25 November 2019

Update no.932

Update from the Sunland
No.932
18.11.19 – 24.11.19
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:
-- The impeachment inquiry hearings [924 & sub] continued—a very busy week.  The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) held public hearings with the following witnesses:
Tuesday:
** Jennifer Williams had been detailed from the U.S. State Department, serving as aide to the vice president on European and Russian affairs.
** Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Semyon Vindman, USA, had been detailed from the U.S. Defense Department as a specialist in Ukrainian and Russian affairs.
** U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Ambassador Kurt Douglas Volker.
** Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council Timothy Aaron Morrison, JD.
Wednesday:
** U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon David Sondland.
** Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs David Maclain Hale.
** Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs Laura Katherine Cooper.
Thursday
** Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine David Holmes.
** Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council Fiona Hill, PhD History, MA Russian and Modern History.
One reality that became brilliantly obvious in spades, the president committed and continues to commit the crime of obstruction of justice by ordering primary (direct) participants or witnesses to not testify in any form or provide documentary evidence to the HPSCI—Pompeo, Perry, Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani, among others.  Executive privilege does not apply when a potential crime is involved.  The BIC’s obstruction of justice, just as he apparently got away with in the Special Counsel’s investigation, is sufficient for removal from office.  However, there are other charges being considered.
            The crime of bribery does not require the use of the word in any description or testimony.  The crime applies to the actions of the perpetrator.
According to 18 USC §201: 
“(b) Whoever—
“(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent— 
“(A) to influence any official act;”
The testimony in the last two weeks amply satisfies the requirements of the statute.  All of the professionals testified in graphic detail that the BIC was not focused on general corruption in Ukraine.  His sole focus was on his personal political gain, and he was quite content to utilize congressionally mandated defense funds slated for Ukraine as his lever to gain the political advantage he sought.
            The suggestion that the BIC may have also committed extortion seems to be a bit of a stretch based on the public testimony, since no one mentioned anything even remotely resembling a threat of violence or injury.
            We bear witness to the best work of a Mafia don or two-bit dictator.  I am not aware of any Mafia don explicitly saying I want you to kill Bugsy; he uses more circumspect words to convey his meaning.  Adolf Hitler never said I want all Jews in Europe killed; yet, there is zero doubt about the meaning of his words in “Mein Kampf.”  The BIC never says directly and expressly that he wanted a quid pro quo for personal gain, just like he did not say the words I want you to fire Robert Mueller.  The Republican defense of the BIC is so bloody weak that they are resorting to such foolish rationale to justify the BIC’s behavior.
            The BIC would have gotten away with this one, too, if he had never mentioned the Bidens, the server conspiracy, or the 2016 election.  He (the BIC) turned the infamous 25.July telephone call from corruption in Ukraine to abuse of power and bribery when he implied congressionally allocated military aid was dependent upon this personal political gain.
            The Republicans are arguing that since the BIC did not get out of the bank with the money or dropped the money bag on the way out, there was no robbery—nothing to see here folks.  Bribery does not require completion of the crime to be a crime.

