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, 20^th 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:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/trump-issues-pardons-war-criminals/602140/

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:

Re: https://www.conservapedia.com/Obamagate_timeline_2009-2014 - cite_note-101

 . . . 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 1^stAmendment 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                  :-)