30 December 2019

Update no.937

Update from the Sunland
No.937
23.12.19 – 29.12.19
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            I hope and pray everyone has been and is continuing to enjoy the holiday season.  Happy New Year to all, regardless of any one or combination of the social factors— age, gender, race, skin pigmentation, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, education, political affiliation, or marital status.  Please note the second to last factor.  I hold no animus or ill-will toward anyone regardless of your political opinions or tribal assertions.  God bless you all . . . even the BIC!  May the next year be better than the last.

            As it is quite apparent this week, I do not have much to say about anything for this edition.

            My only observation this week: I find myself at a profound paucity of appropriate descriptors short of profanity to express my contempt for the BIC, who persists in his public claims that there is no evidence of his misconduct.  He must be given credit for his steadfast obstruction of justice with his unilateral and unconstitutional gagging of direct witnesses to his misconduct.  He loves to point his crooked finger at the opposition, when in reality it is him, and him alone, who is subverting justice.  As we are now learning from his conduct, only the president of the United States of America has the authority and protection of the law to commit crimes, i.e., violate the law and/or the Constitution, and impose his own obstruction of justice.  There is substantial evidence in various well-documented reports that establish the BIC’s violation of the law.  And yet, as of this moment, the BIC has been successful in avoiding accountability.  Further, he continues to publicly claim he is the victim—not the perpetrator.  The juxtaposition is profound, and the consequences are mutating the very basis of this Grand Republic.  For that reason alone, and beyond his dramatically corrosive personality flaws, I see him as a clear and present danger to the future of this Grand Republic.  The worst aspect of that danger is the haunting effect he has had one so many citizens who see and believe his conduct is normal, acceptable and good for this country.  To me, this is exactly how democracies become dictatorships; the similarities with Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s are multitudinous and dramatic.  That said, I am not suggesting the BIC is on the cusp of becoming a modern-day Adolf Hitler, but we are far closer to that inflection point than we have ever been in our history.  I will continue to speak out at least until the Gestapo or thought police show up at my doorstep and make me disappear without a trace.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.936:
Comment to the Blog:
“Your capacity for technical reading amazes me.  That 658-page document probably has not been read in its entirety by anyone else, including its writers.  You have an iron stomach if you can read six pages of Chump's venom without spewing.
“I'll stipulate that I accept your information and agree with your conclusions.  However, the legalistic turn of my mind wishes the House charging documents specified more recognizable ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ as specified in Federal law.  There's plenty of material for that.  While I realize that is not necessary for Constitutional impeachment, doing so would make it easier for most Americans to understand and support impeachment.
“I might be seeing cracks in Chump's base with the Christianity Today editorial.  I saw ‘something on Facebook’ about a National Review editor breaking ranks as well, but I have yet to confirm that.
“[long sigh] The poor, hapless DNC continues.  From least to most likely choices for me: I have forgotten several of the contenders.  Buttigieg's funding sources eliminate him from my choices.  He's a centrist anyhow.  I was against billionaire Presidents even before Chump.  Yang would be interesting if he weren't well off.  Warren disavows her past funding (and some of her statements) but the shadow lingers.  Sanders has a record dating back decades of sharing my positions and acting on them.  He has a real backbone, too.  We just don't know if he can overcome the DNC this time.
“The President need not work with ‘all’ factions to pass laws.  Only a majority in both houses of Congress is required in most cases.  Also, we might not have a divided Congress in the next term.
“In a capitalist system, it is the purpose of corporations, including Boeing, to make money as well as they can.  Government is responsible for enforcing limits on that process.  I see the Boeing mess as a failure of regulation, one among many.  Reaganomics lives on while others die of it.”
My response to the Blog:
            Thank you.  I try very hard to base my opinions on facts.  It takes work to find those facts.  I also feel impeachment is so serious and traumatic that I am obligated as a citizen to read and absorb these documents.  It does take a lot of my precious time, but this too shall pass.  Yeah, reading those six-pages of the BIC’s letter to Pelosi was the hardest.  As with all propaganda, there was just enough fact to verge upon plausible, but the vast preponderance of his words was consistent with his behavior and conduct—false, untruth, and outright lies.  But, these are the times in which we live.
            I’m with you.  I wish the charging document was more expansive and thorough, since that is the nature of his transgressions.  Obstruction of justice is a felonious crime.  Bribery is a felony.  The obstruction of justice well documented in the Special Counsel’s Report is mentioned not in the charging language, but at least it is there in supporting information.  “Conduct unbecoming” is not a federal crime, although it is for the military, but it is most descriptive of his conduct.  Yes, it would be easier for most citizens to digest if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, or he robbed a bank, or some other readily recognized crime, but unfortunately, that is not what we have before us (yet). Obstruction of Congress is a federal felony that is included in the obstruction of justice statutes, but it is less recognizable by the average citizen.  Unfortunately, in this instance, I do not think many citizens care about the law; it is all about protecting and supporting their tribe.
            I have not yet seen the National Review departure, but I would not be surprised.  I will keep looking for it.
            I am a long way from choosing.  I find attractions in all the candidates, including some who have suspended their campaigns.  I pay attention to the primaries, although I do not vote in the primaries.  I refuse to declare any party affiliation, even indirectly or temporarily.  Joe the Plumber would be better than what we have now (I say with facetiousness).  Yeah, Bernie has many admirable traits.  However, what matters is who makes it through the primaries.
            True.  That is a reality.  However, in principle, I believe the effort should be made.  I want to see debate, negotiation and compromise for the common good.  I think the starting point should be unanimous consent, and when that becomes clearly unattainable, then a veto-proof majority, and then lastly a majority required for passage.  I want to see the effort to recognize the minorities.  While I believe the PPACA was a noble effort, the tribal split doomed it to contentiousness.
            Yes, the current regulation failed in the Boeing example, and Boeing abused the trust placed in them.  Rather than condemn the whole system, I would rather see the Boeing DERs be required to recertify—all of them, even those not directly involved in the MCAS debacle.  The complexity of aviation certification presents quite the conundrum in that we cannot afford to employ the engineering capacity necessary at the FAA on a full-time basis for what is a part-time task, i.e., aircraft certifications are cyclical and infrequent.  The truly regrettable reality is the magnitude of Boeing’s transgressions and abuse of trust will cost the entire industry dearly, and make our products more expensive.  Boeing had such a noble reputation for decades, and the bean-counters threw it all away for a dime (figuratively).  The Boeing fiasco may well go down in history as the worst “penny wise pound foolish” corporate greed example in history or at least for a long time.
 . . . follow-up comment:
“PPACA was and is a gift to the insurance companies, whose only unprofitable concession was coverage of pre-existing (chronic) conditions.
“I place principles above personalities. I see no reason to believe Boeing top management behaved differently than any other corporate top managers would act in that situation. Ethical values are not what society holds them responsible for.  Management's job is making money for the owners. Ethical standards are the work of government.  To me, that is where the final responsibility rests.”
 . . . my follow-up response:
            Yes, it was.  Nonetheless, the PPACA was a real (but flawed) effort to provide medical coverage for the uninsured—a noble cause.
            OK, here is one I will have to disagree with.  The DER certification system has been in use across the entire aviation industry for decades—successfully and safely.  It is improper to indict all management elements in all certification programs.  I was a direct engineering participant in more than a few successful certification programs.  We were always under pressure with respect to cost and schedule.  The DERs were challenged technically, as they should be, but I never witnessed even a semblance of strong-arming of a DER.  In the latter years of my career, I was a forensic engineer dealing with more than a few “penny wise pound foolish” problems, but they were reliability issues (cost to the customer and/or the company) and never a safety of flight issue . . . well not directly.  We had a couple that were poorly (and I have and will argue erroneously) handled by the pilots.  In fact, we can argue the pilots were major contributors to the two B737-MAX accidents; they violated maxims of good airmanship at the most basic level, well beyond the specific model training level.  That said, I still fault Boeing management for what I believe had to be strong-arming of the DERs in the B737-MAX case [I cannot believe any competent engineer would have agreed to a single source flight control module].

