Update no.904

Update from the Sunland

No.904

29.4.19 – 5.5.19

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The BIC filed yet another suit to block acquisition of his tax returns and financial information; this time against Deutsche Bank and Capital One Financial—Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG [Case 1:19-cv-03826].  This one was filed in the Southern District of New York and read more like a proper legal document rather than political whining like the previous suit {Trump v. Cummings [Case 1:19-cv-01136] [903]}. I suppose the BIC believes the legal instruments were only for his personal use.  If he was not so delusional, he might recognize the vice of the law is tightening and will be inescapable.

            The BIC voluntarily and willfully sought to become a public service employee.  He is subject to the same ethical laws as all public employees, as are some of his children, who are also public employees.  His lawyers are stretching their narrow interpretation of the Constitution and what the lawyers call “legitimate legislative purposes.” As they did in last week’s suit, the BIC’s lawyers claim because there is no explicit “investigations” or “oversight” clauses in the Constitution, the Congress lacks authority to investigate the BIC.  Interesting argument! We will eventually see how the Judiciary will interpret the Constitution and view these suits.  One thing seems certain, this obscene experience induced by the BIC is bound to write new laws and amend other laws, since precedent is no longer acceptable for presidential conduct, in a similar fashion as FDR’s third and fourth terms in office led to the 22^nd Amendment to the Constitution (1951).

-- On Wednesday, Attorney General Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the Special Counsel Report on Russian Interference [804, 898, 902].  Oddly, Chairman Graham spent most of his introductory time regurgitating Clinton accusations rather than focus on the topic at hand.  Significantly, we learned for the first time that a modified redacted version of the Report [that only excludes “6e” (grand jury) information] was provided to the Senate in the classified material Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) with limited access but still some access.  Barr wants us to accept that attempted obstruction is not sufficient for criminal prosecution. Much of the analysis hangs upon obstruction generally needing an underlying crime, and since the Report did not establish conspiracy to collude, therefore there could be no obstruction. That reasoning seem rather specious and weak to me.  As I read the report, the evidence of repeated, consistent and persistent attempts to obstruct justice were clearly and precisely presented by the Report. Further, I was demonstrably disappointed that none of the Committee members grilled the AG regarding the OLC immunity memoranda (which I have also read in their entirety).  The Special Counsel made a strong case that he did not have the authority to render judgment regarding the BIC’s obstruction of justice, and collaterally but implied, neither did the Attorney General.  Barr apparently disagreed, and not one senator challenged his authority to make that determination. Implicitly, the judgment belongs solely with Congress, as long as the BIC remains in office.

-- The hero of the Hillary-bashers, Julian Assange [480, 564], has been sentenced in a British court to 50 weeks in jail for breaching bail while awaiting extradition to Sweden on sexual assault accusations in 2012.  Whether Assange will be extradited to Sweden (sexual assault and rape) or the United States (computer hacking and espionage) remains uncertain.  This sets up an intriguing cooperation situation, if the U.S. Justice Department seeks to pursue it.

-- The ridiculous tête-à-tête of tribal parochialism in our dysfunctional federal government continued when Attorney General Barr refused to appear for testimony under oath before the House Judiciary Committee.  At least publicly, Barr objected to the Committee’s structure of questioning, i.e., it was beneath him to be questioned by Committee staff attorneys.  He is flat wrong and should be held in contempt.  Barr’s foolish move, whether ordered by the BIC, makes Mueller’s public testimony under oath all the more important.  Then, in a truly head-shaking move, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Nagler sent a letter to Special Counsel Mueller, asking him if he would like to testify before the Committee.  In Web text vernacular, WTF!  If I was Mueller, I would respond, no thanks.  This is unacceptable, and I hope saner minds prevail, eventually.

-- Wow!  The Wall Street Journal based a report on the infamous “people familiar with the matter,” accusing the Boeing Company of limiting the role of its own pilots in the final stages of refining the 737 MAX flight-control system.  The serious fall out continued to bloom from the Lion Air crash (29.10.2018) [878, 889] and the Ethiopian Airlines accident (10.3.2019) [896, 897, 900].  According to the report, Boeing test pilots and senior pilots involved in the MAX’s development did not receive detailed briefings about how fast or aggressively the automated system, AKA MCAS, could pitch the airplane’s nose down.  If this report is true and accurate, the constraints on the Boeing test pilots is a very ominous indicator that points to far more serious and deeper problems within Boeing Engineering and Management.  In this instance, been there, done that, and I did not react well to any engineer limiting the information I was allowed to see before a test flight. At the bottom line, it is the pilot(s) who straps into that seat and controls the aircraft into flight and must deal with any system anomaly in flight.  This report does not bode well for Boeing.

