Update no.902

Update from the Sunland

No.902

15.4.19 – 21.4.19

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

            To all,

Sic transit gloria mundi

(All glory is fleeting)

To So Few -- Deflection

           Cap’s 14^th published book and the 7^th book in the To So Few series of historical novels was published by Saint Gaudens Press, Inc., last month (apologies for my tardiness). The book is available in print and all digital formats.  Cap’s website has also been updated with the latest information.

TSF7 – Deflection front cover

[For subscribers: cover image attached]

            From the frustrations endured in the last book (TSF6), Brian and his squadron mates finally take the offensive and carry out ground attack operations in occupied France.  The Blitz tapers off to virtually nothing after the British people suffered the nightly bombing attacks for nine long months across the winter. As spring comes, the Germans turned their attention and military might from Great Britain to the east and the Soviet Union.  Churchill and Roosevelt meet in secret for the first time in their capacities as leaders of their respective nations at Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, Dominion of Canada. They mutually agree upon the need to support and sustain the Soviets, who are now their allies in the struggle to eliminate Nazi tyranny, as well as discuss the path of industrial mobilization to fulfill the promise of the newly enacted Lend-Lease Program.  They also see the first indications of genocidal atrocities carried out by the Germans in Eastern Europe.  Brian and his American volunteer fighter pilots grow in their accomplishments and reputation within the Royal Air Force.  The Japanese Imperial Navy shocks the world with their surprise attack on U.S. armed forces stationed on Oahu, Territory of Hawaii, and the reluctant warrior enters the second world war in a generation.

            As fate would have it, my book release announcement is seriously overshadowed and my current writing projects suspended on Thursday, when the Special Counsel’s redacted report was released to the public (see below).  I have been reading and taking notes since that release, and I am still not done.

            A significant local event did not get much national attention, so I shall do my part and raise it here.  The following article summarizes a series of articles published by the Arizona Republic regarding this story.

“ICE should've never deported husband of fallen soldier Barbara Vieyra – Opinion: Jose Gonzalez Carranza's deportation crystallizes everything that’s wrong with the Trump administration's immigration procedures.”

by Elvia Díaz

Arizona Republic

Published: 9:21 p.m. MT; April 15, 2019 | Updated: 9:05 a.m. MT; April 16, 2019

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/elviadiaz/2019/04/15/ice-wrong-deport-immigrant-jose-gonzalez-carranza-fallen-soldier-barbara-vieyra/3481414002/?utm_source=azcentral-Opinions News Now&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=baseline&utm_term=hero

The title could not have said it better.  This action was wrong in every possible way, except in the minds of the BIC, Stephen Miller, and certain ICE supervisors.  Fortunately, the USG saw the error of their decision and rectified the mistake.  A widower father was returned to his daughter.  These are the kinds of things that happen when the law is enforced at the extreme end of the spectrum without curiosity, compassion or understanding.

-->

            Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller, III [804], submitted his report in two volumes to the U.S. Attorney General on 22.March.2019.

Report on the Investigation into

Russian Interference in the

2016 Presidential Election

Washington, D.C.

March 2019

Attorney General Barr issued his four-page summary of the Report two days later.  On Thursday, 18.April.2019, the Attorney General publicly released a redacted version of the Report with four categories:

1.) Grand jury testimony (GJ),

2.) Classified material involving sources and methods (IT),

3.) Material related to on-going investigations (HOM), and

4.) Related material imposing upon the personal privacy of third-party peripheral individuals (PP).

            First and foremost in the form of preface, I want to acknowledge and congratulate Special Counsel Robert Swan  ‘Bob’ Mueller, III [804], for his integrity, honor, skill and commitment to perform this difficult task against an unwarranted torrent of verbal assaults.  He managed to keep a complex investigation team focused, committed and silent. We owe him and his team an immense debt of gratitude.

            Second, we must convey our appreciation to Deputy Attorney General Rod Jay Rosenstein for taking the action he did in the wake of FBI Director James Brien Comey, Jr.’s controversial termination, and withstanding the relentless attacks on his professionalism to insulate the Special Counsel’s operation.

            Third, I would like to thank Attorney General William Pelham ‘Bill’ Barr for his serious effort to pass along as much of the Report as he thought responsibly possible.  I see nothing suspicious or untoward about the basis or level of redactions.  I have not and will not count the annotated reasons for redaction, but my impression is the vast preponderance of redactions in Volume I are due to “Harm to On-going Matters (HOM)” with “Grand Jury (GJ)” a distant second.  I was pleasantly surprised there was such a modest level of redaction.

            Fourth, I believe it is vitally important when reading the Special Counsel’s Report that Mueller wrote the report for his sponsor—initially, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (his charging official), and ultimately for Attorney General Bill Barr.  His audience, his customer was NOT We, the People. The reality is, Bob had to conform to the rules and guidelines of his sponsor—the Department of Justice.

            We can all breathe a sigh of relief that the BIC’s conduct did not cross the threshold of felonious criminal activity beyond a reasonable doubt and commit “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Thank goodness our president is not a convicted criminal or an agent for Russia.  We needed the investigation to know the facts. We had no way to trust the BIC’s narcissistic rants, chants, incantations and denials.