A different contribution:
“Cap don’t let those people bother you, we all have to face critics at some time and I know sometimes they can be overwhelming and downright bloody rude-I’m certain most of your members are delighted with your blog, I am. Going to take a little time to read 936. 
“Should I come across anything in future that I feel you might be interested in I’ll contribute-for sure.  Stay strong Bud.”
My reply:
            Oh, they don’t bother me.  It is a product of these times.  The BIC is such a terrible example for those so inclined—bloody rude indeed.  I also refuse to jump in that gutter with him.  One of my accusers pointed to my use of the term “BIC” in reference to the man.  I admit to my transgression, but I can no longer speak his name—too nauseating.  I have tried a number of acronyms to represent the man without his given or familial names, e.g., OSGOO = Oh So Great Orange One, HWSNBN = He Who Shall Not Be Named, POTUS = President Of The United States, and the fellow in the Oval Office.  The BIC seems to be the most descriptive and succinct.  I will persist, because I can find no other choice.  Plus, the BIC is the only one subject to my transgression.  I do apologize for my weakness.

Another contribution:
“No, no!  Not pompous.  Not arrogant.  Not an asshole.
“Just mistaken sometimes.”
My response:
            LOL.  I appreciate your sentiment.  I get called lots of colorful names these days.  The BIC sets such a great and grand example for those so inclined.
            Yes, absolutely, I freely and openly confess my mistakes.  I also apologize for my mistakes when I recognize them.  I try very hard to be humble and reflective of my opinions.  To me, the debate is the essence, not the outcome.

