Update no.908B

Update from the Sunland

No.908B

27.5.19 – 9.6.19

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

            To all,

            This edition is the political version following Update no.907, and covers the first week to Friday evening, in parallel with Update no.908A travelogue.  I simple did not have the capacity to catch up on the news of the second week and the remainder of the first week.  So, this edition is what it is.  I shall be back to normal with this week’s Update.

            The follow-up news items:

-- The Supremes sidestepped the abortion issue [91& sub] in an unsigned opinion allowing a lower-court ruling to stand that declared an Indiana law unconstitutional that prohibited the use of abortion for the selection of fetal characteristics like gender, race, genetic predisposition or disability.  The ruling appears to indicate the Supremes are not yet ready to address the issue, yet again, even with two, new, conservative justices.

-- The case against Julian Assange [453 & sub] continues to grow in U.S. District Court.  The USG filed its charging document in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division—United States v. Assange [USDC VA ED Alexandria Division Case 1:18-cr-00111-CMH].  The government believes it has sufficient hard evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Private First Class Bradley Manning (now known as Chelsea Manning) [450] served as a tool, like a remote instrument, for Assange to guide, direct and use to acquire information he sought within the U.S. Defense information network.  Assange used Manning to mine classified documents for his purposes.  Manning was arrested, charged, convicted by court-martial, and imprisoned for his crimes. Assange disclosed his ill-gotten gains and did irreparable damage to U.S. national security, according to the charging document.

            Numerous questions came to mind as I read the charging document.  Why is WikiLeaks focused primarily on the United States?  How do we see documents from Russia, the PRC, the DPRK, the IRI, or any of the other couple of hundred countries?  Why just the United States?  Does Assange hold some unspecified resentment toward the United States, and thus focused his criminal enterprise on this Grand Republic, virtually to the exclusion of all others.

            I cannot allow this topic to pass without noting the BIC’s succinct statement, “I love WikiLeaks.”  The BIC loves WikiLeaks when their disclosures had perceived benefit to his election campaign.  I wonder how he would feel if he actually cared a hoot about U.S. national security, or if he was the focus of attention from WikiLeaks rather than his opponent?  This is one of so many aspects to leadership and specifically political leadership that the BIC fails to comprehend.

-- I watched and listened intently to Special Counsel Mueller’s [804] first and last public statement.  The statement was intended to be the final closing event to the Special Counsel’s investigation and the office. Mueller made it quite clear he had nothing more to add, and the Report will and must stand on its own.  He carefully stated that he had no authority to indict or even accuse a sitting president.  Mueller said, “[The OLC 2000] opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.”  The only process for a sitting president under the Constitution beyond the criminal justice system is impeachment—a political process.  I interpreted Mueller’s words and analysis as, I have gone as far as I can go in leading the horse to water, but I cannot make him drink.  To me, Mueller implied, as strongly as his ethics would allow, to tell Congress, he did his job, now it is time for Congress to do its constitutional job.

            I was impressed with the professionalism and precision of his words.  My opinion of impeachment with respect to the BIC has not changed.  Unless 18+ Republican senators are convinced that impeachment is necessary, then the House should not indict the BIC, since they do not have a reasonable shot at conviction.  The BIC is not protected once he leaves office.  Although as I understand the law, the statute of limitations for obstruction of justice is five (5) years, which is why I suggested earlier that Congress should pass a resolution suspending the statute of limitations [903] in the BIC’s case only, so that he may properly indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison where he belongs.  It would take only 10 Republican senators to pass such a resolution.