            With the impeachment hearings dominating the Press, Media and my attention, the latest Democrat candidate debate occurred Wednesday evening, 20th of November, at Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta, Georgia.  MSNBC/Washington Post hosted the event.  I had to record the debate, but I listened to the entire event.  Buttigieg continues to perform well with difficult topics and adversarial exchanges.  Harris percolated up near the top as well as on this occasion.  There were no particular standout moments in this one and no flubs.  One of the important issues that I want to hear about has not and remains beyond these events.  How are you going to work with Republicans to get things done, to achieve the necessary compromises?  I need to know how any future president from any party is going to make the federal government work for the people.  One particular candidate, Tom Steyer, proposes a national referendum provision in the law that might well require a constitutional amendment, but he deserves credit for raising the topic on the national debate stage.   Several new candidates have announced their intentions to run, but have not yet qualified for the public debates.  So far, the impeachment hearings have not made it such events.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.931:
Comment to the Blog:
“Let's start with other topics that may be more important than the Chump.
“I agree with the comments that Hong Kong is a major powder keg.  Thus far, I'm hearing little about allies or competitors, but I'll point out that Hong Kong would be a major prize for any nation.
“Jeffrey Epstein is dead, but his crimes live on.  Prince Andrew gave a ludicrous interview claiming total ignorance concerning a four-day stay with Epstein after Epstein became a registered sex offender.  Also, a friend of mine has pointed out that Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's long-term partner, is the daughter of Robert Maxwell.  Robert Maxwell was a fascinating figure in the history of the UK and various other nations, and her experience as his daughter might be relevant.
“I'll join the chorus pointing out that the Chump has now committed the crime of witness intimidation with millions of his Twitter followers witnessing that crime. 
“Roger Stone's sentencing is set for February.  Stone has until then to decide whether to trade information about the Chump for a lighter sentencing outcome.  Mr. Stone faces a potential sentence of 50 years.
“I prefer the Founders' term ‘factionalism’ to ‘tribalism.’  Underneath most of our current strife is a class war that part of the wealthy class is winning.
“Many are not aware of Tiffany Trump. That ‘I hardly know her’ attitude already applies there.”
My response to the Blog:
            Agreed.  News from Hong Kong this morning is not encouraging.  Security forces have surrounded and isolated the university and begun tightening the noose.  I am having a hard time seeing how this might turn out well.  The next few days may well be decisive.
            The Maxwell dimension is certainly a curiosity in the Epstein affair.  I have very mixed feelings and opinions on this one.  The remorse of hindsight does not justify trashing the lives of others.  Yes, Prince Andrew’s feigned ignorance does not float.  Men and women in that world knew exactly what they were doing.  Regrettably, the moral projectionists are going to squeeze out every drop of blood they can on this one.
            Perhaps just a side note, the impeachment hearings are focused on the bribery and extortion of Ukraine for personal gain; however, I really want his obstruction of justice and abuse of power displayed in the Special Counsel’s Report to be in the charging documents, when they come.  Further, I think he should be charged with blatant violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.  The BIC has violated the Constitution and the law in so many ways; he deserves to face judgment if for no other reason than to drive a stake in the ground for future presidents.
            Re: Roger Stone.  Yes, we shall see whether he sings.  Seeing Stone’s arrogance and age, I suspect he will not sing, hoping for a pardon.  I would not be surprised if the BIC or his minions surreptitiously communicate with Stone to convey the pardon potential.  Frankly, I see Stone as a last-minute pardon like Clinton’s Mark Rich pardon.
            Yes, factionalism is the relevant term in Founding documents.  The Republican Party has de facto placed themselves as the face and agent of that faction and exhibits far too many attributes of tribes.
            Oh my, you got that right.  His persistent fawning over Ivanka verges upon the repulsive, and that trait stands in stark contrast to the public distance from his other children, especially Tiffany.
 . . . Round two:
“The point of bringing up Maxwell is his involvement in international affairs. If his daughter does any of that, that could make the political aspect of this far more important.
“As I read the Mueller Report's included summaries, the understated intention was to provide items of impeachment. There's a great deal more than that and the Ukraine issue available, too.
“We shall see whether the Chump pardons Stone. I'm not certain if that could be yet another count for impeachment, but there's plenty of evidence available without Stone.
“Many Americans, including me, see signs of incest in the Chump's behaviors around Ivanka.”
 . . . my response to round two:
            Oh, I certainly understand that aspect.  I will add further on that line the Profumo Affair in 1963.  Yes, the Epstein Affair could go well beyond sex trafficking and underage sex.
            Mueller walked a very fine line and tried diligently to define that line.  He had no authority under the law to accuse, set aside charge, a sitting president with criminal or even unethical conduct, because a sitting president cannot defend himself in court.  Mueller very carefully presented the facts, just the facts.  It was up to Congress (literally the only body with the authority) to use the facts for charges in articles of impeachment.  I think the House withdrew when the public showed no signs of comprehension.  It is sad.  I read every page, every word, and the facts were graphically laid out.  It could be and should be a textbook example of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and witness tampering & intimidation; and, it looks like he will get away with those crimes.
            I suspect the House leadership has decided that bribery is the salient point of attack, and they believe it will be a waste of time and effort trying to craft articles of impeachment beyond the bribery charge.  I have no idea what the BIC will do; my imagination just fills in based on the BIC’s personality flaws.
            I am with you precisely on the incestuous signs—too much smoke.  It would be consistent with his myriad examples of such conduct.
 . . . Round three:
“My degree field is communication. The specific wording and construction of Mueller's recommendation render it so weak that it can safely be ignored.
“I'm fine with bribery and obstruction of justice as the major points of the investigation, but I certainly would not want to see only one article in the impeachment.”
 . . . my response to round three:
            I understand your opinion regarding the Special Counsel’s Report.  However, I believe Mueller went as far as he could under his charter and his understanding of the applicable law.  Perhaps the subtleties of the law were not comprehensible by John Q. Citizen, but the implication had to be quite plain to any degreed lawyer.  I do believe your observations reflect the majority of citizens, and thus we must move on.  I concede defeat, but I have not forgotten.  The BIC broke multiple laws, and he has apparently gotten away with those violations of law.
            If you took my words to imply only one article of impeachment, I apologize; that was not my intent.  I was trying to say that I think the charges implied in the Special Counsel’s Report should be included as well.  I suspect there will be pages of articles of impeachment.  As noted in Update no.931, the BIC added yet another article live just last week.
 . . . Round four:
“As we've discussed before, we're pretty much in agreement about good parenting concerning sex and sexuality. The likes of Jeffrey Epstein is another matter.  One point sex worker advocates like to make is that they are in a good position to detect coercion, help the legitimate victims, and report the crimes involved if they weren't penalized for their good citizenship.
“Mr. Mueller may have gone as far as he saw fit, but his statement could be worded much more strongly without changing any meaning under the law.”
 . . . my response to round four:
            Yes, we are generally agreed upon proper sex education for children.
            I would agree with your observations regarding the value of sex worker advocates.  Protecting them from retribution of the moral projections should be part of our reformation of the law.
            Well, perhaps, but I thought he did extraordinarily well, walking a very fine line.  Do I wish he had gone the rest of the way?  Yes, of course.  The majority in the House failed to “translate” the Special Counsel’s words into digestible form for the majority of our citizenry and lost traction.