Yet another contribution:
“FYI .. the corruption involving Joe Biden and his son ...AND President Obama, because the business dealings happened UNDER his watch, his Presidency, has been known and publicly reported over a year ago as of course were many severe offenses against Hillary Clinton and others .. is she waiting to announce her run as well to keep the President from speaking any words of an investigation on her ? I say BULLSHIT to you and your eloquent words and quoting of prior politicians etc .. it is citizens just like you who allow corruption because you are blinded by the false glow of your saviors Comey, Mueller , Pelosi, Schiff .. I will not be fooled by these charlatans.. Finally we can start getting justice for prior administrations’ dishonesty toward the people and all you can whine about is the way Trump speaks ! You do not baffle me with your bullshit Cap .. maybe you have Taylor and Jeanne hanging on to your every word but not me .. you professed to listening to a Comey interview five times and it’s so blatantly obvious it was because you weren’t sure of him, rightfully so, and wanted to formulate reasons to believe him !! 
“After we endured that ridiculous impeachment proceeding last week Nancy now needs to follow the next constitutional steps and allow the other side to present.. Her and Schiff have exhibited their OWN abuse of power long enough!! As well as Obstruction of Congress by not wanting to allow the other side any representation !!
“Present the facts .... AS YOU UNDERSTAND THEM ..  it’s a free country and you can do that but others have right to rebut and call BULLSHIT on YOU !! As far as the number of impeachments there have been .. very interesting that the majority have been just in the last 40 years or so .. and interesting there were documented statements made that they talked impeachment before Trump was even elected!  And impeachments of Trump are unlimited huh? Oh how I wish the Republicans in the prior administration had a backbone like they finally have now !!  Obama and his mob would have been right up there too .  You can continue being blind and a follower of the Democrat liars and cheats and wallow in your cocoon when the Dem Rats regain control and our country dies from socialism but you will never hear the end of it from me .. I will always remind you why I am standing up for this man !!!  And when our country dies I will blame you and your arrogant stubbornness.“
My reply:
            Wow!  That’s quite an indictment.  I have no idea why you persist in your attacks without facts.  I am not going to defend my opinions against wild conspiracy theories—a waste of time and an impossible task.  If you do not agree with or choose to ignore my arguments that’s fine.  Your choice entirely.  I do not seek agreement; I only seek debate.  You continue to beat up on me based on your claims that everyone who does not agree with and worship the BIC must be corrupt or blind.  It is regrettable you hold that position, but c’est la guerre!  You are welcome to press your attacks; this is a free country; but, I will continue to respond to your unsubstantiated claims with a simple and precise response—where are the charges?  The BIC & Barr control the entire Justice Department—where are the charges?  I will diligently read the indictments as I do all such charging documents.
            If I understand your words properly, you reject all of the testimony and all of the evidence in the impeachment process.  Further, you apparently have endorsed the Republican obfuscation.  H.Rept 116-346 lays out the facts in gory detail and connects the dots.  In Update no.936, I offered some observations on how the BIC might have avoided all this trauma, but he did not.  After all, he is the BIC, and by his definition, he can do whatever he wants; he is all powerful; he can do no wrong; and, he is accountable to no one.  The BIC, as a man, does not deserve your blind loyalty, but hey, that is your right.
            No matter how good the economy is, or how many unqualified, ultra-conservative judges he nominates, the ends do not and cannot justify the means.  He is an employee and just a man . . . not a king, a dictator, or even the strongman he thinks he is.  The emperor has NO clothes; he is naked as a jaybird.

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

23 December 2019

Update no.936

Update from the Sunland
No.936
16.12.19 – 22.12.19
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            I have been called a lot of names in the last few years.  It seems to be a product of these times.  The most colorful moniker being that I am a pompous arrogant asshole.  Well, that may be.  That is certainly not my intention.  My only purpose in this Blog is to illuminate contemporary issues, present the facts as I understand them, offer my opinion regarding the facts, and debate the issues that swirl around us.  I have also been accused of hating the president, and thus in my blind rage of hatred, I cannot stand anything he does or says.  I wish I could be as eloquent as Nancy Pelosi in facing such accusations, but the best I can say is such accusations are patently false.  I simply see the man for what he is, and I am quite prepared to call him out for his flaws, transgressions and mistakes.  To me, the ends do NOT justify the means.  I took my oath of office as an officer of Marines quite seriously.  I see his conduct as a very serious and profound threat to the very foundations of this Grand Republic.  I cannot ignore that reality.