            Mueller stated, under his charge and the rules of the Justice Department, he did not have the authority to indict the BIC. He laid out the physical evidence for the Attorney General to make that judgment, although the Attorney General himself is also governed by the Department’s rules.  Thus, it seems apparent the evidence was implicitly intended for Congress, not the Justice Department, as the only constitutional authority to charge, try and convict a sitting president, who carries on unethical, immoral or criminal activities.  It is not clear whether the Attorney General or the Executive Branch will make available the full, un-redacted Report and supporting evidence to Congress for their consideration; however, Congress is taking the appropriate steps to demand the Report, as is their right and responsibility to do. The early signs suggest Bill Barr has and will choose to be another one of the president’s bevy of attorneys rather than the attorney general of the United States, which will in turn generate additional constitutional crises.

            We now see some of the facts alluded to in the Intelligence Community’s extraordinary letter dated: 7.October.2016 [782].  Yes, the Russian government’s cyber-attack on the United States began during President Obama’s administration, and the USG response was very late and tepid at best. Reportedly, Obama was concerned about putting his thumb on the scale during the final months of the 2016 election.  President Obama bears responsibility for the paucity of aggressive action to defend this Grand Republic against the cyber-attack from the Russia government.  Yet, that reality does not absolve the BIC and his administration for their broad, persistent pursuit of Russian connections.  The Special Counsel indicted 34 Russian citizens, GRU officers and related organizations for their involvement in the Russian government’s cyber-warfare activities, including social media active measures and offensive hacking operations.

Side note: I have known more than a few Russian people (beyond the Kremlin hierarchy), and they are universally kind, generous, deeply family oriented and affable.  I spent two weeks in the Soviet Union, as a guest of Soviet experimental test pilot Gougen Karapetyan, just before the attempted coup in August 1991.   I helped fellow Soviet test pilot Anatoly Demjanovich Grishchenko obtain a bone marrow transplant at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.  If we could connect with the Russian people, we would find that we have far more in common (and I do mean FAR) with the Russian people than we have differences.  I want to have great, collaborative relations with the Russian people; we could do so much more for a peaceful world, if we worked together.  What I cannot continence or resoundingly condemn are the efforts of the Putin autocracy to undermine the internal politics of the United States and other democracies around the world.

            Active contacts between the BIC’s campaign staff & supporters, and Russian individuals, agents and operatives are staggering when placed in the context of aggressive, broad-based, Russian government cyber-warfare activities.  These contacts may not technically be conspiracy to collude and coordinate with the Kremlin, but such claims are splitting a very fine hair.  If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.  While that analogy is not adequate for a court of law and the rules of evidence, it is incredibly damning for those of us who are familiar with counter-intelligence operations.

            As with so many topics, we are driven into the definitions of key operative words, e.g., collusion, conspiracy, coordination, et cetera ad infinitum.  The detail laid out in dry, cold, lawyerly manner with copious footnotes to establish clear sources, raised the question multitudinous times as I read, what is the threshold for collusion and conspiracy?

            At the conclusion of Volume I, the Special Counsel discussed the basis in law for his conclusion.  He provides several definitions of “collusion” from law dictionaries that essentially state: an agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law (emphasis by me); the crime being conspiracy to collude or defraud.  The Special Counsel acknowledged that he could not develop sufficient corroborated evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of an agreement between the BIC and his campaign officials, and Russian agents.  As I noted in prior Updates, the threshold utilized by the Special Counsel is criminal conduct that can be proved by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.  We must accept that conclusion.  However, the engagement and collaboration of multiple BIC associates with the knowledge and sanction of the BIC with a wide variety of Russian government operatives in various forms are chilling to say the least.  So, Republicans (except Mitt Romney and the late John McCain) by their silence, or their overt, aggressive support of the BIC, have established a new and far lower threshold of political conduct, i.e., engagement of foreign agents to win U.S. elections is now acceptable and appropriate.  I never thought I would see Republicans stoop so low, but these are the times in which we live.

            And the worst of it all, the government has still done virtually nothing to stop the Russians from sowing discord and intruding upon the 2020 election process less than a year away.  I surmise the BIC is planning to using Russian efforts to gain his second term.

            Regrettably, I only made it through 213 of 448 pages by the end of the week, and I must confess to persistent waves of nausea, like watching bad people abuse animals.  The BIC is quite like a serious, bad, and infectious virus. He has contaminated and compromised so many people, but the virus has no conscious thought and does not care about the destruction it inflicts; the virus only seeks survival and replication.  Just look at how many people have lied for the BIC, and the vaunted man continues to cast aside anyone and everyone (once their usefulness to him is spent) and denies he ever asked anyone to lie for him.  He parses his words; he never used the word lie.  How simplistic and foolish he sees everyone beyond himself. It is truly sad to see the destruction and ruin he leaves in his wake, all for one singular purpose—his self-aggrandizement.  His loyal supporters truly believe the BIC is acting on their behalf, for their benefit or protection.  They manage to ignore all of the people who believe the same thing, but reached the limit of their usefulness to him—gone!  He only cares about himself . . . oh wait, and perhaps Ivanka, who he lusts for.  The BIC only seeks to monetize his occupancy of the office we elected him to serve.  He could not care less about this Grand Republic, or We, the People; and as such, he is the antithesis of a patriot.  And worse to me, 60 million good citizens have swallowed his snake-oil, and I’m sure truly believe they are cured. For my opinion, I am and will be labeled a hater or a member of the radical left; I am neither.  I am only a realist, and an attentive observer and a proud patriot.