            The economic good news continues to roll in for the BIC.  The Labor Department reported nonfarm payrolls increased a seasonally adjusted 263,000 in April, while the separate unemployment rate fell to 3.6% last month, the lowest level since December 1969.  Further, the labor report indicated average hourly wages for private-sector workers grew 3.2% from this time a year ago, matching the prior month's increase. You would think the BIC would be publicly grateful for the economic recovery foundation laid down strongly by the Obama administration, but that is apparently a bridge too far.  So, We, the People, can be thankful for the strong economy, although like Joe Biden asks, “Did you feel the tax cut?” My answer would be, yes, we did; we had to pay more for TY2018—not less.  It was not a tax cut; it was a tax increase.  Oh yea!  I love paying more in taxes.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.903:

Comment to the Blog:

“We, the People didn’t elect Chump.  At least, not a majority of us.  Don’t blame all of us for that slimeball.  If you count the many eligible voters who refused to vote for either major-party candidate, even less of us get the rap for that.

“Hacking is hacking.  Once a given set of technologies and techniques exist, they will be used for whatever purposes they suit.  Is there a concrete reason to believe only Russia does ‘criminal’/cyber-espionage hacking?

“Special Counsel Mueller (a) is a lifelong Republican and (b) seems to shun the spotlight more than most high achievers.  Maybe that’s why he chose that particular memorandum.  He just doesn’t want to be the face of impeachment or other prosecution of Chump.

“There is a clear reason why mental health cannot be used as a qualification for elected office.  Psychology is not engineering.  Mental health cannot be accurately or objectively measured.  Such judgments ought to be left up to the electorate, but money and marketing have made that impossible at present.

“If justice prevails, Chump will have been right about investigations bringing about the end of his Presidency.  Possibly not this specific investigation, despite its damning evidence, but eventual revelations based on some or all of the investigations.

“I will note that if Chump orders someone to act, by definition they do not act unilaterally.  They might appear to do so, but there’s nothing unilateral about following orders.

“If we wait until Chump is out of the office to take action and assuming he doesn’t manage to complete his takeover, the damage will have been done.

“‘The freedom a convicted felon sacrifices’ is a rather bizarre concept.

“Let us remember that Chump, hideous though he may be, essentially provides distractions as malefactors of great wealth change or remove laws and regulations that keep them from accumulating still more money and material things.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: BIC election.  I understand and respect your perspective.  However, I choose to see the election differently. On occasion, We, the People, are called upon to vote in one election or another.  Whether anyone votes and regardless of who they vote for, he is still the President of the United States . . . not the president of white nationalists . . . whether we like it or not.  You may not have voted for him, but he is still our president. Also, it can be argued that those who did not vote for anyone elected him to be our president.

            Re: hacking.  Absolutely not!  There are criminal hackers who are Americans.  It is still a criminal enterprise regardless of who does it. I suppose there is a fine line between criminal activity and cyber-warfare.

            Re: Mueller.  I think if we want to fault Mueller for not going the last 10 feet of that 2-year journey it would be he is a straight-laced, by-the-book guy. He delivered the best he could within the constraints of his charter, which is also why he did not take the natural step to follow the money.

            Re: mental health criteria.  I know you are correct, but still . . . we had plenty of clues, and we made a very bad choice two years ago.  The only tool remaining in the kit bag is impeachment, and I just do not see that as a constructive action as long as there are sufficient senators to acquit.  As I read the Special Counsel’s Report, I see ample evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the BIC obstructed justice and acted in an unworthy, unethical manner during the campaign.  Fortunately for the BIC, I am not a senator.  While I have not seen sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, I am strongly suspicious that he has violated multiple laws in his business dealings, not least of which are fraud, money laundering, bribery and conspiracy, among probably many others.

            Re: BIC ordering.  I believe you missed my point.  The BIC very rarely directly orders anyone to do anything. He hints, winks, and suggests; he does not order—too traceable.  Remember, he is a student of Roy Cohn.  Everything in his quiver is based on plausible deniability. The Special Counsel’s Report overflows with such conduct.  The whole current kerfuffle that he did not order McGahn to “fire” Mueller is a perfect example.  Technically, the BIC is correct; he literally did not use the word “fire.” Is his word of choice “remove” different from “fire” in this context?  Hitler did not “order” Goring, Himmler or Heydrich to plan for and execute the Final Solution, but he sure as hell offered many hints and clues for what he wanted done.  The BIC is no different from Hitler . . . except he hasn’t killed anyone, yet.

            Re: damage done.  I will argue that serious, if not irreparable, damage has already been done and will only get worse.  But, I see very little beneficial value in impeachment without conviction (and removal & disgrace).

            Re: freedom sacrificed.  Bizarre perhaps . . . but I cannot see the value or principle of allowing imprisoned felons to vote.

            Re: malefactors.  Oh my, you got that right!  . . . in spades!

 . . . Round two:

“You used the phrase ‘We the People’ in reference to Chump's election.  That is not true. ‘The People’ would be at least a majority of the voters.  He didn't get that.  He is legally the President of the United States, but you cannot blame ‘the people’ for that.  Sorry if you don't like my disrespect for the man.

“The other hackers I referred to in this context are agents of many of the world's governments.  I cannot imagine at least the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, and the United States in this century and situation not performing cyber-espionage. Any other assumption strikes me as dangerously naive.

“Again, it was not ‘we’ who made the bad choice.  It was a minority of voters, who were unfairly influenced by the Russians and appropriately repelled by the power of money in the Democratic Party.