            The follow-up news items:
-- The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary issued its 658-page report on the impeachment of the president [924] [H.Rept 116-346]—both Majority and Minority sections.  The report provides analyses of the findings of fact presented by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in their Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report.  Both reports are supplemental documents to the House charging document [H.Res.755] voted on and noted below.  I have read them all, cover to cover, every word.
            To set the proper tone here, I would like to quote James Madison’s words contained in Federalist no. 51 [6.2.1788]: 
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it control itself.”
The charging document takes a traditional, far broader perspective of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” was first described by Sir William Blackstone in his seminal Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book IV, Chapter 1, page 1 used the term “public wrongs, or crimes and misdemeanors,” which the framers used in the creation of the constitutional term in use today.  While I am strongly and staunchly against abuse of power in any and all forms, including the demonstrated abuses (multiple) of the BIC, it is H.Res.755, Article II—Obstruction of Congress that represents the clearest and most graphic reason for conviction and removal from office.  In his three years of employment by We, the People, the BIC has consistently, persistently and aggressively obstructed justice and Congress.  The articles of impeachment [H.Res.755] and the voluminous report of findings and analyses [H.Rept 116-346] present a clear, exhaustive and well-documented case for the BIC’s conduct unbecoming of the office he was elected to hold.  To me, the BIC’s blatant obstruction of Congress is the most corrosive to the very foundations of our system of governance.  He is, in essence, standing on the balcony, with his arms tightly crossed across his chest and looking down his nose at all of us minions when he repeatedly shouts out, F*** You!  This man thinks he is Mussolini and probably even King George III.
            The “Dissenting Views” Section of the Report was illuminating and instructive.  The Minority conducted a valiant defense of the BIC with one purpose—create sufficient doubt.  Even a mob boss or a genocidal dictator deserves an aggressive defense.  Because the BIC refused to participate in any form and defend himself, the House Minority was thrust into the defense task.  The Majority chose to use the broader term “abuse of power” to encompass the BIC’s crimes.  Clearly, the Minority disagreed with that decision.  Yet, for the Minority to contend that “the President has publicly released the transcript of the July 25 call, which shows no conditionality for any official act.”  First, the document released by the White House is NOT a transcript of the 25.July call, as noted on the very first page of the documents.  It is an edited (not redacted) summary.  We have no way to establish exactly what was said when.  Second, to deny conditionality is exactly the same as the BIC’s earlier defense, “I never said fire him.”  In this instance, the BIC did not explicitly state, you will not get the military assistance aid until you announce your investigation into the Bidens.  The implication of the BIC’s “a favor, though” takes on a far more sinister meaning in the light of the BIC’s public statements, as noted below.  Even the edited words of the White House document leave very little doubt regarding the conditionality, despite the Minority’s rather lame claim.  The BIC’s words also leave very little doubt as to the quid pro quo bribery that is conditionality.  Coupled with testimonial observations of multiple other knowledgeable professionals, any remaining doubt vanishes except in the minds of his defense attorneys, struggling to defend his inappropriate conduct.  Factual evidence also clearly establishes that the BIC did not release the military assistance aid allocated by Congress until well after he was caught in the act.
            The Minorities efforts to maintain the Party line and deflect attention from the BIC’s misconduct and criminal behavior by pointing at the Bidens simply does not hold water.  The Republicans controlled all branches of government for two years; did they investigate or charge either of the Bidens—no!  Their use of the Bidens is so weak as to verge upon ridiculous.  The Minority’s presentation of the Bidens is quite like so much of this—just enough fact to appear plausible.  The Minority states, “There is nothing untoward about a president asking a foreign government to investigate the same questions about potential corruption the American media was asking publicly.”  Taken as an isolated sentence, the statement is correct.  However, what pales the argument is the fact that there was no U.S. government investigation as an official context for such a requirement.  This was a personal effort, using his personal attorney, outside the legal and diplomatic system, which gives such a request the color of a vendetta or effort for personal gain.  That is precisely the problem with the Minority’s argument.
            Bottom line: we have more than enough physical evidence that does not require further interpretation or analysis to establish that the BIC has proven himself unworthy of the office he was elected to serve.  We, the People, voted and elected him to the office, despite the interference by Russia.  This process has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do about the 2016 election [we had the evidence in the Special Counsel’s Report and refused (or failed) to act].  This process is solely about his conduct in office in just this year alone, and the physical evidence brightly illuminates his behavior is unbecoming of the office in which he was elected to serve We, the People.
-- Then, as is the BIC’s penchant, he wrote a six-page letter of protest to the Speaker of the House on the day before this historic lower chamber vote [924].  He was certainly flamboyant with his words, and yet very imprecise and outright false in numerous places.  The best I can say is, this letter is a good example of the “pot calling the kettle black” and the art of distraction.  I carefully read the letter.  I invite everyone to read it as well.  I am not going to waste any more of my precious time on this drivel.
-- The House voted on Wednesday, 18.December.2019, to impeach the president [924] on both charges (articles) delineated in H.Res.755.  The vote was:
Article I (abuse of power)                  – 230-197-1-3(4)
Article II (obstruction of Congress)   – 229-198-1-3(4)
(216 votes required by the U.S. Constitution for passage.)
Well, the BIC made history.  He went from being the fourth president to face impeachment to the third president to be officially and formally impeached.  The articles of impeachment now pass to the Senate for trial—conviction & removal, or acquittal.  Regardless of the Senate outcome, history was made.  Just a simple note here: the representatives for more than half of the population (not just voters) voted to impeach the BIC.  That is a message that even the BIC cannot ignore.
            It is moderately interesting that it was Democratic Party presidential candidate Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii that voted “Present” twice, which is just another form of abstention.
            Did the president have the authority under the Constitution to do what he did in and around the 25.July.2019 Ukraine telephone call?  Yes, absolutely, without question or debate.  Did the BIC abuse the power vested in him as POTUS?  The answer depends upon one’s perspective.  For those who believe the president has unlimited power and sovereign immunity, I suppose the answer is no, i.e., by definition he cannot abuse the power that is unbounded by the Constitution and immune from prosecution under the common law.  I am not even remotely close to that faction.  Just because great power is vested in the president does not mean he has the right to exercise that authority without constraint.  If the BIC and his agents had made even a modicum of effort to disconnect his personal interests from the national interest, we would not be where we are.  He did not, so here we are.

            All that said, the one point that can be distilled from all this sad turmoil, when a president wields his power without respect for history, for precedent, for others, for the Press, or for the other branches of government, regardless of whether they agree with him, this is the outcome.  No president in history has done even a fraction of the things this president has done.  He has disrespected anyone and everyone who does not sing his praises; this by definition is conduct unbecoming of the Office of the President.  Full stop!

            With Republicans of all shapes and sizes, relentlessly chanting about the process—too short, not enough, unfair, incomplete—I ask again, how much is enough?  Of course, the BIC wants to go to court, that way he can continue to delay, confuse and obfuscate, and take months, if not years, to decide.  So, I come back to the obvious question.  How much is enough?  The House has prepared a 658-page, exhaustive supplement—H.Rept 116-346—to the charging document—H.Res.755.  Even a fraction of that volume is sufficient to establish the BIC’s abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
            At this stage, I say, get on with it.  Make every senator go on record.  We need to know who approves of the BIC’s conduct and who rejects the BIC’s conduct.  Regardless of the Senate’s outcome, history will forever record that the BIC was impeached by the House of Representatives.
            Just a reminder at this juncture, the Constitution does not limit the number of impeachment actions that can be brought against anyone president.  This is not a one-and-done exercise.  This particular case focused on a well-established, clear, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress well beyond acceptable norms of presidential conduct.  So far, the BIC has gotten away with his blatant obstruction of justice and obstruction of Congress well-documented in the Special Counsel’s Report [898902].  There is little doubt in my little pea-brain that the BIC is incapable of learning; he will continue to trample upon good order and discipline, and offend the office he holds with conduct unbecoming the Office of the President, until he is stopped—one way or another.  The salient question remains: how much is enough?  When will We, the People, have had enough of his conduct unbecoming of the presidency?  My threshold of tolerance was broached long ago.  I can see that some folks do appreciate the image of a king or dictator is attractive.  It is not to me.  Thus, we shall respectfully disagree regarding the threshold of tolerance.

