Update no.909

Update from the Sunland

No.909

10.6.19 – 16.6.19

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard of Mexico announced a border agreement [789] with the BIC’s administration to avert threatened additional U.S. tariffs [802].  Nothing quite like a bludgeon as the bully’s preferred tool to beat our neighbors into submission to his will . . . well, with anyone he wants something from.  Diplomacy-smo-macy, who needs diplomacy and sophistication; just beat anyone who resists into submission.  Simple enough, right?

-- The House Judiciary Committee and Attorney General William Barr reached an agreement to allow at least the committee access to most of the underlying evidence supporting the Special Counsel’s Report, apparently alleviating a contempt of Congress charge [904] in this instance, for now.

-- With at least partial successful resolution directly above, the House Oversight Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt for not providing documents associated with the citizenship question [889] on the upcoming, constitutionally mandated, decennial census—just more evidence of the BIC and his administration’s obstructive conduct.  A federal judge has already ruled against the administration, so again, at best this is just more delaying tactics.

-- The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, a permanent, independent, federal investigative and prosecutorial agency, reported that BIC adviser Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act of 1939 [PL 76-252; 53 Stat. 1147; 2.8.1939] [570] and recommended that she be removed from her post.  Of course, the White House called the finding “deeply flawed.”  Conway displayed her common arrogance and disrespect for long-established law so typical of the BIC and his administration when she publicly stated, “If you're trying to silence me through the Hatch Act, it's not going to work.”  She went on to offer a snide quip, “Let me know when the jail sentence starts.”  The BIC lamely tried to justify this protection of Conway on First Amendment grounds.  What the BIC and Conway fail to recognize or acknowledge is that federal employees (which they both are) do not enjoy unrestricted freedom of speech. Of significance here, the Hatch Act has no criminal penalties attached to it.  Congress of the day assumed the government employees possessed basic morality and ethics.  The BIC and his administration have destroyed that assumption; they continue to display no discernible morality or ethics.

-- The Justice Department backed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s refusal to turn over President Trump’s tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee [900].  I would love to read the Justice Department’s reasoning on this one, since the law seems very clear and unambiguous to me.  The best this can be is a purposeful delay of the inevitable; the worst is obstruction of justice.  It will take time to determine which it is.

            The attacks on commercial shipping in the Straight of Hormuz and the Gulf continue to mount with the latest being two attacks on transiting oil tankers by what were reported to be flying projectiles. There appears to be some confusion with these latest attacks and the earlier attacks on four in harbor ships. The earlier ships were hit be what appears to be Limpet-type attached explosives that punched holes in the hulls but were not sufficiently powerful to penetrate the inner hulls.  The latest weapons were more powerful and purposeful in that they clearly penetrated the inner hull and ignited the cargo. There are comparatively few nations or entities for that matter that possess weapons of this nature, and even fewer of that number who are in the region and have the motive.  The long and the short of it is these attacks are an act of war.

            I am often accused of biased attention on the BIC’s bad behavior and plethora of false statements, and ignoring the good he is accomplishing.  In deference to that criticism, I feel compelled to report the U.S. Labor Department’s monthly employment data show the economy added 75,000 jobs in May—the 104^thstraight month of gains.  [Just a little related observation to keep things straight: the BIC has been POTUS for just 29 of those 104 months, which to be clear means the majority of employment gains occurred under President Obama’s watch.]  The May employment numbers reflect a pull back from the more robust employment gains of previous months and suggest companies are taking a more cautious approach at a time of uncertainty, slowing global growth and mounting trade tensions.

            The evolving and expanding protests in Hong Kong bring back memories of Tiananmen Square (1989).  A controversial legislative bill established an extradition process for citizens in the Hong Kong territory to be transferred to Beijing.  The proposed law, as I understand it, seems reasonable and appropriate, in that it addresses accused criminals who flee to Hong Kong to avoid prosecution by the PRC.  The question at the forefront of my thinking is, how long will the PRC leadership tolerate these protests?