Another contribution:
My reply:
            I’ve heard the news from multiple sources.  I had not read The Atlantic article, so thank you for thinking of me on this.  My comment in Update no.931 with respect to pardons was based on this episode as well as others.  The BIC does his own thing without regard to any professional counsel, after all he is perfect and never makes a mistake.  By doing so, he is undermining the rule of law, in this case specifically, with respect to the laws of warfare—not a good day for this Grand Republic.

A different contribution:
“There was no political advantage being seeked Cap .. bumbling, creepy Joe Biden would have NEVER been a threat to Trump getting elected again !!!! Can you say BLINDERS??? Because you have them on eternally!!!  
“The talk of the corruption involving Ukraine and the Biden’s has been out long before Trump ever brought it up, it’s just AS USUAL nothing more was ever done about it before.. they just hush hushed it just as they have hushed SO MANY evil, corrupt dealings the Democrats have been involved in !!! Hillary, Obama, Epstein.....etc
“This too shall pass but the American people, even good non-radical Democrats are getting very weary of all this disruption the DEM politicians and media keep stirring up .. they DO NOTHING productive and are getting a bad, bad name .. it’s a joke actually.”
My response:
            I respect your opinion, although I do not agree with your judgment.  Facts do not seem to matter in any of these discussions from ours to the impeachment hearings—only the emotions of tribal power (none of the tribes I belong to, I must say; I am only a proud American citizen).  You know, the BIC would have gotten away with this one, too, if he had just focused on Ukrainian corruption and never mentioned the Bidens, the mythical server conspiracy, or the 2016 election.  He (the BIC and only the BIC) made it about him, not Ukrainian corruption; I read his words.  This episode is truly sad, but the BIC has only himself to blame, no one else.  This is about the conduct of future presidents.  This is about cleansing the Oval Office.
            I have no argument to dissuade you from what I believe are desperately false opinions.  They are your opinions, and I respect that.
            I am humble enough to quote Dennis Miller: “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
 . . . a follow-on contribution:
 . . . my follow-up response:
            I will do my best to be balanced and open.  I have gone back to the URL site several times in an attempt to see and feel the big picture before jumping into the details.  A couple of overarching thoughts percolated up.
1.  The obsession with Obama and Clinton (both) seems predominantly misplaced on multiple levels.  A.) It is the past; not what is happening now.  B.) This obsession verges upon rationalization; they did it, so we can do it.
2.  I have no idea what this obsession with Obama has to do with the current occupant of the Oval Office?
3.  As I have done with every president, I form opinions and judge his/her actions, behavior, conduct, policies and such by understandings, perceptions, and opinions of acceptable, good/bad and tolerable.  I judge his actions against the standard, NOT against anyone else.
            That said, you took the time to find this URL, so you deserve a response.  So, here goes.
            Let us start at the top, summary level.  The site lists seven large-scale issues, so I will express my opinion of those seven issues.
1.  “Misuse of the IRS targeting political opponents” – first, foremost and above all else, using the instruments & agencies of government for political gain is wrong at every level.  Obama was not the first to get caught.  Abuse of the IRS specifically goes back to the very creation of federal taxation.  What Obama did was wrong, just as what the BIC tried to do in Ukraine was wrong.
2.  “Operation Fast and Furious illegal arms selling” – It was a bonehead idea from the concept on.  All administrations try bonehead ideas, e.g., Reagan’s Iran-Contra Affair.
3.  “Uranium One bribery scandal” – from everything I have seen, read, heard, this is yet another conservative conspiracy theory, like so many others from the Kennedy assassination to the USG shooting down TWA800, bombing the WTC, and all the myriad others.  This is bullshit, full stop.
4.  “Benghazi massacre” – what happened in Sep’2012, was a tragedy of wishful thinking like so many others in every administration, going back to at least Roosevelt.  They tried to keep from escalating the situation and misjudged the intent of the attackers.  Every administration has them.  The Republican efforts to make the tragedy into some governmental conspiracy was a far greater tragedy.
5.  “Squashing Iranian drug trafficking investigations to gain the Iranian nuke deal” – yet one more conservative conspiracy theory; ‘nuf said.
6.  “Obstruction of justice in the Clinton email whitewash” – I might actually buy this one except for one small little detail.  In the first two years of the BIC’s administration, he controlled virtually every branch of government and every agency, including the Justice Department.  The BIC still controls the Justice Department and Hillary is a private citizen.  Where are the charges?
7.  “Russia collusion hoax” – People who promote this nonsense have not read the Special Counsel’s Report and choose to minimize or ignore Russian interference in our electoral and political affairs with impunity, just because the BIC’s ego cannot tolerate the notion of foreign adversaries helping his election.  This is the worst of the bunch in that it has constrained the USG defense of the United States to serve the BIC’s ego.
            Now, I stepped through as much of the timeline as I could handle.  The first few entries are simple history notations.  One early item struck me as indicative of such propaganda sites.  I quote:
“6 March [2009]. Russian reset. Hillary Clinton in a high-profile photo-op, ‘resets’ relations with Russia which had been strained after the Russian occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, paving the way for the Uranium One deal.”  I thought the public “reset” photo-op was a foolish misjudgment of Putin and the dictator’s intentions, but it was an attempt to repair strained relations.  The reset button incident, while an attempt at reconciliation, pales in comparison to Bush’s “I looked the man [Putin] in the eye.  I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.  We had a very good dialogue.  I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country” to the BIC’s “My people came to me, Dan Coats [the BIC’s hand-picked Director of National Intelligence] came to me and some others, they said they think it's Russia.  I have President Putin; he just said it's not Russia.  I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be.”  Putin is an accomplished KGB colonel and skilled dictator.  Both presidents seriously underestimated the Russian dictator.  This is not to imply that Obama did not have his similar mistakes, e.g., his open-mike, whispered statement to then-president Medvedev, “This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility”; but, it was Medvedev’s response that was the most chilling—“I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin].”  So, Hillary’s symbolic attempt at reconciliation may have fallen flat, but a sign of some vast Clinton conspiracy—no joy!
            Fortunately, I am between chapters, so I devoted more time to this conspiracy nonsense than I normally would.  If this is the source you utilize, I respectfully suggest you cast your research net a little broader.
            With such heavily biased reporting, the whole becomes highly suspect.  As with all conspiracy theories, elements of fact do not make the whole truthful or accurate.
            As always, you are welcome to believe whatever you wish to believe for whatever reason you choose to believe.  As for me, I will stick to the facts.
 . . . a follow-up to the follow-up comments:
“Your what happened in the past stays in the past is a dangerous stance .. so just because a few years go by and no one got reprimanded makes it okay .. amazing .. like Hillary no one gets justice served .. thats why they have done the crooked things politicians and lawyers do is because the people let them get by with it .. that’s why Trump calls it a swamp.
“Trump has helped the Ukraine when no one else has .. Obama (and Clinton) ..not Trump ..we’re the ones chumming up with Putin .. I look forward to the quid pro quo investigation against Biden ... and Obama too hopefully 
“I don’t have an obsession with Obama .. I have high disrespect for him .. he needs to be exposed and tried for his past dealings .. he and others including the Clintons, the Bushes have attempted to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.. they all need to be called out and reprimanded..
“You judge our great President by ‘standard’ .. do tell me in a couple sentences what your ‘standard’ is .. please don’t say everything Trump ISN’T .. that’s a cop out .. and don’t base everything on his words .. he is unscripted unlike others who seemed to always have their words written for them .. he is to the point and not full of BS and lies .. he isn’t out to put money in his own pockets like the ones I will send to you shortly.”
 . . . my follow-up to the follow-up response:
            Whoa dawgy!  I know reading the Update is not your favorite thing to do.  I will succinctly state that I have repeatedly, consistently, and emphatically called out and condemned Hillary Clinton’s whole eMail fiasco was a violation of law and should be prosecuted.  Yet, once again, where are the charges?  We have had the BIC’s Justice Department for almost three years; where are the charges?  Let’s not keep beating a dead horse.
            Nope.  Not buying your argument.  Yes, Obama made a huge mistake not supporting the Ukrainians when the Russians invaded Ukraine.  I saw Obama’s failure in the exact same light as Chamberlain’s failure at Munich.  He was trying to avoid antagonizing Putin, and in the end, he enabled him.  I cannot and will not agree you’re your supposition that the BIC was supporting the Ukrainians.  Congress was supporting the Ukrainians.  The BIC attempt to subvert the congressionally mandated support for his own personal political gain—that is a crime!
            You may not be obsessed about Obama, but every time the BIC does something wrong, you and all of his sycophants cry—Obama!  Obama!  Obama!  I am not distracted.
            I am all in favor of calling out the Clintons, Bushes, the BICs, and all the others.  So, where are the charges?
            OK.  I’ll play.  I expect all presidents, regardless of their background to:
1.  Treat people with respect, even those who disagree with them; any viable democracy depends upon dissent, debate, negotiation and compromise.
2.  Tell the truth.  The BIC’s nonsensical “truthful hyperbole” is neither and just a fancy name for lying.  If he can’t tell the truth, then say nothing.
3.  Obey their oath of office—to support and defend the Constitution and the nation’s laws; that includes defending the 1stAmendment and protecting dissent; and most importantly, to obey the law.
4.  Be a student of history, of the law, to read, to learn, to show some humility in the fact that the office, the government, this Grand Republic is bigger and more important than any man (including the BIC).
5.  Last but not least, be a decent human being.
This is not a complete listing, but it’s a starter.
            Presidents are flawed human beings, as we all are—some more than others; after all, we know there are bad men in this world (and even a few bad women).  When any individuals believe they are not flawed, do not have the humility to recognize their own flaws and limitations, s/he becomes dangerous to others regardless of whether that person is a pilot, a teacher, a doctor, trash collector, or a president.
            There is a lot more to this discussion topic, but it will do for now.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                  :-)