            The BIC and his sycophants relentlessly chant that he was not given due process in the impeachment inquiry.  And, more than a few of our citizens actually believe him.  The facts and reality are, the BIC refused the proffered due process.  He has singularly and steadfastly stonewalled the inquiry.  His conduct is the very definition of obstruction of Congress.  The fallaciousness of the BIC’s public statements is absolute.  Despite his apparent belief that he is the king of America, the BIC is not.  Regardless of the outcome of this impeachment process, the BIC will eventually be removed from office and lose the immunity he flaunts.  I trust We, the People, will have the courage and strength to prosecute him for his crimes to the fullest extent of the law; whether it happens in one year or five years, I trust that it will happen.  He cannot be allowed to thumb his nose at the law from behind his immunity shield; that shield he hides behind will be taken away from him sooner or later, and he must be answerable for his crimes.

            Ignoring the myriad other offenses and focusing solely upon the facts surrounding the infamous 25.July.2019, telephone call between the BIC and President Zelensky of Ukraine, the sad reality is there are numerous elements that might have precluded an impeachment inquiry.
1.  If the BIC and the USG had raised even a semblance of interest in general corruption before the call, he would not be in this predicament.  As multiple, knowledgeable witnesses testified under oath (something the BIC & his cronies have NOT done), the BIC was only interested in the image of official inquiry—not the corruption in Ukraine.  He sought personal gain—not the interests of this Grand Republic.
2.  If the BIC had sent his personal attorney on the personal project, spending his own money, without any linkage to congressionally appropriated assistance funding, i.e., he had not implied the linkage with his statement: “. . . do us a favor, though. . .”, he would not be in this predicament.
3.  Whether the BIC intended to imply linkage, more than a few direct lieutenants believed the linkage had been directed.  The BIC could have been more circumspect.  His lieutenants, as reflected in Sondland’s testimony, believed he directed a linked quid pro quo for his personal gain.  It was that reflection that instigated the whistleblower to act and open this whole fiasco.
4.  If the USG, either the Legislative, or Executive branches, or both, had initiated a formal investigation into Hunter Biden’s alleged inappropriate conduct, or Joe Biden’s alleged abuse of power, he would have had a context for this statements in the 25.July telephone call.  They have not, even to this moment.
I could go on, but this should suffice.  The BIC had multiple opportunities to avoid all this impeachment stuff.  He chose to do it his way.  The House of Representatives has made an emphatic statement that the BIC’s actions are not acceptable and not tolerable.

            The latest rendition of the Democratic Party candidate debates occurred Thursday evening, 19.December.2019, hosted by PBS NewsHour and Politico at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California.  By the DNC qualification requirements, only seven candidates appeared in this edition of the Democratic candidate debates—Biden, Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Steyer, Yang.  Kamala Harris reportedly qualified but suspended her candidacy.  As a footnote FYI, the debate had been scheduled to occur at the UCLA campus, but a labor dispute blocked the venue.  The events noted above overshadowed the debates.  Once again, I was more than annoyed by the audience's interference.  There were many salient points proffered during the debate, but the one that stuck out the most was an exchange between Buttigieg and Warren over campaign financing.  Mayor Buttigieg responded, “According to Forbes magazine, I am literally the only person on this stage who is not a millionaire or a billionaire.  So, if [applause interruption] this is important.  This is the problem with issuing purity tests you cannot yourself pass.  [audible audience howls.]  If I pledged to never be in the company of a progressive Democratic donor, I could not be up here.”  The exchange went on and sparked a bit of a firestorm on the stage.  At the end of the three-hour marathon, in an odd and demonstrably halting question, Judy Woodruff asked each of the candidates if there was a candidate you would ask forgiveness or give a gift.  Again, it was Mayor Buttigieg who offered the most colorful response; he answered, “I think all of us want the same thing at the end of the day.  We know what a gift it would be to the future and to the country, for literally anybody up here to become president of the United States compared to what we’ve got.”  Hear, hear!

            Let us not forget, no president makes or passes any laws; only Congress is charged with passing laws.  No matter who becomes president that person must find a way to work with all factions to pass appropriate laws for the common good and We, the People.  It really does not matter much beyond the personal domain of what the candidates think they will do.  The only thing that matters is what they will do working with Congress to pass the necessary laws.  I want to know how they think, what matters to them, and most importantly, how they are going to work with a tribally divided Congress for the common good.
            On this matter, I feel compelled to illuminate two examples from history.
1.  In early 1941, in an isolationist bent country not at war, President Roosevelt proposed, negotiated, and in three months signed into law the Lend-Lease Act—arguably the most influential law of the era.
2.  In a seriously divided nation and Congress in 1964, President Johnson worked his legislative connections to help pass and signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that proved decisive in breaking the shackles of “Jim Crow.”
Neither president cared much about their tribe.  They instinctively knew what had to be done at the time for the good of the nation.  They defied a strong faction of their respective political parties.  I want and need to see the greater good.