            ABC News began broadcasting clips on Wednesday, 12.June.2019, from a rather extraordinary 30-hours in the life of the BIC to promote the full program.  ABC News' Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos carried on a running interview of the BIC.  The whole program aired Sunday evening.  The BIC’s words, as selected by ABC News, have caused quite a disturbance in The Force.

            Right at the get-go, the BIC said, “The campaign, the Trump campaign rebuffed [the Russians]. We had nothing to do with Russia.  Hillary Clinton had much more to do with Russia than anything having to do with our campaign.  It said very specifically that, not only we didn’t have to do, but we rebuffed them.  Now, anything having to do with Russia had nothing to do with our campaign.”  We know this statement to be absolutely and categorically false—blatantly false. He is betting that most folks have not and will not have read the Special Counsel’s Report, and have no interest in the truth.  In fact, some citizens have no interest in the truth and only care about what the BIC tells them to believe.  The BIC continued to press his falsehoods when he said, “Mueller said that we rebuffed Russia, that we pushed them away, that we weren’t interested.  Read the report.” I read every single word of the Report; there is not one sentence in the entire Report that even remotely reflects his espoused premise; in fact, quite the contrary.  It was the section of the interview that dealt with “information” from a foreign country, and especially a hostile foreign nation that sent most of us into convulsions.

S: But should he have gone to the FBI when he got that email?

DJT: Okay, let’s put yourself in a position: you’re a congressman, somebody comes up and says, “Hey I have information on your opponent.” Do you call the FBI?

S: If it’s coming from Russia you do.

DJT: You don’t-- I’ll tell you what. I’ve seen a lot of things over my life. I don’t think in my whole life I’ve ever called the FBI. In my whole life. I don’t--you don’t call the FBI. You throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you do—

S: Al Gore got a stolen briefing book. He called the FBI.

DJT: Well, that’s different. A stolen briefing book. This isn’t-- this is somebody who said, “We have information on your opponent.” Oh, let me call the FBI. Give me a break, life doesn’t work that way.

S: The FBI Director says that’s what should happen.

DJT: The FBI Director is wrong. Because, frankly, it doesn’t happen like that in life. Now, maybe it will start happening. Maybe today you think differently. But two or three years ago, if somebody comes into your office with oppo research-- they call it oppo research--with information that might be good or bad or something, but good for you, bad for your opponent, you don’t call the FBI. I would guarantee you that 90 percent, could be 100 percent, of the congressmen or the senators over there, have had meetings--if they didn’t they probably wouldn’t be elected-- on negative information about their opponent. They don’t--

S: From foreign countries?

DJT: Possibly. Possibly. But they don’t call the FBI. You don’t call the FBI every time you hear something that maybe--now, you see the people. The meeting, it also sounds to me--I don’t know anything about that meeting--but it sounds to me like it was a big nothing. That meeting was a big nothing. But I heard about my son, who is a great young man, going to jail over a meeting where somebody said, “I have information on Hillary Clinton.” She’s the one that should be in jail. She deleted 33--

S: She should be in jail?

DJT: She deleted 33,000 emails from--sent by the United States Congress. They gave a subpoena to Hillary Clinton for 33,000 emails. After the subpoena was gotten, she deleted them. That’s called obstruction. And her lawyer should also be looked at because her lawyer--she’s got to have the greatest lawyer on earth because she does that, he did the deleting, supposedly. Not only did they delete, but they acid washed them.

. . . 

S: Your campaign this time around, if foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?

DJT: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen, there’s nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, “we have information on your opponent.” Oh, I think I’d want to hear it.

S: You want that kind of interference in our elections?

DJT: It’s not an interference, they have information. I think I’d take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI. If I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research. Oh, let’s call the FBI. The FBI doesn’t have enough agents to take care of it, but you go and talk honestly to congressmen, they all do it, they always have. And that’s the way it is. It’s called oppo research.

