. This revelation makes the election of the president all the more serious and profound, and brightly illuminates why personal character matters in such choices.
He goes on to recognize the reality of whether to charge a president with a crime should be governed by: “Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment [indictment] when no charges can be brought.” The Special Counsel concludes: “Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” This is one of the sentences quoted in the Barr summary letter. I find the language intriguing. He says, “. . . this report does not conclude . . .” when he just finished presenting the legal argument that the Special Counsel (and Attorney General) cannot so conclude; they do not have the legal authority to do so because of the office the principal of the investigation holds. FYI: Sovereign immunity has been established in law since at least 1765 {Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1-7-237 [772], i.e., “The King can do no wrong”}. He also does not state that the OLC memorandum cited precludes the Attorney General from pursuing charges (above his mandate), which implicitly means only Congress can challenge the legal immunity of the president. I think it is unfortunate that the Special Counsel did not acknowledge that reality, but I certainly understand why he did not—his sponsor was the Justice Department—not Congress, or We, the People. The conclusion of his legal basis analysis comes the closest to emphatically stating that the Report should be rendered to Congress in totofor action, since the Special Counsel and the Attorney General are both hamstrung by the OLC 16.October.2000 memorandum.
One sentence observation in the Report speaks volumes regarding the coloration of the BIC’s conduct regarding Russian government actions:
“Several advisors recalled that the President-Elect viewed stories about his Russian connections, the Russia investigations, and the intelligence community assessment of Russian interference as a threat to the legitimacy of his electoral victory.”
[v.II, p.23 (235 of 448)]
The BIC could not (and still does not) see the seriousness of the Russian intrusion upon the 2016 election (or future elections, for that matter), because he could not see beyond the implications to his accomplishment. This is precisely why narcissism should be a disqualifying trait in any presidential candidate, i.e., narcissists are all about self and nothing else; narcissists are so self-absorb, they have little to no ability to see beyond themselves.
When Attorney General Sessions informed the BIC on 17.May.2017, that a Special Counsel has been appointed to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, the BIC said, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked.” [v.II, p.78 (290 of 448)] [quoted as written in the Report] And then, the BIC attacked the messenger; it was all Sessions fault—Sessions did this to him. The BIC had been repeatedly warned that firing Comey would not end the Russia investigation. In fact, the BIC’s firing of Comey made the fire into a raging conflagration; what did he think was going to happen? Did he really think it would all just evaporate and disappear? Somehow he would be more successful than Nixon? Again, we witness the BIC’s narcissism blindness.
The BIC’s conduct is illuminated in graphic detail and the continuously evolving image that the BIC rarely if ever takes direct action in controversial situations, and demands that his lieutenants act (unilaterally, to give him plausible deniability) just like accomplished Mafia-dons and other criminal enterprise leaders. As a related, historical note, I am not aware of Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin (all infamous brutal dictators) taking direct action with their own hands to carry out their crimes. While he may not be chargeable beyond a reasonable doubt, the BIC absolutely appears to be a criminal. Even at the most simplistic level, he has repeatedly encouraged his lieutenants to lie, even under oath, to protect him. Fortunately, there are individuals who refused, others who saw the light and came clean, and more than a few others who were caught, confessed, and are or will pay the price for their transgressions.
I wanted to avoid excessive quoting from the Report, but this excerpt is too important since it points directly at the obstruction of justice charge against the BIC. The Report recorded:
"The President began the Oval Office meeting [6.February.2018] by telling McGahn that the New York Times story did not "look good" and McGahn needed to correct it. McGahn recalled the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire.' This story doesn't look good. You need to correct this. You're the White House counsel."
NOTE: The evidence states the BIC is technically correct; he never used the word “fired.” Yet, what is the difference between “fired” and “removed”; both have the exact same result; the BIC sought to eliminate Mueller as the appointed Special Counsel. Absolutely unable to leave well enough alone, the BIC tweeted:
As has been incorrectly reported by the Fake News Media, I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, even though I had the legal right to do so. If I wanted to fire Mueller, I didn’t need McGahn to do it, I could have done it myself. Nevertheless,....