            In rebuttal to Mueller’s public closing statement, Attorney General Barr decided to double down using a perfect circular argument, i.e., the BIC was not charged with a crime, therefore there could be no obstruction.  He goes on to stated to Special Counsel Mueller could have charged POTUS with criminal conduct even though he could not indict the POTUS.  Further, he adds his alleged query to the Special Counsel, would you have charged the BIC with conspiracy and/or obstruction if the OLC immunity memorandum [2000 (1973)] did not exist, and reported the response being no, as if that was the definitive statement of innocence.  What the Special Counsel was very careful to note and the AG refused to acknowledge was the inherent fairness criterion cited by the Special Counsel, i.e., POTUS has no means to clear his name in court, thus should not be accused.  The AG’s further circular argument: the BIC could not be accused or charged, therefore he is innocent (until proven guilty).  The AG also conveniently ignores the Special Counsel’s explicit written and public statements that the process to charge a sitting POTUS with a crime rests beyond the criminal justice system (the AG’s domain), and the only such process is with Congress and Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.  I am fairly certain the AG truly believes he is defending future presidents, but he is not; he is only lowering the threshold of acceptable or tolerable conduct of anyone, including the BIC, who holds or will hold the office.

            Numerous independent sources would confirm this assessment—tribal reaction at its worst.  I remain quite concerned that impeachment would be counter-productive without a substantial number of Republican senators calling for impeachment.  Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has started parroting the BIC, i.e., impeachment is treason and a coup d'état by other means.  Unless Paul is a demonstrable minority, I would say emphatically do not impeach.  I will most likely hold that position until Paul becomes a minority among Republicans.  The opposition party must get hard facts in front of We, the People, if there is to be any hope of successful conviction. We've had three, failed, Article II, Section 4 convictions in our history; we do not need a fourth.

            Republicans, except for Representative Amash of Michigan, appear to be quite content to allow the BIC and the Barr Justice Department to lower the threshold of tolerance substantially for acceptable presidential conduct and behavior.  Any bets on how those same Republicans will react when Democrat presidents try a mere sliver of what this president has done?  The hypocrisy is mind-numbing.

-- Now, the BIC threatens Mexico with more tariffs, actually an escalating tariff increasing 5% every month to a maximum of 25% to force Mexico to take back Central American refugees not granted asylum in the United States.  This is really getting tiresome, watching a schoolyard bully brutalize neighborhood children, and we stand impotent and paralyzed to stop him from his disgusting conduct.  The ends do not justify the means.

            Attorney General Barr journeyed to Alaska to meet with native communities and listen to their complaints about the lack of police protection.  To Barr’s credit, he said he needed to go where the need was greatest.  According to crime data, domestic violence and sexual assaults in those native communities of Alaska are the highest in this Grand Republic by far.  It was an important, relevant and appropriate gesture.  I believe he will do what he can from a federal perspective, but law enforcement is not just a federal task; local and state commitment is also required.  The simple fact that the Attorney General of the United States appeared, listened and tried to understand the situation of the native people’s should apply sufficient pressure to improve their plight.  Well done, Mister Barr.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.907:

Comment to the Blog:

 “The precedent for Chump’s resistance to subpoenas is the Watergate tapes.  Remember that?  I do.  I am more concerned today with Investigator Mueller’s apparent reluctance to testify in Congress.

“Let’s not wait for Senators to publicly state anything about impeachment.  They are wrong to do it now.  Impeachment is a trial.  The House, not the Senate, has the duty to find probable cause.  As with a civil or criminal trial, the presentation of evidence ought to determine the verdict.  Going ahead with the trial would help to heal our national divisions over the man’s conduct, if history is a guide.

“Note on the trade war: China’s not buying soybeans from the USA now.  Where does China get them today?  Russia!  Makes me wonder.

“The precedent for the Assange charges is the Pentagon Papers.  It's another distraction.

“I want to repeat the importance of critical reading/listening (i.e., language) in any debate.  Language shapes the abortion debate.  Also, note the use of emotion over reason.  For example, your other commenter accuses you of feeling ‘hateful’ rather than of being wrong in your facts or predictions.”

My response to the Blog:

            To be clear, I was referring to the BIC’s universal, broad resistance to all subpoenas—certainly not selective.  To my knowledge, neither Nixon nor Clinton ever took such a broad resistance to all subpoenas as well as carryout a general obstructive stance, e.g., preemptive prohibition of McGahn’s testimony, and perhaps even Mueller’s (although that is not yet clear to me).  I do understand Mueller’s reluctance; he has consistently tried to remain apolitical in his professional life.  Testimony before a congressional committee will be an extraordinarily political event.  As I see his resistance so far, it is to minimize the tribal ridiculousness of contemporary congressional testimony.  Nonetheless, I want and feel we need to listen attentively to his testimony, full stop.