18 November 2019

Update no.931

Update from the Sunland
No.931
11.11.19 – 17.11.19
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            The House impeachment inquiry [929] entered the next phase from depositions to public hearings.  On Wednesday, two administration officials testified in public before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).
-- Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, for European and Eurasian Affairs.
-- U.S. ChargĂ© d 'Affaires ad interim (Chief of Mission-Ukraine; acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine; former ambassador to Ukraine [2006-2009]) William Brockenbrough Taylor Jr. [USMA 1969] [928
On Friday: 
-- former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Louise ‘Masha’ Yovanovitch 
testified before the HPSCI.  I recorded, watched and listened to the testimony of all three individuals in full.  All three of them were impressive for their calm, direct, factual demeanor, professionalism and dedication to this Grand Republic.
            After Jim Jordan’s rant about the whistleblower being protected, Representative Peter Francis Welch of Vermont said, “I say to my colleagues, I would be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify.  President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there,” pointing to the witness table.  That is precisely the point.  No one is above the law (except POTUS temporarily).  We bear witness to the constitutional process by which we draw the line of acceptable or tolerable behavior by the commander-in-chief.
            The issue is NOT a quid pro quo.  The negotiating technique occurs all the time and virtually every day.  It is a normal process of international diplomacy.  What is dramatically different in the BIC’s instance is, he sought personal gain (political advantage) rather than pursuing the nation’s business.  When the BIC says the words “do us a favor, though” [the BIC’s words, no one else’s], it is the essence of quid pro quo.  For the BIC to claim there was no quid pro quo defies his exact words, period, full stop, end of story.  He was using congressional approved and allocated aid to Ukraine for his personal gain.  That is abuse of power, unethical, and outright bribery using the nation’s money, NOT HIS MONEY!  Is this behavior acceptable to We, the People?
            It also had nothing to do with corruption in Ukraine and clearing things up in Ukraine before security assistance was delivered.  The only focus of the BIC on that telephone call was Hunter and Joe Biden, and the long-debunked conspiracy theory that inference in the 2016 election was carried out by the Ukrainians and not the Russians.
            So, we are going to argue where the threshold of tolerance lies.  The Republicans want to move the bar very high to condone the BIC’s conduct as acceptable to them.  The Democrats appear to be working to maintain the bar where it has been for all previous presidents.  Does anyone what to take a substantial bet that the next time a Democrat is in the Oval Office and the Republicans control the House, the Republicans will strive mightily to lower the bar much lower than where it has been for past presidents—other than this one—their boy.  The Republicans controlled the House and Senate for the first two years of the BIC’s presidency.  They sat back and did everything they could think of to protect the BIC, which in turn means directly that they accept and condone the BIC’s conduct.  To those who have served in the military, would an officer or enlisted man be allowed to say and do the things the BIC does?  Would the BIC’s conduct be acceptable in the military?  Or, would it be conduct unbecoming to the service?
            In the defense of the BIC’s conduct, Republicans are publicly stating emphatically that the BIC’s behavior is acceptable for any and all future presidents of this Grand Republic.  We, the People, must ensure our representatives and senators know how we feel.  
            One thing the BIC has done in spades is helped us see clearly the tolerance threshold of the two major political parties.  I hope and trust We, the People, will judge them accordingly.
            NO!  POTUS does not have the right to say whatever he wants any more than a company employee can say whatever he wants, or a uniformed military officer or enlisted man can say whatever they want.  He is not a private citizen.  He is an employee of the U.S. Government and We, the People.  He is the principal representative of this Grand Republic.  If POTUS can say whatever he wants regardless of the truth, then it does not matter what the president says; we cannot and should not believe a word he speaks and writes.  Is that really what we want and expect from the POTUS?  So-called "truthful hyperbole" may be acceptable in real estate and for snake-oil salesmen; it is NOT acceptable and in fact intolerable for a POTUS, or anyone else in a leadership position.
            The BIC acted in a guilty manner from tasking his personal lawyer (Giuliani) to hiding the call transcript in a highly classified compartmented server, to smearing and relieving Ambassador Yovanovitch, ad nauseum.  He acted guilty, which makes all of his actions appear even more suspect.  Anyone of these elements, taken in isolation, can easily be pushed aside as within the authority of the president.  However, taken as a whole, there is no doubt in my mind that he had nefarious intent.