4:47 AM - 25 Apr 2019
....Mueller was NOT fired and was respectfully allowed to finish his work on what I, and many others, say was an illegal investigation (there was no crime), headed by a Trump hater who was highly conflicted, and a group of 18 VERY ANGRY Democrats. DRAIN THE SWAMP!
4:57 AM - 25 Apr 2019
.....Despite the fact that the Mueller Report was “composed” by Trump Haters and Angry Democrats, who had unlimited funds and human resources, the end result was No Collusion, No Obstruction. Amazing!
5:09 AM - 25 Apr 2019
The Press did NOT falsely report the incident. The BIC very rarely does anything himself; he seeks to make other people his palpable scape-goats; the nature of the beast. Unlike the BIC, most of the rest of us can read, and the words are crystal clear and we are not confused, distracted or dissuaded by his lame and desperate denials. The more the BIC says, by tweet or moving his lips, the more he sounds exactly like a Mafia don mob boss—plausible deniability; as if his words had some other intent. This is the same hopeless parsing of words Bill Clinton sought to use, e.g., “That depends upon what the definition of is, is.]
The old analogy, some might even call it a version of Occam’s Razor, if looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. The corollary to that analogy: if someone consistently acts guilty, he probably is guilty. The BIC has been driven mercilessly by his own narcissism and that performance has made him appear far guiltier than a conviction in the Senate. Sadly, he is doing this to himself by his self-obsession alone. Further, the BIC’s narcissism blindness has become and is a direct threat to national security, in that he is unable to act against the Russian government for their past and on-going cyber-warfare activities. James Comey’s conduct was never a threat to national security or to the performance of the USG; the BIC’s narcissistic obsession is that threat and it is entirely self-generated; thus, it is the BIC who is the threat to the national security of this Grand Republic.
Volume II chronicles in gory detail the BIC’s persistent, concerted, aggressive efforts to convince his lieutenants to document falsehoods to mask his obstruction of justice, and further for those lieutenants to perjure themselves to protect his commands. The Russian government activity broke into and stole private information. If the BIC’s election campaign seeking information ‘dirt’ on his opponent had been stolen money, gemstones, paintings, or gold instead of words, would his supporters have seen his conduct in a different light than they do? Or, is this whole episode just another “. . . shoot someone . . .” braggadocio baying by the snake-oil salesman?
The BIC has lived most of his life as the dictator of his private company. When he ran into roadblocks or other obstacles, he sicced his lawyers on anyone and everyone who offended him or resisted him. Oh wait, he is still doing those things. He commanded his lawyers to file suit in the DC District Court against Representative Elijah E. Cummings (and others) {Trump v. Cummings [Case 1:19-cv-01136 (filed: 22.April.2019)]} to block a subpoena for his tax records. Somehow he either believes, or some foolish person(s) told him, his immunity from prosecution somehow extended to his personal immunity from investigation. Surprise, surprise, the BIC is an employee of We, the People—a public servant. He is no longer a private dictator.
I found it quite interesting that the Report quotes many of the BIC’s related tweets. The sword does indeed cut both ways.
The BIC was repeatedly warned that his greatest exposure was not the firing of Comey, but rather his persistent actions to cover-up or mask his efforts to affect the investigation, and to remove or discredit the Special Counsel, and they would be deeply problematic. The warnings have come to fruition. The BIC has “sown the wind; now he shall reap the whirlwind.” And more poignantly, he has only himself to blame . . . although his narcissism forces him to blame everyone else other than himself.
The Report is replete with example after example of the BIC asking myriad lieutenants and supporters to be his errand-boys and deliver messages of direction, e.g., removal of Comey, Mueller, Sessions, et al. Why did he do that? It could be he is just too busy to pick up the phone and talk to a cabinet secretary—one of his direct reports. Or, it could also be he sought plausible deniability, i.e., that’s not the message I asked him to pass to the attorney general. Given the BIC’s conduct, which explanation is more consistent with his well-established behavior? I will also note here that more than a few of those lieutenants and supporters ignored the request and refused to comply.