            I continue to listen intently to the president’s words for one reason and one reason alone—he is the duly elected President of the United States of America.  I am obligated as a citizen to listen.  I also learned long ago, well before he declared his candidacy and became president, that his words are worthless.  His self-proclaimed “truthful hyperbole” is in fact neither; it is outright falsehood—just a fancy label for lying.  He has proven himself to be an accomplished snake-oil salesman and as such is incapable of telling the truth, since the truth does not serve his purpose.  Yet, especially as related to the impeachment inquiry, he has in fact done exactly what he said he was going to do in at least two instances.
1.  On Wednesday, 24.April.2019, on the lawn of the White House during one of his impromptu news conferences, the BIC declared, “We’re fighting all the [House] subpoenas.”
2.  On Tuesday, 23.July.2019, at Turning Point USA’s Teen Student Action Summit 2019, the BIC proclaimed, “Then I have an Article 2 [sic], where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.”
Please note, the date of both of the BIC’s declarations preceded his 25.July telephone call and the opening of the House impeachment inquiry.  Prior and subsequent to the BIC’s public declarations [and to this very moment], he has done precisely what he said he would do.  If he was advised to take that stance (I do not think he was), he got very bad advice.  Unfortunately for him, that is not how the U.S. Constitution works.  Those two statements and his consistent conduct to fulfill his declarations are precisely the definition [in fact, textbook examples] of Obstruction of Congress.  He is not a king, despite what he thinks.  He is not a dictator.  And, today, he is the third president in the 231-year (so far) history of this Grand Republic to be impeached by the House of Representatives in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.  We do not need the courts to compel more witnesses to prove those violations or justify this action.  That’s it, end of story, full stop, drop the mic!

            Does anyone want to take a bet that despite his impeachment, the BIC will continue to act in a manner unbecoming the Office of the President, and quite likely will continue to violate the law?


            As a closing note for this week’s Update edition, it is truly and genuinely sad, solemn and a depressing time in the history of this Grand Republic.  Impeachment is never a positive action.  Many current and previous presidents have faced impeachment inquiries.  Only three have been impeached by the House of Representatives—so history records.  I truly wish the BIC had learned in office that he does not hold the Office of the President by some divine providence.  As he demonstrated with witnesses on 25.July, he has not learned (and I contend his personality anomalies preclude his ability to learn).
            The Speaker of the House has apparently drawn the line against the public proclamations of several key senators that indicate the controllers of the Senate’s business have no intention of conducting a fair trial of the articles of impeachment.  So far, she has stated that she will hold the articles of impeachment until the rules for a fair trial can be established.  Perhaps, the Speaker seeks to hold Damocles Sword over his head for a while.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.935:
Comment to the Blog:
“The impeachment is being discussed exhaustively at any news source.  Senator Mitch McConnell has already stated that the Senate-as-jury trial will not be impartial, at least on his part.  McConnell still stands out in my mind as a larger villain than the Chump due to the actual results of his actions.
“The Department of Justice Inspector General's report on their investigation of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation satisfies me twice.  First, it refutes the Chump's claim of political motives for the investigation, then it exposes one of the major dangers of FISA warrants.  Good work!
“The name of the report above comes from the Rolling Stones song ‘Jumpin' Jack Flash’.
“I'll note that the Steele Dossier (Trump-Russia Dossier per Wikipedia) is another example of the spy community at work.  As much as I relish some of that content, much of the information remains unsupported and at least one piece is disproven in the Mueller Report.  The ‘moving force’ for this operation seems to have been the founder of Fusion GPS, but a DNC attorney provided money for some of it.  (Feel free to provide evidence otherwise.)
“The statistics blog Fivethirtyeight has weighed the odds of Senators voting to impeach and found a majority (never mind two thirds) probably against.  That's a reason the House should have prolonged the proceedings; the next Senate could be Democratic.
“I prefer the Founders' term ‘factionalism’ to ‘tribalism’.  Finding one's ‘tribe’ is used in a healing context and I personally relate to that understanding.
“I applaud Time Magazine's choice of Greta Thunberg (I didn't need the middle names) as their Person of the Year.  Young people, especially women, have begun to lead our society in most of its facets.  She exemplifies that.  Of course, I also feel a ‘tribal’ connection to her as an autistic person.  We knew the Chump would say something nasty.  (Yawns)”
My response to the Blog:
            I’m with you on McConnell.  He attained despicable status when he defied the Constitution and stonewalled President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination.  He has gone farther downhill from there.
            I’m with you as well on the OIG Report.  Fortunately, Director Wray is taking aggressive steps to amend the FISA procedures to make such omissions less likely.  There is no such thing as perfect, because human beings are flawed creatures and some bad samples will try to find a way to circumvent any rules; thus, my choice of “less likely.”  We need FISA, but we clearly must improve the safeguards.  What those Crossfire-Hurricane folks did was make vital intelligence collection all the more difficult, which is not positive to national security.
            Well, I’ll be damned.  I never made that connection and I’ve listened to that song countless times.  I learn something new every day.
            To my knowledge, the original funding was actually Republicans attempting to eliminate the “reality” show frontman.  They abandoned the initiative as the fellow gained in the primaries.  The DNC picked it up to dig up dirt on their likely opponent.  The money colors the analytical conclusions, but not the facts.  That was the FBI’s point, and I agree.  Intelligence takes information from all sources, and then must analyze their collected information for accuracy, reliability, relevance and veracity.  I do not fault that process.  All professional intelligence analysts are suspicious of single sources.  How the politicians color and spin their products is entirely a different matter.  I know how hard the IC professionals work to get it right, but we have born witness to failures.
            I cannot disagree.  Nonetheless, nothing in the Constitution says or even implies a one and done opportunity.
            I know you prefer factionalism; it is a more elegant term.  However, I think tribalism is more descriptive of our current predicament.  The connection between tribe and healing is beyond me.
            You may have noted, I try to introduce new characters with their full name for precision and to minimize confusion.  I agree; I think the TIME magazine editorial staff chose wisely.  Yes, the BIC is consistent . . . consistently disgusting.  He may not agree with her message, but as a quasi-leader (and I use that term with trepidation and reservation), he should have praised her for being involved.  But, that is way too much to expect from the BIC.
. . . Round two:
“Impeachment not a ‘one and done’?  That's a fascinating point.  The Chump is the most obviously villainous person ever to occupy the office, and on top of that, the world is watching.  Hmmm.”
 . . . my response to round two:
            Agreed!  We shall see how the House vote and potential trial goes; but, it is not looking like a positive event, so far.
            I suspect this will be the shot across the bow, regardless of the election outcome a year from now, short of the BIC being arrested, smoking gun in hand, after shooting someone of 5th Avenue (presumably to demonstrate his hypothesis).
            And so it goes.
 . . . Round three:
“According to his henchmen, Chump couldn't even be arrested with that smoking gun.  What's really sad is that society, as represented by Congress and their sponsors, still supports him.”
 . . . my response to round three:
            Sadly, I suspect and fear that you are correct.  After all, sovereign immunity means the king can do no wrong . . . no matter how egregious, heinous, or revolting.  These are the times in which we live.
            Worse, when a Democrat president comes along, as surely as s/he will, it will be morbidly entertaining to see these hypocrites screaming bloody murder.  What price glory?