            On the day the Attorney General released the redacted version of the Special Counsel’s Report and in a Game of Thrones graphic, he tweeted:

                         NO COLLUSION

                         NO OBSTRUCTION

                              FOR THE HATERS AND THE

                                    RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS

GAME OVER

        Apr 18

It is quite apparent that the BIC’s loyalists prepared the graphic well ahead of time in front of the public release of the Report.  Then, someone read parts of the report and told the OSGOO what some of the words said, and he became angry, tweeting out among other rants:

Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated & totally untrue. Watch out for people that take so-called “notes,” when the notes never existed until needed. Because I never....

4:53 AM - 19 Apr 2019

...agreed to testify, it was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the “Report” about me, some of which are total bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad). This was an Illegally Started Hoax that never should have happened, a...

5:08 AM - 19 Apr 2019

....big, fat, waste of time, energy and money - $30,000,000 to be exact. It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason. This should never happen again!

1:47 PM - 19 Apr 2019

Like all of his tweets, it is not worth my time or effort to dissect and debunk the BIC’s fallacious statements.  If anyone believes what he says, then there is absolutely nothing I can present to dissuade such beliefs—facts do not matter in this context.  Does anyone read vindictiveness in these rants

            Friday morning, CNN’s Chris Cuomo hosted a serious tête-à-têtewith Representatives Jim Jordon & Mark Meadows—very illuminating.  I will not attempt to characterize the conversation, but I am left with a pervasive impression—the two staunch BIC sycophants strived mightily to paint beautiful lipstick on the pig.  We have to admire such dedication to a disgusting task.

            A friend, colleague and frequent contributor alerted me.

“Cap-don’t knock the BIC anymore-we’ve just had report he would fix the 737 Max-job done.”

Peter.

[The BIC’s missive in question:]

What do I know about branding, maybe nothing (but I did become President!), but if I were Boeing, I would FIX the Boeing 737 MAX, add some additional great features, & REBRAND the plane with a new name. No product has suffered like this one. But again, what the hell do I know?

3:29 AM - 15 Apr 2019

My reply:

            Yeah, I saw that tweet.  This is one of myriad reasons I cannot speak his name and often refer to him as the OSGOO (Oh So Great Orange One).  He knows all, sees all, speaks nothing but the truth, and is otherwise the greatest president to have every lived or will ever live . . . just ask him.

            Commentsand contributions from Update no.901:

“Your BIC still figures strongly I notice.  He is never far from our news headlines too.  I feel it is such a shame that one person, seen as the very epitome by some and a complete waster by many others comes into power.  I fear our politics here in the U/K re heading for something of a catastrophe over this damned Brexit issue.  The problem we have is our politicians have ‘forgotten’ that we put them into power to carry out the wishes of us the public not to satisfy their own febrile opinions.  Yes as you have correctly stated Cap it is not over yet. What of the future?  I don’t believe anyone knows.”

My reply:

            The BIC and the headlines . . .spot on; it is the nature of the Beast.  He is a believer in the adage: there is no bad publicity.  His election is baffling to me as well; how was he able to fool so many people?  However, I think his election is a measure of the frustration felt within this Grand Republic.  There are elements that his snake-oil salesman persona was able to coalesce at that moment in time: white nationalists, xenophobes, social conservatives, anarchists, anti-liberals, and many other disaffected segments.  Whether that coalition will hold through the next election is as yet unknown.  Further, whether the much larger opposition will mobilize to vote against the minority coalition is yet to be seen.

            I still have faith that the British people and Parliament will eventually rise to the occasion.  I remember that one of Sir Winston’s key and staunchest supporters in those critical days of greatest vulnerability was the opposition leader—Clement Attlee.  I think it can be argued that it was Attlee that turned the tide for Sir Winston to become premier in the first place; and, as they say, the rest is history.  None of us knows the future, but the future will come to us regardless.

Comment to the Blog:

“Declaring a foreign government (or unit of one) a ‘terrorist organization’ carries a resemblance to a declaration of war.  We really ought to have thoughtful, knowledgeable people considering whether to do that, not Chumps.

“I support placing immigrants in sanctuary places provided the government units get resources to accommodate them.  Such places as Detroit and Cleveland would thrive on those immigrants, but most arrive without the resources to find housing and jobs.  Many places have plenty of both, but someone needs to pay a few months’ rent and utilities. Teaching English (ESL) would also help.

“Setting a later deadline for the IRS to turn over Chump’s tax returns wastes time.  We all knew this would go to the courts.  Get on with it.

“The indictment of Obama’s advisor, Gregory Craig, for the same corruption as Manafort means that the corruption predates Chump’s campaign.  That’s important.  It makes Chump a dupe (duh!) or co-conspirator rather than a central player (Putin/Manafort).