The Report reads like a charging document for a mob boss, and yet, there are no charges. If one of the principals in this investigation was a private citizen rather than the president of the United States, there is very little doubt in my little pea-brain the charging document would have yielded at least one (or more), multi-count indictments. If any of us had done what he has done, we would be convicted felons in prison, paying our penance for our crimes. I suppose this is quite akin to the BIC’s “I could shoot someone” (a felonious act) pronouncement; his supporters and loyalists just do not care that he is or might be a criminal.
The vast majority of the Special Counsel’s two-volume Report deals with potential, suspect or criminal conduct of the BIC, his administration and his supporters rather than the Russian interference in the 2016 election. The Special Counsel seems to be implicitly asking, if the BIC’s actions are not collusion and obstruction of justice, where does that threshold lay?
I am not convinced the Special Counsel would have reached a different conclusion in his assessment of the law and Justice Department guidance, e.g., OCL 2000 memorandum, if Congress rather than the Department of Justice had chartered him. I think he would have arrived at the same salient, i.e., “any constitutional tension is reconciled through separation-of-powers analysis”—Congress must adjudicate the president’s conduct.
I spent an inordinate amount of time carefully reading the Report and cross-references. I am immensely grateful for Bob Mueller’s integrity, professionalism, persistence and skill. We needed this report. Yet, I am left with three profound reactions:
1.) Deep nausea that the Russian government was so bloody successful, and the BIC was naively (being kind with that word choice) so complicit in that success due to his own vanity and narcissism;
2.) Serious apprehension, because of the charging document and those associated restrictions, We, the People, are left with such an important task undone. The BIC’s administration clearly intends to obstruct justice and delay the congressional oversight as long as humanly possible. We are a long way from seeing justice done in this abysmal sordid affair.
3.) Profound sadness—this Grand Republic has been dragged into this mess by misguided affinity and loyalty, complicated by genuine frustration with our dysfunctional government. The Russian government may well know us better than we know ourselves.
I found it quite disappointing that the Steele dossier and Cambridge Analytica were not addressed in the Report, since they feature in our political rhetoric, stemming from the 2016 election campaign and current administration. Perhaps those items were covered under one or more of the redactions, but I cannot assess that potential. I really wanted to hear an impartial analysis of both items.
Postscript 1: The hits just keep coming! The House subpoena for the BIC’s tax returns apparently pushed the OSGOO over the edge. He has directed his lieutenants to not testify before Congress. He contends that Congress’ oversight function only applies to “legitimate” legislative matters. The BIC has begun to resist in earnest on not just his tax return, but also releasing the Special Counsel’s Report (un-redacted, in full, with supporting documents) to Congress, thus forestalling any thorough review by Congress.
Postscript 2: Despite the obscenity laid out in graphic detail in the Special Counsel’s Report, I remain opposed to impeachment until sufficient Republicans can be cajoled and coaxed to defy their party leader. Unless there is a reasonable assurance that 67+ conviction votes in the Senate can be attained, I think impeachment is far more injurious than it could ever be beneficial. In the form of a counter-proposal, I would urge Congress to pass a law suspending the statute of limitations specifically with respect to the BIC and produce a sealed indictment to be held for the moment he is no longer protected by presidential immunity.
I watched an extraordinary night of town halls on Monday night . . . well, truth be told, I DVR’d the five Democrat candidate town halls (went past my bedtime). CNN hosted the event at Saint Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire. I listened to every word, but fast forward’ed passed the commercials.
Senator Amy Klobachar
Senator Elizabeth Warren – re: impeachment: “there is no political inconvenience exception in the United States Constitution.”
Senator Bernie Sanders – even incarcerated felons should have the right to vote.
I emphatically reject the notion. Part of the freedom a convicted felon sacrifices is his freedom to vote. Now, once he has served his punishment in good form, then I absolutely agree that his voting rights must be restored. We cannot continue to punish those who fulfill their debt to society.
I emphatically reject the notion. Part of the freedom a convicted felon sacrifices is his freedom to vote. Now, once he has served his punishment in good form, then I absolutely agree that his voting rights must be restored. We cannot continue to punish those who fulfill their debt to society.