Another contribution:
“I bet Boeing wish Santa would come and sort out their Max jet-we hear today that production is to cease next month, what a mess. They must have a pile of new machines just standing around in the open. What a tragedy, I trust you don’t have shares in that company. Joking aside I cannot believe they haven’t solved this problem Cap-what’s your views, surely it should have been sorted by now and the aircraft back on route.”
My reply:
            Boeing has more than 400 B737-MAX aircraft parked on ramps all over the Western U.S.  One reason they cite for suspending production is, they are running out of space to store the aircraft.  The sunk inventory cost alone of those aircraft is roughly US$54B; not many companies could sustain that magnitude of negative cash flow.  Given Boeing’s recent conduct, I suspect they have not paid suppliers to pass off those costs.  If so, they will likely bankrupt many suppliers that are unable to front that kind of money.  Boeing has already squeezed suppliers severely; this is like the coup d’grâce.  Unfortunately, Boeing abused the Delegated Engineering Representative (DER) system.  I suspect the FAA has called into question a good chunk of the original certification, thus the extra time to go back over all of the DER certified content beyond just the MCAS.  The shockwaves beyond just the Boeing debacle are significant.  This is clearly a violation of the trust placed in Boeing all for the bottom line—penny wise pound foolish.  This is what happens when accountants gain the upper hand in aircraft certification programs.
            “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
            I’m not sure the Brexit path matters much anymore.  Any outcome would be better for the UK, the EU, and the world, than this persistent uncertainty.  Drive a peg in the ground, and then adjust from there.
 . . . Round two:
“Good day Cap, MCAS? Minimum -----
“My God I had no idea they had stockpiled that many jets! Are they making any problem-solving progress at all? 
“Yes, you’re right Boeing may well survive this crisis but many sub-contractors may not-is it time that the White House should step in and show who is leading the country, handing the problem over to NASA, if they couldn’t sort it who could?”
 . . . my reply to round two:
            MCAS = Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System – Boeing intended it to be a stall protection system, e.g., Air France 447 (1.June.2009).  Unfortunately, to save a dime, they tried to do it on the cheap.  They got burned—a foolish, foolish decision that will cost many billions.
            I’ve seen this before, certainly nowhere near the scale of the Boeing B737-MAX debacle, but the cause & effect were quite similar.  I suspect Boeing solved and “certified” the MCAS fix months ago.  What is holding them up now is quite likely the loss of trust factor, i.e., if they cut corners to cut costs on the MCAS, what else have they cut corners on.  My guess is, the FAA is applying the microscope of scrutiny to all changes in the B737-MAX certification.  Further, my guess is, they are probably finding other anomalies beyond the MCAS.
            Yes, as suppliers fail, or refuse to bear the costs to the production suspension and the restart (if that ever happens), Boeing will have significant added costs of qualifying new suppliers—not trivial.
            The consequences of this fiasco are going to be felt far & wide, and for a long time.  To me, Boeing management during the B737-MAX development and certification failed far beyond the technical; they failed at a moral level.  They should be prosecuted for what they did; it was wrong at every level I can think of.  Tragic!
            No, no need.  The FAA seems to be handling this quite well, now.  Unfortunately, it took the deaths of 346 innocent people to brightly illuminate Boeing’s transgressions.
 . . . Round three:
“Thanks for your explanatory reply-excuse me for asking but I’d never come across these abbreviations during my time in aviation.  Mind you we’re told that the early Tornado’s computer had less power than a current laptop-but it worked!  You cannot mess with flight control systems.  They must be perfect from the word ‘go’, no corner-cutting, no cost savings-it has to be right.  We all await the outcome Cap.”
 . . . my reply to round three:
            As most designers and manufacturers do, Boeing coined the term MCAS to identify their unique subsystem.  While I do not know the details of the MCAS software (proprietary), I suspect the software may have been simplistic, but the fatal flaw was the decision to offer a system like MCAS with only ONE (1) source sensor—the Angle of Attack (AOA) vane.  Customers were given the option: 1.) take the system as designed (one AOA sensor); or 2.) purchase a 2ndAOA sensor.  U.S. operators chose option no.2, while many, including Lion Air and Ethiopian Airline chose option no.1.  Most modern commercial aircraft have at least three source sensors on flight control sensors.  I cannot believe any responsible engineer would advocate for a single source flight control system.  The problem with such a system is that a faulty or damaged sensor could or would provide erroneous data to the flight control system with obvious consequences.  To me, the fatal flaw was even allowing a single source flight control subsystem to go into operational service.
 . . . Round four:
“This sensor AOA sensor is that a physical device i.e. a vane that is affected by the AOA or an electronic device.
“We had brief mention on our local news, apparently, I gathered, there are one or two Boeing 737 Max parked on our local airfield and the parking space is needed.
“Get it sorted Boeing.”
 . . . my reply to round four:
            Yes, the AOA sensor is a physical vane (often appears as a small, symmetric, swept-wing foil on the side of the fuselage, usually near the pitot-static probe) that transforms the measured angle of attack of the aircraft into an electrical signal sent to a cockpit indicator and in the B737 case to the MCAS computer module for processing.  The AOA vane stays with the slipstream as the aircraft changes its angle of attack.  After the AF447 accident [1.June.2009], the industry became far more concerned about AOA.
            I’m not surprised some of the B737-MAX aircraft are grounded in the UK and Europe, as well as the rest of the world.  The aircraft at issue are the yet to be certified & delivered aircraft.  They are approaching the end of the line.
            Indeed, get it sorted out Boeing.