“We shall see what effect the arrest of Julian Assange has on national affairs.  Probably none.  Whether Assange violated actual law and whether the Constitution protects that behavior if he did it remains to be discussed.

“Attorney General Barr knew he misused language when he spoke of ‘spying’ on Chump’s campaign.  Criminal investigations often use surveillance to learn whether crimes are committed and what they are.  That is not ‘spying,’ and Barr’s explanation proves he knows it.

“The Wall Street Journal is the voice of Wall Street.

“Chump has a family history of alcoholism.  His tweets always remind me of that.

“I have no difficulty resolving the conflict you describe over vaccination.  There are people who, for medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated.  I would not risk their lives or well-being to accommodate the opinions of those who are misled.  That group resembles and mostly overlaps with Chump supporters.  Their approach to life endangers us all.

“The rules on redacting the Mueller report are neither clearly defined nor intractable.  Such redacting ought not to be AG Barr’s prerogative.”

My response to the Blog:

            Oh, I think the designation is more like a sanction than a declaration of war.  That said, it can be argued that Roosevelt’s oil embargo of Japan in July 1941, made the decision for Japan to seek war.  My point was, the IRGC has been a state-sponsor of terrorism for nearly 40 years.  It should have been so designated decades ago.

            I have been somewhat surprised by the acceptance of the BIC’s pronouncement by some of the sanctuary cities.  I see sanctuary cities as a symptom of how deficient the immigration law is; yet, I am not a fan or supporter of the process.  I cannot imagine that Detroit and Cleveland would be high on the list of target cities, just because I see this initiative as so typically BIC-ish—vindictive.  I imagine no.1 on the target list is San Francisco—the congressional district of the Speaker of the House.  This is a petulant move, not a carefully considered and coordinated effort.  The BIC is thinking punishment, not solution.  Beyond the BIC’s foolish scheme, you must know there will be no federal resources to support such an effort, thus the punishment.  Like so many aspects of the migration/immigration problem, the law has NOT kept up with reality.  We cannot support or sustain limitless migration and asylum—full stop!  Comprehensive immigration reform belongs squarely with Congress.

            I agree precisely regarding the BIC’s tax returns—get on with it.  He is not going to budge; he has far too much to hide.  He seeks to delay and stonewall until it is no longer relevant.

            Prior involvement of others does not absolve the BIC.

            The Assange situation will eventually make it to the courtroom with rules of evidence.

            Oh yes, I agree; Barr knew exactly what he was doing when he chose and used the word “spying.”  I agree with you; court-warranted surveillance is NOT spying. Further, based on what we know at present, I do not believe the basis of the originating and subsequent renewal warrant requests were fraudulent, as the BIC’s talking heads like to claim. To my knowledge, the Steele dossier was NOT the sole source for the FISA warrants.  Further, I suspect much of the Steele dossier has been validated regardless of who paid for it.  Republicans love to point at the Clinton campaign, when the origins of the Steele dossier were anti-BIC Republican operatives.  I still hope the Special Counsel’s investigation and report examined the Steele dossier to the greatest extent possible.

            I have not and do not see “Wall Street” as a monolith. I have seen The Wall Street Journal as a conservative news source, just as I have seen the New York Times as a liberal news source.  I have historically filtered them accordingly.  However, recent reporting and opinions have now led me to question that assessment in the case of the WSJ.

            Family, yes; but, the BIC has no such history to my knowledge.

            I’m not sure I understand your meaning regarding the anti-vaxxers.  As I previously tried to say, I hold considerable reticence regarding mandatory vaccinations.  Yet, this is one area where the public domain and the common good outweigh a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.  To me, the anti-vaxxers are responsible and culpable for the current measles outbreak.  We face the same threat from other communicable diseases we virtually eradicated in the last century—smallpox, polio, mumps, rubella, et al.  The anti-vaxxers have threatened resurgence of any one or all of those diseases.  While there are valid personal safety and religious reasons for resisting vaccinations, the vast preponderance of anti-vaxxers are basing their decisions on fraudulent, pseudo-science nonsense, e.g, autism, mercury poisoning, government conspiracy, et al.  The anti-vaxxers are not appreciably different from the anti-fluoride crowd of 60 years ago.  Yes, I agree with what I think you are saying, the anti-vaxxers endanger us all.

            As I understand the rules of redaction applicable to the Special Counsel’s report, they are reasonable, logical and supportable.  The four articulated items for redaction:

1.  grand jury testimony,

2.  classified material to protect intelligence sources & methods,

3.  matters that could affect on-going investigations, and

4.  evidence regarding un-indicted, peripheral, third parties.

Those all make sense to me.  However, as they say, the devil is in the details.  The interpretation of those reasons for redaction will become the salient of our debate.  I found it reassuring that Barr publicly stated that privacy does not apply to public employees, e.g., the BIC.  We may not see the un-redacted, full report for 20-50 years, and for that reason, the congressional opposition absolutely must review the full, un-redacted report and supporting evidence under appropriate controls.  It will and must fall to the congressional opposition to challenge the redactions.  As a footnote, I eagerly await reading the investigation team’s summary statements, which should tell us a lot about what the report contains.  Barr is compromised, as are congressional Republicans.  Thursday is the day, so they say.