Senator Kamala Harris
Mayor Pete Buttigieg – “I’m not a master fisherman, but I know bait when I see it. I’m not going to take it.”
It was an interesting evening of political rhetoric, and just three days later, Vice President Joe Biden finally made it official, as he declared his candidacy and became the 20thDemocratic Party presidential hopeful in next year’s election. The next silly season has begun.
Wonder of wonders! On Monday, the BIC filed suit in federal court in DC—Trump v. Cummings [Case 1:19-cv-01136]. The very first sentence of the BIC’s complaint definitely sets the tone. “1. The Democrat Party, with its newfound control of the U.S. House of Representatives, has declared all-out political war against President Donald J. Trump. Subpoenas are their weapon of choice.” I cannot imagine any respectable, accomplished attorney would write such a sentence, set aside officially file the document with that sentence in federal court. Unfortunately, these are not normal times. One lawyer signed the complaint; three lawyers are noted as attorneys for the Plaintiff (the BIC and his dominion).
I suppose we all knew this day was coming. By this suit, the BIC has raised a constitutional question that may well become a crisis of epic proportion before it is resolved.
As noted in §5 of the complaint, the word “oversight” does not appear in the Constitution. Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch is implied in the array of enumerated powers delineated in Article I of the Constitution, and reinforced by myriad laws passed by Congress and signed into law by previous presidents. The BIC intentionally, purposefully and with malice of forethought chose to defy political precedent. He proclaims himself the most transparent president in history—just ask him—and yet, the facts establish that he is the least transparent by far. We will undoubtedly see more of these lawsuits in the weeks and months ahead, as the BIC seeks to stonewall, confuse, distract, intimidate, and otherwise obfuscate. Again, sadly, the nature of the beast!
The BIC declared, “I say it’s enough,” and added, “We are fighting all the subpoenas.” Henceforth, his administration will apparently resist all congressional subpoenas.
The BIC is getting very poor legal advice, or as is more likely the case, the BIC is ignoring all legal counsel. Since he does not read and is not a student of history (despite his vaporous protestations), he does not realize this is a losing strategy. The Constitution and the law will prevail, and the consequences of his resistance will be far greater than if he complied with the law.
The U.S. economy continues to be a good news story for the BIC and his administration. The Commerce Department reported the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose at an annual rate of 3.2% in 1Q2019. The strong performance was driven by higher exports and inventory investment that softened an underlying moderation in consumer and business demand.
Comments and contributions from Update no.902:
Comment to the Blog:
“I agree about the overboard deportations. Having Stephen Miller guide immigration policy is like having Dracula in charge of a blood bank. There will be some unwarranted losses.
“Special Counsel Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein deserve our praise for their professionalism under intense pressure. Attorney General Barr seems to be acting as if he were Chump’s personal attorney rather than Attorney General.
“Mueller explained his unwillingness to charge Chump with anything and went to pains to write objectively. Specifically, he did not use the phrase ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ in reference to Chump as a predecessor did to Nixon. He carefully pointed out that he did not exonerate Chump. Let us also remember that another dozen investigations continue. Information about those was redacted from the Mueller Report for law-enforcement reasons, but they are mentioned.
“The phrase ‘the intelligence community’s extraordinary letter dated 7.October.2016’ doesn’t carry a meaning to me. You might want to remind us what extraordinary letter you’re discussing.
“The Russian interference appears to date back to 2014. Unfortunately, there’s no way to hold Obama accountable now.
“We have much in common with all of humanity, not limited to Russians or any other subgroup. It’s the people in power we always need to monitor. By the way, the word ‘continence’ in that paragraph should surely be ‘countenance.’ ‘Continence’ gives a very different meaning.
“Re the 2020 election: of course the Russians will continue their meddling unless the U.S. government stops them. They never had a better tool.
“You mentioned Rep. Jim Jordan. Unfortunately, his gerrymandered district comes close enough to my home that I can almost smell it.