Just this sequence alone is mind numbing and staggering beyond the imagination.  The essence of his statement is, only he (the BIC) should decide whether “information” from a foreign country is appropriate, which means that there will be acceptable “information” (if it benefits his campaign).  Of course, the BIC has no vested interest in making such a unilateral assessment regarding appropriateness.  Further, the BIC is not some common citizen, like you and me; he is the President, the Commander-in-Chief, the chief law enforcement officer, and the chief executive of this Grand Republic.  I truly and sincerely want to hear a Republican, or any American citizen, defend the BIC’s statement.  Please . . . please . . . educated me.  I desperately want to understand how the BIC’s statement is acceptable to any American citizen of any political persuasion.

            Since I was old enough to hold political thoughts, I considered myself most closely aligned with Republican positions . . . from the days of Barry Goldwater’s candidacy.  Republicans love to beat on their chests about their patriotism and crow that anyone who is not a Republican is unpatriotic.  I want to hear how the BIC’s words are consistent with his oath of office as a servant of We, the People, and are representative of patriotic thought.

            What is the rationale to ask us all to ignore what the BIC says?  How do we ignore his words?  I desperately want to pretend he does not exist, but he does.  He is the representative of all American citizens . . . regardless of any one or combination of the social factors (at least that is what the Constitution and law state he should be).  I really want to know how to ignore the BIC.

            Edmund Burke stated for history, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”  As a patriot and a servant of this Grand Republic, I cannot remain silent and do nothing.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.907:

“Well we’ve sent your BIC home-he did behave himself!  He attended various D-day 75 events and spoke calmly.  The BBC have dedicated the entire morning’s programmes to the services in Normandy with many plus 90-year-old veterans on parade-extraordinarily moving to see these guys weeping as they told their stories.”

My reply:

            What I saw of the BIC’s performance in the UK and around the D-Day commemoration was not a matter of behaving, because he has lowered the bar so bloody low.  He continues to appear awkward and ill at ease.  I am grateful that you think he behaved himself—a positive step forward.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.908A:

“Your best blog ever ! Not one Trump diss ! Welcome back !!”

Comment to the Blog:

“Thank you for the interesting excursion.   I have a friend or two that like cruises.  For various reasons, I travel on land but find ocean voyages of interest.  I would like to visit Jamaica in particular and take time to explore the island.  Your entire trip sounds quite enjoyable.

“I'd like to see the Mississippi from the water.  I'm not sure about the waiting cargo ships you saw, but I know that New Orleans is a major port.  The navigable system is vast and serves an immense agricultural export business as well as many other industries that export and import.

“You may be aware of man's long history of trying to control the Mississippi.  Upriver, various people worry about a construction called the Old River Control Structure above Baton Rouge.  Should that fail in its function, Old Man River will find his way to the Gulf via the Atchafalaya Basin, causing great chaos.”

My response to the Blog:

            I’ve become quite the homebody—quite content with my writing.  I’ve never really been a fan of moving, and traveling feels like mini-moving. So, staying in a nice moving hotel with great amenities seems like a worthy compromise.  We enjoy it.

            Yes, New Orleans is a major port.  There were empty and loaded ships & barges going to other ports north of New Orleans, but I was frankly surprised, somewhat shocked, by how many ships and barge assemblies were holding in place. The one fact that really surprised me was the barge tugs clearly thrusting their barge assemblies into the flooded tree lines inside the levees.

            Yes, indeed, the vast river transport complex that feeds the lower Mississippi River is incredibly large and pervasive—the rivers Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, et al.  The river transport system is vital to agriculture and industry, and has been for centuries.  In one of my peculiarities, I note the ship names and registration countries. There are ships from all over the world on that river.

            A lot of flood control measures and structures were quite visible on the lower Mississippi River.  I am fascinated with the engineering.  However, nature has a unique way of overcoming the best of our engineering, e.g., structures designed to handle the statistical 500-year flood will be overwhelmed by a 1000-year flood that can happen in any spring season when strong cold front weather systems combine with snowmelt.