 . . . Round two:

“I think in diplomacy, the designation of a government as a ‘terrorist’ is a statement of enemy status.

“I’m long past discussing Chump’s personality.  The notion of sending refugees to places that don’t object to them makes sense to me.  We have a labor shortage in low-end jobs and a surplus of housing in many places.  Problem solved.  I’d like to see the immigrants get about the same level of support as the Vietnamese refugees back in the 1970s.

“Wall Street acts as an entity most of the time.  The journalism (versus ‘editorial/opinion’) operations of legitimate media seek to meet a standard of objectivity.   Nobody’s perfect, but the Wall Street Journal falls short more and more.

“Alcoholism affects the entire family profoundly.  Any number of sound sources will verify and enlarge upon that.

“My point about the anti-vaccination people is about the spectrum I’ve discussed before in people’s modes of thinking.  The end of the spectrum to which I hope I trend approaches a given issue or idea from a perspective of learning about the realities involved and seeking actions that give ‘the best for the most people.’  Others seek out strong ‘leaders’ to soothe their fears by protecting them from the ‘other.’  These approaches are a range, not an either/or method, but either will push out the other to the degree it prevails in a given person.  The anti-vaccination crowd and Trump’s base run close to the fearful, leader-seeking end of the spectrum.  They endanger us all because they’re responding to their fears, stoked by their leaders, rather than trying to understand reality.

“Those rules of redaction (or any rules) are reasonable if they’re applied reasonably.  I see no reason to expect Attorney General Barr to do that.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Understandable, although I am unable to validate that definition.

            Unfortunately, the BIC’s brain-fart, sanctuary city notion is intended not as a humanitarian effort but rather as punishment to overwhelm those cities.  He does not have kindness in his heart, only anger and vindictiveness.

            The WSJ was not that way before Rupert Murdoch.  Perhaps Murdoch is a reverse-Midas like the BIC.

            Re: alcoholism.  No argument.

            Interesting observations.  Put that way, I actually tend to agree.  Well said, I must say.

            I share your concern about the Mueller Report redactions, which is precisely why Congress must have the full report under appropriate controls to assess those redactions.  As a supplemental note, as of this moment, I am not quite halfway through the Report and it has exceptional value.  More to follow.

 . . . Round three:

“One of my points in these discussions is that I don't care any more what Chump's motivations are.  We know he lacks sanity; let’s deal with the substance of events and ideas.  Sending immigrants to welcoming places is a good idea for the cities and for the immigrants.

“The Wall Street Journal’s editorial position has increased influence on its reporting, but the paper’s very identity has always been Wall Street.

“If you have the time and focus to read 400+ pages, please do.  I look forward to your understanding of it.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Quite understandable and acknowledged.

            Re: migrants to sanctuary cities.  I like your reasoning; it is a noble gesture of magnanimity.  However, how much can those cities tolerate?  The BIC will flood cities (with migrants) that voted against him or do not support him.  The 2010 United States Census reported that San Francisco had a population of 805,235, with a population density of 17,160 per square mile.  What if the BIC sends one or two million migrants to the city?  What if he sends 10 times those numbers?  Can the city absorb such an influx?  That is my point.  He is not going to spread the migrants; he will flood the cities against him—the nature of the beast.  He is a vindictive, spiteful man.

            Re: WSJ.  OK.  I respect your opinion.  Who does the New York Times represent?  New York City?

            Re: Special Counsel’s Report.  I’m working on it.  I just finished Volume I (collusion), and started Volume II (obstruction).  I expect to offer my reading and opinion of Volume I, but I suspect Volume II will have to wait until next week.

 . . . Round four:

“The number of arrests at the US-Mexican border in February was 66,450, up 149% over last year (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/27/us-mexico-border-immigration-el-paso-operational-crisis). Chump isn’t sending ‘one or two million’ immigrants anywhere.  They don’t exist.  Beyond that, I specify whenever I discuss this that the jurisdictions must be provided with enough funds to help with settlement.

“Given that ‘New York’ doesn’t carry the industry-specific connotation of Wall Street, the New York Times can reasonably be seen as reporting on and from New York. Being fairly cosmopolitan, they’ve expanded their geographical range.  My point was and is that they are not named for a specific sector of the economy, as the Wall Street Journal.

“I appreciate your work on the large task of reading the entire Mueller Report.  I await your report.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            My point was not the number, but rather the threshold of tolerance.  Let’s take your number, can San Francisco absorb 30,000 migrants, or 66,450?  If they can accept that influx of migrants, how about 100,000?  Where does the threshold of tolerance lay?  If we head down this road, we had better know each city’s capacity—threshold of tolerance, because the BIC will surely and aggressively press whatever the limits are.  He seeks to overwhelm the Democrat-led sanctuary cities, as punishment; that is just who he is and how he operates.

            Regardless, the WSJ has fallen on my reliable source list.  I can no longer accept their authority.

            I finished Volume I (collusion) of the Report; 213 of 448 pages.  I am still writing my opinion, so far.  I will get Volume II (obstruction) completed next week.