“An impeachment resulting in acquittal nonetheless reduces the power of the President in a functional way.  However, a successful impeachment would result in a President Pence, which is certainly a chilling thought.  Let us back up to get a broader perspective.  Chump is a symptom, not a cause, of the dysfunction in our nation.

“‘Plausible deniability’ doesn't really go anywhere in an obstruction of justice framework.  He need not have specified the methods and techniques to have tried to obstruct the Mueller investigation or others.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Re: election.  We do not need to re-open our debate on the constitutional presidential election process.  From my perspective, no matter how we cut it, everything stems from our votes (or abstinence), period, full stop.  So, yes, We, the People, elected the BIC whether we voted, voted for him, or voted against him.

            I am referring to all hackers regardless of whether they were sponsored by government agents.  Some hackers are motivated by money (stolen), others by anarchy, and of course government objectives.

            Re: “. . . nonetheless reduces the power of the President in a functional way.”  Sorry, I do not see that outcome.  He would still be POTUS with all the powers enumerated to the occupant of the office by the Constitution without constraint or restriction.  And, unsuccessful impeachment would undoubtedly stimulate his vindictive spirit to unimaginable levels with all the associated destruction.  I absolutely agree: the BIC is a symptom, not the root cause, for the disaster we endure.

            Re: obstruction of justice.  That is my opinion, precisely, which is exactly why I said what I did.  There is plenty of factual evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he obstructed justice on multiple occasions.  We do not need more evidence.  Nonetheless, I am still hesitant to advocate for impeachment without a reasonable prospect of conviction; the exact same decision a prosecutor must make in a criminal case.  He sought plausible deniability (thus his public protestations), but that does NOT protect him from criminal conduct.

 . . . Round three:

“I pretty much understand your position on impeachment, but I have a question.  Why bother prosecuting after he's out of office?  He will be rendered essentially harmless at that point, even if his physical and mental health issues don't incapacitate or kill him by then.  In the meantime, there's no reason to think the DNC will be able to defeat him.  Sanders and even Warren will probably put up with being pushed out of the race in favor of another corporate tool.  A second term will be very, very long if he's not impeached.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Short answer: crime and punishment.  He committed a crime, probably multiple crimes.  He deserves to be tried, convicted and punished, just like any other citizen, including you and me, if we had done even a fraction of what he has done.  He deserves to go to prison.  The message must be clear and unequivocal—no one is above the law.

            A second BIC term is unconscionable . . . for We, the People, for this Grand Republic, and for many of our former allies, who have been disenfranchised by the BIC.

            I might also add, impeachment might well add a sympathy vote factor.  One way or another, I want him rendered to the scrapheap of history on 20.January.2021.

 . . . Round four:

“That second term may be ‘unconscionable,’ but I thought a first term was insane.  I've been thinking about that ever since it came about.  ‘Not Trump’ is not enough to beat him.  Clinton had nothing else to offer beyond ‘I'm not the crazy person.’  All these people are screaming one way or another about Chump, but Biden and his kind don't have something better to offer.  Chump offers something, even if it's kind of insane and he doesn't deliver.  He gets all the attention, too.  If we're repeating 2016, Democratic candidates with better ideas will be pushed out and history will repeat itself.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            I’m with you, Brother.  Insane is an apropos word.

            Agreed.  Hillary was lazy, or physically not able to make the campaign stops. The BIC out campaigned her. I suspect she did not take him seriously enough; she thought she would walk away with the election.  I also suspect an “anything but the BIC” will not be successful in 2020, either, if anyone tries to play that card.

            Whomever runs against the BIC should never forget, he is the consummate snake-oil salesman; he sold worthless snake-oil to 62M people—they drank it, and they believe they were cured.  He has sold worthless crap all his life; he will continue to do so until no one buys his crap.  No matter how bad things get next year, millions will buy his worthless snake-oil, again, which is why abstinence is simply not acceptable.

 . . . Round five:

“The problem with ‘vote against Chump’ is that we want something to vote for.  Corruption with better manners won't do it.”

 . . . my response to round five:

Agreed.

 . . . Round six:

“In our discussion of impeachment, I stated that impeachment, even resulting in acquittal, would weaken Chump.  Your response was that his statutory powers would remain the same.  This message is to clarify that statutory powers aren't essential to my point.  During an impeachment proceeding, a great deal of his energy and resources will be devoted to that.  This keeps him from acting on other things, as it did Clinton and Nixon.  Afterward, even if he's acquitted, officials, in general, will be less apt to simply obey his instructions and pretend to agree with the whims he passes off as policies.  That happened with Andrew Johnson, who made better sense than Chump ever has.  As we've seen within Congress, statutory power is not the sum of power.”

 . . . my response to round six:

            I cannot argue with your point, i.e., his political capital would be seriously diminished, if not spent.

            Unfortunately, I suspect that assessment underestimates the grip he holds on that segment of our society.  He was not wrong when he observed, “I could shoot someone . . . ,” or “Grab ‘em by the pussy.”  There are more than a few who will support him no matter what he does, or how we deal with his criminal conduct.  They have willingly swallowed his snake-oil and truly believe they are cured—a very powerful mental state.  We underestimate them at our peril.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)