. . . Round two:

“I certainly share the ‘moving hotel room’ concept.  On land, that's called RVing.  You get the added benefit of it being your own personal room(s), complete with cooking, etc.  I have done the minimalist version of that, van-dwelling, and I may well do it again.  That's easily my favorite way to travel.”

. . . my response to round two:

            Yeah, RV’ing is quite similar.  I hope you get to try cruising someday; it is better than

RV’ing or van-dwelling.  There is always hope.

. . . Round three:

“Whether cruising is ‘better’ would depend on the traveler's tastes and preferences, and it's important to suit your own.  I'm glad you get great returns from cruising, but I do better with self-contained overland travel.  I have a major preference for my own personally chosen ‘home’ surroundings and my solitude.  Also, I have issues with motion sickness and with time structured by others.  There are a couple more items, too, but the bottom line is that I enjoy independent land-based travel a great deal.”

. . . my response to round three:

            That is exactly what counts, my friend; but, I think you know that already.  Most of all . . . enjoy!

            Comments and contributions from Update no.908B:

Comment to the Blog:

“We shall see what comes of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation.  He shows far less enthusiasm for the spotlight than his predecessors who pursued Presidents back to Nixon.  The ‘leaders’ of the Democratic Party seem to share his timidity.  If you're waiting for Chump to leave office, it may be a while.  If current trends continue, that will be in January of 2025.  That is plenty of time for him to finish plundering the Treasury and destroying the government.

“Attorney General Barr appears to possess a more functional mind than his boss, but that only makes him more culpable than if he were the tool he will claim to be at some future time.

“You and I both recall the most relevant history here, Watergate.  It was not necessary to convict Nixon, and it may not be necessary to convict Chump.  The rats will leave the ship as it sinks.”

 . . . my response to the Blog:

            The thought of the BIC getting re-elected is mind-boggling and mind-numbing to me; but, I certainly recognize the potential. The tribal mentality we suffer today is tragic but all too real.  The Tea Party activists and Freedom Caucus supporters vote in the primaries at very high percentages.  As a consequence, they control the Republican Party these days via the primaries.  The scariest part of that potential is the statute of limitations for his crimes (that we know of so far is 2022 at the earliest and 2024 at the latest . . . for the crimes he has committed so far that we know about and have evidence for.  And, worst of all, liberal, progressives and farther left folks do not vote in primaries at the same percentages as conservatives.  Voting is what counts.

            Side note: a reporter interviewed an elderly woman at an Amash town hall and she claimed she was shocked that the Mueller Report (which she had not read, but only listened to Amash) described crimes. She did not think it was even possible that her beloved [BIC] could possibly commit a crime.  This is a direct display of how effective the consummate snake-oil salesman is; they truly believe they are cured of everything that ails them and they cannot possibly see they have been sold a massive lie.  Further, her statement is a contemporary display of what the Founders/Framers feared so much concern regarding who had the right to vote in their day.

            Oh yes indeedie; Barr has a keen mind and an impressive demeanor (at least in public).  I am disturbed and remain so about Barr’s far more expansive view of presidential power and invulnerability than any Founding document or even thought I am aware of.  Barr has consistently been calm, articulate, persuasive and intellectually grounded.   He is a real-life, contemporary version of Stephan Decator’s famous toast, “My country, right or wrong, but right or wrong my country.”  Hopefully, we find a day in the future when we take a more rational view of citizenship.

            The one salient difference between Nixon and the BIC is the rationality of the two men.  Yes, there are uncountable similarities between the two episodes, not least of which is they both committed felonious crimes and used their authority to obstruct justice; but, the key figures were vastly different, from my perspective.  The BIC has no capacity to see beyond his own vanity and egocentricity; Nixon was able to see the big picture.