            I am not suggesting senators need to or should declare their position regarding impeachment or conviction.  At the moment, the Speaker is acting like an attorney general; she is calculating a likelihood of the conviction threshold. Every decent prosecutor has to make exactly the same judgment.  Many cases never go to trial because the prosecutor calculates an insufficient likelihood of conviction.  Rest assured, as I have stated, I believe there is more than enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to make the BIC the ONLY U.S. president to be forcefully removed from office (conviction)—history should so record.  He deserves humiliation, although he would never allow himself to be so humbled [even if convicted & removed, he will unilaterally declare victory (in some form)].  I’m with you; to properly punctuate his abysmal presidency we need an appropriate termination; the next best thing is a landslide election defeat (rejection).

            Good question.  I do not know.  I do know the prices are falling because demand has seriously dropped off. I cannot imagine where the replacement of U.S. capacity could be coming from.  I’ve never seen Russia as a soybean-producing region.  Good Q though.

            So, given your statement, are you equating Assange with the New York Times and Washington Post?  To my knowledge of that episode in history, I do not believe either newspaper actively encouraged or supported Daniel Ellsberg. I see a huge difference between the two events.  BTW, I’m reading the latest charging document against Assange; more to follow.

            Exactly, that was the beauty of the NYT article; very well done and apropos from my perspective.

. . . Round two:

 “In my bit about the Russians selling soybeans to China, I asked a rhetorical question.  That was a mistake.  My information came from a CBS News report, if I recall correctly.

“Assange/Wikileaks is the functional equivalent of those newspapers that published the Pentagon Papers.”

. . . my response to round two:

            Sorry; I missed that aspect.  No worries.

            Well, about the only way to resolve this one is with physical evidence in a court of law.  If the USG cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Assange crossed the line, then he should be acquitted.  At present, based on the facts we have, I cannot agree that he was the passive recipient, and thus protected by the 1st Amendment.  We shall see.

. . . Round four:

 “The question for me that relates to the Pentagon Papers is whether the First Amendment protects Assange.  I doubt very much that Assange removed the material, and I have not heard that alleged thus far.”

. . . my response to round four:

            It is not alleged that he removed the material.  He is accused of helping Manning crack the password protection for the files, thus aiding and abetting a felony.

. . . Round five:

 “We'll see.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            I just finished reading the grand jury’s charging document—United States v. Assange [USDC VA ED Alexandria Division Case 1:18-cr-00111-CMH].  I will write more in the next Update (see above).  However, I do have one observation to share now.  Manning served as a tool, like a robot, for Assange to guide, direct and use to acquire information he sought within the U.S. Defense information network.  Assange used Manning to mine classified documents for his purposes.  The USG must prove all of this beyond a reasonable doubt in federal court.  Based on what we know so far, I believe it is not looking good for Assange.

. . . Round six:

 “Such are the allegations of the spy services. We shall see if (a) the story holds up in a court and (b) if it does, whether Assange's actions are protected freedom of the press.”

. . . my response to round six:

            Yes, we will.  I suspect that if the USG is successful, this case will become part of the definition of the boundaries regarding freedom of the Press and freedom of speech.

. . . Round seven:

 “Precisely. The Constitution presents that simply, though.”

. . . Round eight:

            Indeed!  The First Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

So, prima facie, the Press has carte blanche.  However, Article III of the Constitution charges the Supreme Court with interpreting those words for posterity.  They have consistently applied limits to those words, e.g., injurious or inciteful speech; the Press cannot commit a crime in furtherance of their objectives, and at one time, all sorts of obscenity constraints were applied by the Court’s interpretation to both the Press and We, the People.

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

Cheers,

-->

Cap                        :-)