“One response to the comments regarding immigrants. I live in Central Ohio, where tracking of criminals (specifically via ankle monitors) is a sensitive topic. We have had a homicide and trial of the killer who wore a functioning ankle monitor the whole time. There’s not enough manpower (money) to monitor those we’re already tracking.
“This week’s blog showed up in an interesting format. It’s possible that resulted from my use of html codes in an attempt to show italics. I’ll leave that out in the future.”
My response to the Blog:
Agreed on Miller.
Agreed on Barr. I cannot imagine how he wrote and said what he did about the Special Counsel’s Report other than he either did not read the Report, or he sees himself as the BIC’s consigliere.
Yes, Bob Mueller was extraordinarily careful with his words. He stopped one sentence short of explicitly stating the Report of evidence and findings must go to the House Judiciary Committee for adjudication. Congress appears to be taking the correct steps to that end. Unfortunately, the BIC is taking steps to resist in every manner available to him. What they apparently fail to recognize or acknowledge is such resistance will only make matters worse. Instead of facing impeachment and becoming the first president in our history to be removed from office, he might very well face criminal prosecution and prison when he leaves office one way or another. I’m still not completely finished. I continue to read, study and learn with incomprehensible sadness.
My apologies; I thought the letter was well known. The subject of the letter was: Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Securityreportedly signed by all 17 chiefs of the various intelligence agencies. It was the first official public statement of Russian government intrusion into the 2016 election process.
No, there is no way to hold Obama accountable for his late & tepid response to the Russian cyber-warfare offensive on this Grand Republic. History will surely judge him.
Yes, you are of course spot on correct. I cannot claim to have visited every country, every community, but I have visited more than a few and lived in some, and my observation is universal—we have far more in common than we have differences. Our quarrel is always with the governments in whatever form they take, not with the people. You are also correct on my word faux pas—damn auto-correct. Thank you for the catch.
Yes; they will. Putin’s regime was successful beyond their wildest imagination. Their methods will undoubtedly mutate. We have to have hope and faith that the real work of the USG has continued despite the lack of support, guidance or direction from the BIC or his administration.
Re: Rep. Jordan. Too bad. We shall overcome.
Re: tracking. Not surprising. The tracking system I am suggesting is far deeper and broader than ankle monitors. Arizona made a valiant attempt to assist the Feds with immigration control, when they passed SB1070 (23.4.2010) [436]. The Obama administration objected under the Supremacy Clause. The USG stopped the assistance, and did not do anything to help. We have needed comprehensive immigration control reform for more than a few decades at least back to the Reagan administration, but the USG is paralyzed by tribal, parochial, political partisanship. States are desperately trying to do something to protect themselves, and all the USG can do is smack down anyone who tries to help them not fail at their job. Failure is certainly not with DHS, CBP or ICE; it is solely with Congress—both parties.
Sorry for the format anomalies. I have been struggling with a phenomenon that occurred three weeks ago. I’m working with Blogspot to figure it out and fix the problem. Last week’s Update was too large and my frustration level too great; I just let it go; the content was there. I hope to have it fixed by the time this week’s Update hits the wire.
Postscript: To my expressed opinion above regarding humanity, I must add that the notion applies to Americans as well; we have far more in common than we have differences. We may haggle over political minutia, but that does not dilute our commonness.
. . . follow-up comment:
“While I agree with the sense of your view on immigration reform, I cannot see it, in its pre-Chump iteration, as a top-tier priority. That may be changing since the dimwit has called extreme attention to the U.S. as a destination for refugees, but under current conditions, we cannot even determine what would happen if he would just shut up about it.
“I'm not upset about your different format; the varied fonts relieve the fatigue of large blocks of unvarying text. I merely thought I might have caused it by my effort to use italics in all possible grammatical correctness.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Your observations only scratch the surface. Sometimes the thought comes to me that Congress seeks chaos on our southern border. Why else would they persist in the parochial partisan bullshit? Everyone wants border security and immigration control. They are haggling over minor details . . . compromise and get on with it.
No, you did not cause it. I did not cause it. It was induced and began three weeks ago. I still don’t have a fix, but I keep working on it.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