. . . Round two:

“The Founders limited voting by class and race, not by awareness or soundness of mind.  Buying Trumpery is a psychological trait, not an intellectual one.  We see that today.  Chump is stronger among middle-class white males than any other group.  In my circles, supported by extensive polling, poor people of any race, age, or gender offer the clown noticeably less support.  So do the few I know among the better off.  Many among us lack education, but we can see the writing on the wall.  Trumpers control their own information sources in order to keep their paradigms intact.  Plenty of relatively neutral media exist, and progressive resources proliferate.  The Trumpers just don't want to know.

“My discussion of Watergate, in this context, didn't refer to the principals but to Senatorial and public opinion.  I was anti-Nixon from the beginning and young enough to be impatient.  That process took quite a bit longer than this one before it reached its climax, but the House didn't await public opinion to begin the impeachment process.

“In recalling this, I began to wonder if Pence would do the same disservice to the country as Ford, pardoning the guilty.”

. . . my response to round two:

            With all due respect, my friend, I think you are not digging deep enough.  The Founders/Framers’ restricted view of voting eligibility was far more about education—reading, speaking, listening, learning, and the basic concern of those with something to lose (e.g., property ownership).  They felt everyone beyond white, male, educated, property owners were not capable of basic citizenship, thus not eligible to vote.  We have expanded that eligibility based on the most rudimentary definition of fairness. While I respect our contemporary definition, I can see why the Framers were so worried, e.g., that elderly woman at the Amash town hall, or myriad “humor” interviews of the man-on-the-street, American citizens who do not know or understand the basic elements of geography, governance, politics, current affairs, anything beyond their tribal allegiance. My observations have nothing to do with any one or combination of the social factors.  “The [BIC’ers] just don't want to know.”  My point exactly! That reality is not good citizenship; in fact, it is the antithesis of good citizenship, IMHO.

            Ahso, valid points all.  I do not think the Speaker is waiting upon public opinion, although in a form I suppose she is at an indirect, implicit level. Her concern is not impeachment for impeachment’s sake; she is focused on the likelihood of conviction.  To support your point, the only thing that will move Republican senators is the threat they will not be re-elected; if or when that pressure manifests, we will see more Republican senators turning against the BIC.

            Good Q: IMHO, I think he would.  I am also quite concerned that no matter who is elected and staffs the political-appointee leadership, the Justice Department will be quite reluctance to prosecute a former president for his crimes.  I think the likelihood of the BIC going to prison, as he should, is remote, verging upon impossible.  In this instance, I am also with the Speaker; I would rather see him in prison than impeached.

. . . Round three:

“The ‘social factors’ (actually, more psychological within a social context) are the deciding factors.  All the intellectual approaches waste energy.  I have no idea how you'd support your notion that the Founders' limits on voting were about anything but ratification, race and social class.

“To be accurate, Pelosi and her kind are waiting for (and probably not seeking out) the approval of their large sponsors for impeachment, but the Senate and public opinion make better ‘optics.’

“The bottom-line reality of Chump being prosecuted is that New York State is more likely than anyone else to pursue him.  Whether they can be prevented from holding him accountable is the $64 question.”

. . . my response to round three:

            I suppose it is all about perspective. My reading of some of the founding documents suggests the contrary, but there is no point in debating the point. It remains my opinion that they were most concerned about the education and interest in those who represented them in Congress, and more specifically about the factors of contemporary issues. Oh, I’m not that naïve to think the Founders/Framers were not affected by their biases based on the social factors, not least of which in those days, women were considered property of their husbands, not citizens, not legally different from people with dark skin pigmentation.

            I appreciate your opinion.  I cannot argue with that . . . as good as any without knowing the facts.

            I think you are spot on correct.  I have no idea how the USG could possibly stop New York State from prosecuting the BIC once he is out of office.  The State cannot prosecute federal crimes; likewise, the USG cannot prosecute state crimes.  Whatever happens I am fairly certain it will be a drama.

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

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)