 . . . Round five:

“The threshold of tolerance for each city or state is situational and also dependent on the level of resources provided.  Chump is seriously distractible and any actual operations will be carried out by others, so we'd have to see what happens.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            Indeed!  No argument!  We cannot initiate such an action without knowing the answers to those questions?  It is one thing to build a temporary facility where activities can be control and it is exponentially more complex and fraught with risk to release migrants in an uncontrolled, open city.  The risks vastly exceed any potential benefit, IMHO.

 . . . Round six:

“The risks are far smaller than Chump claims.  Immigrants, legal or otherwise, have a noticeably lower crime rate than native-born U.S. citizens. (This discussion does not address drug smuggling, which is not relevant to resettlement.)”

 . . . my response to round six: 

            No argument.

Another contribution thread:

OKCap where do you propose all these immigrants that are busting in go??  How bout your big back yard ?  I think we could probably get at least 400 - 500 in there?  The whole farce of the matter is the political left doesn’t really want them for anything but votes .. when Trump told them they could come to their sanctuary cities they back-pedaled.. they really only wanted to make Trump look bad and continue causing division but when he told them they could HAVE their beloved LOVE children in their revered Sanctuary Cities they balked .. they just aren’t satisfied (like you) unless they are bickering about anything Trump does or proposes to do .. so do you believe they should be able to just settle wherever they want ??  What if they knock on your door and decide they want to live in YOUR house ??

“CURRENT system ????????

“And who exactly would these professionals be?  Nothing has EVER been done about this crazy mass influx .. it’s NOT a current system!!!  The problem has been here for way too many years!!!  If there was a comprehensive reform law to be devised why has it NEVER been done before???  I say we have sanctuary cities set up and it’s a perfect solution and 1000 times better than what they are fleeing from ..  a good solution for NOW until we can start CHARGING THEIR governments for not taking care of their own !!!!

“[Re: Assange:] A hero 

“If not for him we might have Hillary Clinton as President.. he spoke the truth and exposed her and other politicians for who they really are ..  a brave man.”

My reply:

            The problem and issues are real; no debate. For the record, I have not been and will unlikely ever be a supporter of sanctuary cities.  Yet, the phenomenon is a symptom, not a cause. The phenomenon is an artifact of our failed immigration control system (federal).  Our immigration system, such that it is, has always been a border control process, rather than a defense in depth solution, i.e., once an illegal immigrant gets in, he is unlikely to face enforcement, unless he violates other laws.  That has never been and never will be a successful system; thus, my resistance to the BIC’s vaunted Wall.

            Re: “where do you propose all these immigrants that are busting in go?”  Federal holding camps; it is clearly a federal responsibility.  There probably should be one level of camp for asylum seekers, and another level for all others.

            The burden and responsibility for comprehensive immigration reform belongs squarely but not solely with Congress.  An historic example is Roosevelt’s incredibly risky Lend-Lease Program early in 1941, before the U.S. entered the war. FDR unilaterally proposed the bill to Congress, and three (3) months later, POTUS signed into law AN ACT To Promote the Defense of the United States(AKA Lend-Lease Act) [PL 77-011; 55 Stat. 31].  It can be argued the act was an absolutely vital keystone in sustaining Great Britain and the Soviet Union . . . until the U.S. entered the war.  Without it, both allies might have collapsed, making the process of defeating Nazi tyranny monumentally more difficult than it already was.

            The experts I’m referring to are the professionals in the CBP, ICE and other related agencies.  They live the immigration control problem.  I could even support a bipartisan commission to investigate the full dimensions of the issue, and should be specifically tasked with producing draft legislation to deliver comprehensive immigration reform.  The problem needs a visionary to coalesce the disparate forces within this Grand Republic to produce a defense in depth, immigration control system to deal with not only border control (entry), but also tracking, monitoring and enforcing immigration control law throughout this Grand Republic.

            Re: “If there was a comprehensive reform law to be devised why has it NEVER been done before?”  Simple answer: politically partisan conflicts of interest. Business (Republicans) want extraordinarily cheap, uncontrolled labor.  Liberals (Democrats) seek humanitarian relief, i.e., save the afflicted people.  Those are simplistic generalizations, but they should suffice as representative.  Both political parties seek votes, thus their jockeying for position.  We desperately need immigration control reform.  On the flip side, we are essentially at full employment, which means we need immigrants to grow.  We need guest workers to perform manual and stoop labor tasks; jobs that cannot be filled with U.S. citizens.  The Dreamers deserve our support, not condemnation.  We cannot be the savior of all the downtrodden.  Yes, Guatemalans should solve the problems in Guatemala.  Yet, we hold some culpability with our damnable war on drugs; we are the demand; we created the criminal subculture that now afflicts so many countries south of our border.

            Re: Assange . . . a hero.  Not by any measure conceivable . . . unless you are an anarchist.  He is a criminal.  He was never a journalist.  I do wonder how you or the BIC would feel if you (or he) were the object of Assange’s criminal activity?  I suspect neither of you would be so bold with your praise.  The sword cuts both ways.