            Just when we thought the BIC could not get any lower and more disgusting, he tweets out this gem.
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors.
7:01 AM - 15 Nov 2019
 . . . in the middle of Ambassador Yovanovitch’s public testimony before the HPSCI.  She has deployed on behalf of this Grand Republic to dangerous places like Somalia.  When has the BIC ever placed himself in danger for the country?  How much more low-rent crap does he need to spew out on all of us before the dedicated BIC-sters reach their threshold of tolerance and join the rest of us in having enough of this bully’s revolting behavior?  Is there no basement limit to the BIC’s despicable behavior for that segment of this Grand Republic?

            Another one bites the dust!  Sometime advisor to the BIC Roger Jason Stone Jr. was convicted in federal court of all seven charges and faces a maximum sentence of 20 years or more in federal prison. As he so often does, the BIC tweets out a message intended to distract, confuse and obfuscate.
So they now convict Roger Stone of lying and want to jail him for many years to come. Well, what about Crooked Hillary, Comey, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Shifty Schiff, Ohr & Nellie, Steele & all of the others, including even Mueller himself? Didn’t they lie?....
9:13 AM - 15 Nov 2019
The BIC does this all the time.  The other guys do it so, so it is OK for my guy.  Well, the others he cited did NOT break the law.  Roger Stone did.  Full stop!  This does not look good for the BIC.

            As U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon David Sondland is about to testify before the HPSCI in public, and especially after the testimony of two fellow ambassadors, the BIC did what he so typically does when his minions have exhausted their value to him.  The BIC preemptively said, “I hardly know the guy”—the first step in throwing him under the bus.  I trust Sondland received the message; he is expendable at the altar of the BIC.

