Update no.929

Update from the Sunland

No.929

28.10.19 – 3.10.19

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- The impeachment inquiry [924] passed into the next phase.  The House of Representatives passed H.Res.660 [House: 232-196-0-4(3)], titled: “Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes.”

            Republicans have been whining and screaming about the process, since the facts are not on their side.  The majority gave them the process vote they sought and what did they do, they voted against the bill.  We can only conclude they want total control of the process or they want to continue to whine about how unfair the process is.  This is really rich!  Unfortunately, and regrettably, most citizens will not delve into what has just happened, and probably do not care.

            What the Republican politicians and talking heads are saying is, the BIC’s offenses and inappropriate conduct are not impeachment-worthy for a Republican president, but they sure as hell would be for a Democrat president, or any president who is not a Republican.  Impeachment is not about crimes.  Congress is NOT a court of law.  As we know so well these days, a sitting president cannot be charged or tried in a court of law.

            The Republicans like to whine about Democrats trying to un-do the 2016 election, which is an accusation that ignores reality.  This effort is entirely about what the BIC has done as POTUS.  Unfortunately, and regrettably, Republicans are committed to generating as much smoke as they possible can to obscure or deflect public attention on the BIC’s malfeasance.  They also like to claim (erroneously) that the threshold for impeachment is capital crimes comparable to treason.  

            Certainly, a marker of our times, this is the third impeachment process activated in my lifetime alone.  The BIC’s behavior has been far worse than Bill Clinton’s worst day, and I will argue that the BIC’s conduct is worse than Richard Nixon’s criminal conduct because it is so pervasive, persistent, and expansive.  At least Nixon respected the office and succumbed to his paranoia, making decisions that he later regretted.

            My conclusion: the actions of the Republicans have absolutely nothing to do about fairness, the truth, the process, or anything else other than delaying the process as long as they can by whatever means they can—illogical and unethical are not obstacles.  Impeachment is not a trial of crimes in a court of law; impeachment is a cleansing process to make a clear statement that the BIC’s actions are not acceptable for any employee of We, the People, and especially for an occupant of the Oval Office.

            From a separate thread containing predominantly personal and private information, one topic percolated to the top—Death with Dignity laws.  The genesis of this tread is private and personal to both of us; however, the subject is universal.

The contributor said:

“I have been previously against doctor/patient-assisted suicide, but have been rethinking some of those issues more recently.  I know in my own case/life, I really do not want my life-extending in quantity if the quality is gone, or more poignant, if in serious pain every day.  Often serious chronic pain leads to depression, and that in of itself is another matter too.”

To which, I responded:

I was leaning pro- before my Mom's passing.  What she endured was not pleasant and was difficult to watch.  After her passing, I would not want any human being to experience that or have such suffering inflicted on anyone; I have become a staunch advocate for the private choice.  Like all morality laws, the decision should be personal and individual.  The State does not belong in private decisions like Death with Dignity, drug use, prostitution, abortion, et al.  The provisions of most existing Death with Dignity laws are weighted toward overly cautious but are still workable.  Just an FYI: once I began to consider such things, I have always believed anti-suicide laws are focused on the wrong thing and for the wrong purpose . . . but such are our lives in the era of moral projectionists.

            Like so many of the moral projectionist laws, the individual is denied freedom of choice in their lives.  Just because Death with Dignity provisions may be legally available does not mean anyone can induce an individual to make a choice against her/his will.  Let us get the government out of our private lives and choices.  No level of government has a right to dictate how we choose to live our private lives.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.928:

Comment to the Blog:

“Others have pointed out that the words emanating from the Occupant of the Oval Office, including tweets, are by law official record.  The dimwit deletes many of them, but by then others have preserved that insane flow.

“I don’t understand why the impeachment proceedings don’t focus on bribery.  The Constitution lists that as a cause for impeachment, and evidence litters the scenery.

“Your other correspondent strikes me as irrational even for a Chump supporter.  The paragraph about “ . . . the atrocities of the puppet Obama” would be admissible in a sanity hearing.”

My response to the Blog:

            Yes, they are . . . explicitly so.  When the BIC deletes just one of his ill-advised tweets, he is doing exactly what Hillary did in violation [776] of the Presidential Recordings Preservation Act [PL 93-526; 88 Stat. 1695; 19.12.1974].  The BIC’s violation is no different from Hillary Clinton’s violation; both should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

            Well, now, we do not yet know what the House inquiry will include.  Bribery was not the highest on my list, but I can see it.  I have not yet been able to read and absorb the House resolution due to be voted on later in the week.  I hope the House has not hung everything on the Ukrainian fiasco.

            I encourage all forms of dissent, and I try to respond with respect for the dissent.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“I hope the House resolution will be broad enough to include bribery.  Its explicit inclusion in the Constitution and the abundant evidence make bribery an obvious avenue for impeachment.

“I appreciate your efforts to respond respectfully to dissent.  That has made some of our discussions possible.  However, a thought-out and rational response to comments so divorced from reality approaches the impossible.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            I’m all for including bribery—quite appropriate.  There are many others: campaign law violations, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, extortion, nepotism, compromise of national security, and conduct unbecoming of the POTUS (or any federal employee).

            Your point taken . . . but I still try.

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)