 . . . Round two:

“Basically Sanctuary Cities are becoming federal holding facilities as they are funded out of taxation of the American people .. I have never been a fan of them either but the Democrats created them to protect the intruders from being sent back to their countries.. which encourages more of them to enter and stay illegally.. their countries governments should be held accountable and they SHOULD be sent back until they can enter legally.. this country can NOT support every person who WANTS to live in the US.  But they are here and they need to be put in specific locations where they can be monitored.. they should NOT be allowed to live just wherever they want so since Sanctuary Cities seem to be defiantly organized then Trump is saying they should just go there at least temporarily.. if they can prove they are here to make a life for themselves and work and pay taxes and not just leech off the American taxpayers then perhaps they can apply for citizenship.  Just like many immigrants before them who followed the process of law.  I know MANY hispanic people who feel the same .. their ancestors came here legally and they are offended by those who come here and stay so easily and with huge financial support THEIR ancestors never had !!!  They see these intruders negatively just as much as I do !!”

 . . . my reply to round two

            Wow!  The other tribe did it all.  Not my game, thx.

            There are very real reasons sanctuary cities came into existence and none of them have anything to do with “protecting the intruders.”  Cities are not immigrant holding facilities.  Cities are more worried about local crime rather than federal immigration dysfunction.  They seek to encourage and support law enforcement rather than hide or recoil from it.  Sanctuary cities are a direct product of federal failure, and to that I mean the failure of Congress to compromise and deliver comprehensive immigration control reform.

            You are spot on correct.  This Grand Republic cannot and should not support all of the abused, downtrodden, poor of the world.  Yet, helping none, or the refusing all entry is counter-productive; we need immigrants willing to assimilate and become productive American citizens.  So, let’s define the criteria and threshold levels; what do we need, how many and what qualifications?  There are far more foreigners who want to come here than we can accept, so we must decide which ones to accept.

            That said, I am far more interested in a long-term tracking and monitoring system.  We must have a positive control system to find them and periodically check on them.  We need a defense in depth.  We have never had such a system.  We really need one.

 . . . Round three:

“I’m highly in favor of tracking and monitoring too but it’s never been done sufficiently.. these infiltrators need to prove ability to contribute to our country rather than be incessant leeches .. perhaps if Trump is allowed to do his job he can take care of this like no other President has .. 

“Just heard this morning Yuma has stated emergency with way too many more on their way in .. heard 100k or more?

“Mexico’s President needs to do something as well.”

 . . . my reply to round three:

            The defense in depth system I’m referring to in a notional sense requires the cooperation and direct involvement of every level of law enforcement down to the smallest local jurisdiction. None of the existing federal law to my knowledge addresses the engagement of all levels of law enforcement, thus my advocacy of broad, general, immigration control reform. Without the involvement of local law enforcement, the current defend-the-borders approach is destined to failure. There are not, and we cannot afford to put federal CBP & ICE agents in every jurisdiction, and there is no law to authorize or fund such a deployment.

            You use strong language in reference to migrants that I will not endorse.

            I have no idea what you are referring to when you say, “if (the BIC) is allowed to do his job.”  I’ve heard or seen nothing from the BIC or his administration about anything other than “The Wall.”  As I’ve stated many times, such nonsense and simplistic drivel has no hope of being successful . . . without a defense in depth process.  If he has a proposal for comprehensive immigration reform, let’s see it.

            Yes, I saw that as well.  There is no question there is a crisis at the border. Unfortunately, the BIC’s Wall will never fix that crisis.

 . . . Round four:

“Yes your opinion is wrong.. the wall has already proven effective in areas there is one .. walls work which is why we have them around our homes .. what exactly did I say in strong language about “migrants” that you don’t ‘endorse’ ???

“I have come to fully realize now what I have suspected since day one of Trumps election.. the left is going full bore Saul Alinsky style .. when they don’t get what they want they pull constant distraction maneuvers .. now that non Russian collusion is finalized its off to Trump’s tax returns..  all I can say is if and when the next crazy Democrat gets in office I’m going to be more verbal than I ever was concerning Obama.. I will put my frustrations in action and join any legitimate organization that will treat that President just as Trump is being treated.”

 . . . my reply to round four:

            So you say.

            There is no debate that physical barriers in specific locations are beneficial.  In fact, Congress has repeatedly allocated Treasury funds to install those barriers at appropriate locations that CBP has requested and justified. What more do you want?

            Re: “what exactly did I say in strong language about “migrants” that you don’t ‘endorse’?”  To quote your previous missive: “these infiltrators . . . rather than be incessant leeches.”  Such BIC-ish generalization xenophobia are patently wrong and immoral. Are there criminals and exploiters among those who enter this country illegally, yes, without question or debate.  I simply cannot accept such broad generalizations, i.e., that all illegal migrants are “infiltrators” or “leeches.”

            Before you got to parroting the BIC and his bevy of sycophants, I strongly suggest you read the Mueller Report.  The BIC is not the lily-white saint you portray him to be.  I shall quote specifics in upcoming Update(s).

            We shall respectfully disagree.  The BIC incited all of this all by himself—no one else to blame (although he incessantly does).  His conduct, his actions, his words have brought all of this upon himself.