            One final thought for this week, Twitter may well become to the BIC what the office voice recorder was to Richard Nixon.  I’m just sayin . . . 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.930:
Comment to the Blog:
“Your email came to my in-box today. Thanks.
“I don’t cling to the genetic definition of fatherhood. Others do.  That produces the bizarre sexual ethics of polygamous religions, among other results.
“Those people telling us to read the ‘transcript’ (summary) don’t want us to read that any more than the worst kind of Christian preacher wants us to read the Bible.  Neither wants us to use our minds independently.  See also the Mueller Report.
“Unlike the Democratic National Committee, I remember Nixon’s process.  Democrats lost nothing in extending that process, and they aren’t this time either.  Chump’s base can’t re-elect him in any case without other voters who don’t support him now. He’s campaigning according to the Electoral College, but that can only do so much.  The DNC is mostly concerned with the grassroots chipping away at their perceived base.  (That’s what their sponsors tell them.)  Odd as it seems, I think the DNC is just embarrassed at standing up for themselves.  That same attitude costs them votes every time they fail to take a stand on any issue.
“If this process lasts long enough to reach Chump’s resignation or elimination in the primaries, it will have served its political purpose.  New York State and other jurisdictions can then carry out the law.  (There’s also a chance the Chump’s health will stop him.)  Should Mitch McConnell stall an impeachment trial for a while, that’s even better because of the attention on McConnell.  In the long-term analysis, McConnell does more damage to the nation than Chump.  We need that to be more obvious.  We’re not likely to need a Senate conviction, but I also remember that a turning point came with the Republican Senators in the Nixon Administration.  It wasn’t this early in the process.
“Great Britain has been the scene of internal strife dating back to 1066 CE.  That has been primarily low-level discontent in recent centuries (other than Ireland), but there’s no reason to believe they will find harmony.  That saddens me, especially since one of those mail-in DNA tests tells me they dominate my ancestry.”
My response to the Blog:
            I think the eMail problem was on my end.  I upgraded my Mac OS, and somehow some obscure, remote, buried file got corrupted during the upload/install.  Our middle son solved the problem; everything seems to be working fine and normally now.
            There are many knock-on consequences of the paternalism that has dominated our evolving cultures, perhaps the worst version stemming from the Victorian era—“bizarre sexual ethics of polygamous religions” being just one adjunct [FYI: Victorian morality staunchly condemned polygamy and sex in the main (for any reason other than for procreation)].
            Well said, ignorance is the desired medium for dictators and megalomaniacs of any form including religious, e.g., Big Brother and The Party of “1984” infamy (fiction) and Catholic condemnation of the printing press (non-fiction).
            I can agree with your political assessment, although it is only a fraction of the electoral variety in play today.  Whoever makes it through the nomination process and to the actual election campaign must not ignore the constitutionally mandated Electoral College process.  The popular vote (at least for now) is not what matters.  Until the rules are changed, any candidate must play by the rules.
            The BIC’s vast personality flaws will not allow him to resign, no matter how bad it gets, and I do not see any even remote possibility of him being eliminated in the primaries.  Given the BIC’s personality flaws, I am more than remotely concerned about what he might do if he is defeated in the 2020 election—the worst condition being a confused or ambiguous outcome like 2000 or 2016, although he might well try to reject even a landslide defeat.  Yes, I do not agree with just about everything McConnell has done; his unilateral stonewalling of the Senate confirmation of President Obama’s last Supreme Court nomination being one of the most egregious.  I am not sure why you suggest a Senate conviction might not be necessary.  I simply cannot imagine the BIC resigning for any reason; he will likely be defiant to the end.
            The Brexit situation is precarious.  I have studied fractious times in British history before.  I do not recall a more threatening time tearing at the very fabric of the country.  They have overcome adversity in the past; I trust they will do so with this contemporary version.
. . . Round two:
“Unfortunately, even as I write this, state Republican parties are rigging their primaries to favor Chump.  I still regard it as possible that he will experience a moment of clarity and suddenly resign, based on some other not-sane people I have known.  He would, of course, throw a massive blame fit.  Also, I have a recurring fear of him committing suicide with maximum drama.  That's one of the health issues I mentioned might catch up with him.  Also, many people seem to have forgotten Watergate.  As that process continued, Nixon and his party lost functional power.  No conviction is necessary for that to happen.  Regardless of Chump's base, more Americans will withdraw support for the man and his party will suffer from that.
“Just to add to England's Brexit woes, remember that risk still exists that if the UK leaves the EU, Scotland may leave the UK.  Recall my admonition that no nation is content to be conquered, even hundreds of years down the road.”
. . . my response to round two:
            First, I cannot imagine the BIC’s personality anomalies allowing him to commit seppuku, although he should.  Second, the tribalism we suffer today is calcified well beyond any semblance during either the Nixon or Clinton impeachment processes.  It is that tribalism I am the most concerned about, as it belies and defies any touch with reality or the facts; it is ONLY concerned with the tribe’s preservation of their grip on power.  The BIC has been masterful in playing to and encouraging the tribalism that sustains him.  To the tribe that supports him, this chaos he induced in acceptable and quite probably sought to neutralize the government.  It is going to take a lot to overcome the tribalism.
            Oh, I do remember, and I have not forgotten.  Further break-up of the United Kingdom would not be a positive consequence.
. . . Round three:
 “What I think you miss in Chump's personality is the extreme need for attention.  ‘I'll show you!’ is as much a part of his personality as any five-year-old.  His tribe/base is not large enough to re-elect him without others, even with voter suppression and Electoral College manipulation.”
. . . my response to round three:
            You may well be correct.  I simply contend that narcissistic egomania is conflict with intentional self-destruction.  Such a “I’ll show you” demonstration would garner no attention to him, since he would be deceased.  I do not dispute your hypothesis, simply urge caution with such thinking.
            Yes, both main political parties are minorities among the voting or even eligible voters.  In gross terms, a third each with the remaining third with independents, non-partisans, and such.  I think once again, the election will likely be decided by the middle third.
. . . Round four:
“We all need to be cautious about Chump's mental health state.  I'd like to see a professional diagnosis, but I doubt it would do any good.  Even were he willing, treatment of narcissists and psychopaths is difficult.
“Elections are decided by the independents if they vote because they are so many.  Even if they don't agree with me, I want that to happen.  One voter, one vote, support maximum turnout.”
. . . my response to round four:
            I’m with you on that.  Successful treatment depends upon the patient recognizing his need for treatment, quite like addiction.  I cannot imagine the BIC ever achieving that state of enlightenment.  He continues to do what he has always done and proven he is incapable of learning from his mistakes.  Oh wait . . . I forgot . . . he is perfect and incapable of making mistakes.
            I remain apprehensive about the 2020 election.  I take nothing for granted.  The thought of the BIC being in office four more years is incomprehensible to me.  Then again, I could not imagine how someone with the BIC’s personality anomalies could ever get elected . . . but he did.

Another contribution:
“Glad to report your e-mails are now properly directing to my 'INBOX' and not the 'SPAM' filter box.  I could not resolve that glitch and was quite irritated my e-mail client server Thunderbird was not letting me manually override the MCAS on the software. But, it seems resolved!
“The actuality of what is going on with our POTUS is amazing that we have reached this juncture, and for Trump it is well deserved contrary to the right-wing talking anchor heads.  What is quite amazing to me is how many people I know act like nothing is going on, that nothing is significant.
“The POTUS phone call to the Ukrainian leader, we get a transcript of that. I suspect POTUS' communications may be encrypted and highly secure, but I am wondering whether NSA still can monitor on those, and if so, would their data be presentable and more complete?
“We must monitor Hong Kong, as that could turn into a significant geopolitical moment.”
. . . my reply:
            I think the problem was on my end.  I upgraded my iMac OS, and it apparently corrupted some obscure, deeply imbedded file.  Our middle son sorted it out.  Things appear to be functioning normally now—I hope.
            Yes, indeedie!  Although, amazing is not a word I would choose.  Tragic is more like it.  The Founders & Framers foresaw the potential for a rogue president to gum up the works; thus, the Impeachment provisions in the Constitution.  I do not think they ever imagined the rampant (and I will say rabid) tribalism that has gripped this Grand Republic in contemporary times.  Yeah, the image that continues to clarify in my mind is, those who support the BIC want and actually seek chaos and a dysfunctional federal government, to render the federal government impotent.  Better a non-functional government rather than a government they do not approve of in any form.  Conservatives are so desperate to maintain the status quo, they will resort to any tactic to negate change.
            We have not received a transcript of that call, and I doubt we ever will.  That was NOT a transcript; it was an edited summary and edited for they thought was innocuous.  They missed just one sentence – “I would like you to do us a favor, though . . .”  The BIC and his loyal minions are striving mightily to obstruct and obfuscate.  They are desperate to make it through another three months, undoubtedly figuring all this impeachment stuff will evaporate once they reach the primary season, activating their mantra—let the People decide.
            I think the situation in Hong Kong is past the ‘could’ stage and is well into the ‘is’ stage.  Lines have been drawn.  I do not see a bloodless path out of the box.

Another different contribution:
“Well Cap we are overwhelmed with Brexit and now a general election just to keep our minds busy.
“Well as you can see there are diversions, of course this one comes from your side of the pond. It’s looking pretty serious don’t you think.
“Still not receiving your updates Cap…”
My response
            It seems we all have our crosses to bear.
            I hope y’all get through Brexit, as I have confidence you will.  There is no way to make the pig pretty.  Best just to get on with it and adjust from there.
            The BBC reporting is both accurate and fair.  Unfortunately, we must publicly display the ugly entrails of our current, “perfect,” omnipotent, fearless leader.  There are no words available to describe my disgust and revulsion, and worse I have seen him in this frame since long before the 2016 election; but, he was duly elected.  I have written and I am still writing on my impressions from this week’s revelations for this week’s Update.
            I do not mean to lessen the seriousness of your trials, but at least you have leaders who are trying to get through it.  We, on the other hand, must suffer a narcissistic, egomaniacal, megalomaniac who cares only about himself and no one else.  There is little doubt in my little pea-brain that he would turn on his wife or children if he perceived that they were no longer valuable to him.  The sign of that happening is: “I hardly know [whomever].”  I can see him saying, I hardly know Melania.  He is a revolting human being.  And, the buffoon adds another charge during the ambassador’s testimony yesterday—witness tampering and intimidation.  The BIC is so far beyond disgust and revulsion . . . I’m without words.
            I am so sorry you are not receiving the Updates.  I will try to send you a copy directly on the TO line than via the BCC line as it is now.  You can always read them on-line at: 

Yet, another contribution:
“After a period of rest from following your incessant tirades about our businessman president, whose bulliness and profane loose mouth I abhor while admiring his politically incorrect actions as our chosen leader but while regretting his single most disappointing mistake (lack of financial discipline and the balls to veto spending that compounds our obscene national debt), I shall respond to 930.
“While I continue to admire and respect your voice while totally disagreeing with your narrow-minded conclusions about the Donald, I must comment on the most important part of 930, your salute to our vets.  I salute you for your own contributions in uniform as I recall my Marine Aviator Colonel brother's respect (as you recall) for your ideas before his passing.
“In addition I share with you, my brother in arms, and your vet readers, a somewhat relevant current joy a year and a half since the loss of the love of my life: I am spending time with a wonderful widow, enjoying new hope after 30 years of close friendship between both couples ended in our mutual lonesomeness last year.  At my invitation, she joined me in my annual Veterans' Day visit to a nursing home, me looking out of date in my AF class A's as usual after more than a quarter of a century after retirement and she looking magnificent in her blues with her Chief Master Sargent stripes dominating her sleeve as a retired Air Guard NCO.  The old codgers were so thankful, as is always my annual purpose, and this year they were especially thrilled at her beauty while largely ignoring my eagles.  Enjoy and share the image, my friend, and wish me luck in what I have labeled for her ‘our Encore.’”
My reply:
            Always great to hear from you.  I truly appreciate the fact we can disagree without being disagreeable.  All viable democracies depend upon disagreement, debate and compromise.
            To be frank and candid, I would vastly prefer to discuss and debate myriad other issues facing this Grand Republic and the international community in which we live.  However, the fellow who currently occupies the Oval Office makes absolutely certain that he, and only he, is the center and focus of our attention.  I simply respond to the issues placed before us, and he is issue no.1, from my perspective.
            As you articulate your observations of the BIC, how do you justify his conduct being worthy, appropriate and acceptable for any occupant of the Oval Office.  As Lindsey Graham so accurately stated publicly, “Impeachment is about cleansing the office.”
            Thank you for your generous service to this Grand Republic, and thank you for the recognition.
            As you requested, I will share your story.  God bless you for your generous giving of your time to other veterans in need.  I wish you nothing but joy and prosperity in whatever lays ahead for you, my friend.  I sure do miss your brother in so many ways.  May God rest his immortal soul.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap                  :-)