            “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.” And, I have the humility to acknowledge that potential . . . in direct contrast to the BIC.

 . . . Round five:

“If Trump was the target of Assange and deserved it I would still praise him .. Hillary Clinton and all her cohorts are criminals and I highly commend Julian for exposing it ..  the controlled mainstream media would have NEVER done it!!! Those who have tried have been “suicided”.  Thus Julian went into hiding.  A hero by EVERY measure conceivable .  How is he a criminal for finding the wretched truths and exposing them ??? Are we to live under a rock like you???”

 . . . my reply to round five:

            First, Hillary has never been charged, set aside tried and convicted in a court of law.  She is NOT a criminal.  That said, I still believe she violated several federal laws that I am aware of, but I must acknowledge that there are reasons federal investigators and prosecutors have not pursued charges against her.  I must accept those unstated reasons.  It is passingly intriguing that we have had 2+ years of staunch Republican attorneys general, and yet there are no charges against Hillary.  Hmmmm; I wonder why?

            Second, Assange allegedly violated the law and crossed over from journalist to criminal conduct when he allegedly aided Bradley Manning in breaking through the password protections on classified files neither of them were authorized to access.  If those charges are proven in a court of law with rules of evidence, Assange committed a far more serious crime.  So, before you absolve Assange and thrust him up on the monument pedestal, let’s see what the USG can prove in a court of law. He has also allegedly committed other crimes including sexual assault and rape; he should face justice for those charges as well.

            I shall not respond to your last query.

 . . . Round six:

“Perhaps in due time Hillary will be convicted of her multiple offenses, the latest being her breach of security in which multiple political figures were involved including your beloved Obama.  As Hillary has stated publicly (On record ) , to her DNC cronies “If I go down you’re all going with me” .  So you can see Cap it’s a complicated process that involves many and perhaps we can now have our turn to investigate now that the frivolous, time and financial resource wasting Mueller investigation is done and out of the spotlight .. it’s been two years of diversion to avoid any investigations into the ones who really NEED to be exposed and convicted.  Have a little more patience Cap, as it could start happening.  But the Assange arrest is most likely another planned diversion . Now THAT will be in the spotlight.. amazing how the Democrats (and RINOS) are masters of diversion and deceit.  Assange could have been removed at any time but they decided to hold that trick under their sleeve until other failed tricks were exhausted.

“Assange was never a journalist.. he is trained in cryptology.. yes he’s a professional hacker from age 15 and evidently hacking is not even that difficult . Sexual assault I have not heard much about..”

 . . . my reply to round six:

            First, I’m not aware of any credible source that has presented factual evidence of such threats.

            Second, why would staunch Republican investigator/prosecutors care a hoot about Hillary’s alleged threats against the DNC or other Democrats?  I would think such alleged threats would spur them on to greater efforts to charge her.  Sooner or later, we must recognize reality.

            Third, the federal crimes I am referring to have absolutely nothing to do with the DNC, Democrats, or anyone else other than Hillary Clinton.  The multitudinous DNC eMails stolen by the Russians, laundered by WikiLeaks, and used by so many to condemn Hillary do NOT even hint at any criminal conduct; political shenanigans, yes, absolutely; but, all politicians do exactly the same thing including your vaunted BIC, and none of it is illegal.

            Lastly, the conspiracy theorists love Hillary & Bill Clinton—the big, bad, nasty trolls under the bridge.  I voiced my opinion of her actions/decisions regarding the Presidential Records Act and her handling of classified material when she was a candidate for president.  She has not been charged, and until she is, I will condemn these myriad conspiracy theories and theorists.  I understand you do not like her, but that does not make her a criminal, regardless of any of the right-wing conspiracy nonsense.

            BTW, such mob instigation malfeasance like “lock her up” are dangerous in the extreme, inflammatory, and highly irresponsible.  Such mob rule incitement can be leveled at any of us.

            Re: Assange.  He, himself, claimed protection of freedom of the Press. He has referred to himself as a journalist.  His supporters have claimed journalistic and freedom of the Press protections.  He cannot have it both ways.

. . . Round seven:

“Cmon ..  this is assault?????  Hogwash !!!  More BS 

“In 2010, a Swedish woman initially referred to in the press as Miss A said that Assange had tampered with a condom during sex with her on a visit to Stockholm, essentially forcing her to have unprotected sex.  She has since spoken publicly under her name, Anna Ardin.  Another woman, referred to as Miss W, said that during the same visit, Assange had penetrated her without a condom while she was sleeping.”

 . . . my reply to round seven:

            First and foremost, if anyone (female or male) says stop at any point in a sexual exchange, everyone must stop, period, full stop.  NO ONE has any right to persist, no matter how close they are to orgasm.  The same applies to condom use, or any other aspect of sexual conduct.  If a woman is sleeping or passed out from intoxication, she is incapable of providing consent.

            Lastly, are you suggesting that these women do not deserve their day in court, to face their assailant?

            I do not so easily discount or dismiss the accusations of these women.  Prosecutors in Sweden clearly established the credibility of the women at least to a probable cause threshold, if not beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)

-->