A different contribution:
“I have pondered much (as I am sure you have) how so many of the Christian Right including people in my family and friends circle, have fallen for Trump.  What makes it worse, is I think deep down they really do not like him, but cannot admit it, and with much pride, continue to support their guy.  He will be our first president ever to run again for office after an impeachment.  And the scary fact is he could likely get reelected!!!!”
My response:
            Yes, it has always been a point of curiosity for me.  How do citizens with professed and unwavering touting of their morality, and their willingness to project and impose their morality on everyone, set aside their moral beliefs to vote for such a consistently immoral man?  I still seek to learn what motivated 63M citizens to vote for the BIC.  My search continues.  Yes, he could get re-elected; I do not underestimate him.  Millions of American citizens have bought his snake-oil and truly believe they have been cured of all their ills; that power should never be underestimated.
            This will be an interesting dynamic we and history have never experienced before.  Nixon and Clinton were both in their second terms.  Johnson, however, was a War Democrat chosen by Lincoln as a running mate for a form of a coalition government.  Even after his razor-thin acquittal in the Senate (one vote), he stood for re-election, but the Democratic Party selected a different candidate—Horatio Seymour.  Grant won the popular vote by six points, and more to the point, he won 73% of the Electoral College vote.

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

16 December 2019

Update no.935

Update from the Sunland
No.935
9.12.19 – 15.12.19
Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            Navy did it!  The final score was 31-7, ending a three-game winning streak for Army.  Beautiful game!  They really looked sharp.  Quarterback Midshipman First Class Malcolm Perry did a magnificent job leading the team.  Excellent performance all the way around, if you ask me.  Army put on a good show, just not good enough this year.  Navy goes onto the Liberty Bowl, where they will play Kansas State in Memphis on Tuesday, the 31st of December.  Go Navy!  Beat Army!

            Fortunately, I finished the first draft of my next book before the events of the last three weeks.  The impeachment hearings and the voluminous reading material noted below have seriously disrupted my productivity.  Thus, I confess that I have not yet completed reading the whole of both reports.  I have read the Executive Summary and Conclusions & Recommendations sections, as well as spot detailed reading of some meaty sections.  More to follow!

            The follow-up news items:
-- The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary held an agonizing hearing on Monday.  We heard the presentation of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) findings of fact in their impeachment investigation [924 & sub].  The HPSCI messengers delivering the findings were Majority Counsel Daniel Sachs Goldman, JD, and Minority Counsel Stephen R. Castor, JD.  This was the “pound the table and yell like hell” session for the Minority; not one Republican defended the BIC, i.e., his conduct was perfect, as the BIC declared.  The emotional and dramatic demeanor of the Minority stood in stark contrast to the calm, even conduct of the Majority.
            On Tuesday, 10.December.2019, the House Majority introduced a resolution that specified the articles of impeachment to be voted on perhaps next week in the House of Representatives.
1.     Abuse of Power
2.     Obstruction of Congress.
The draft resolution specifying the articles of impeachment is too voluminous to reprint in this humble forum.  Those who might wish to read the actual words, they can be seen at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6572303-Articles-of-Impeachment.html
Only four presidents in the history of this Grand Republic have reached this stage—three in my lifetime alone.  So history shall record.
            On Friday, after two days of tortuous hearings, the House Judiciary Committee voted along strict tribal lines, 23-17, to advance the articles of impeachment as H.Res.755 to the full House for passage.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky publicly declared that the Senate trial was preordained before arrival, but he conceded they would go through the motions.

            The BIC’s tribe keeps chanting about the impeachment process seeking to undo the votes of 63M American citizens in the 2016 election [actually, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, 304 electors from 31 states].  Great headline and sound bite stuff, but not truthful or accurate.  There is only one person who has brought all this on—the BIC and only the BIC; his conduct, no one else’s behavior, just his.  Do not be distracted by such fallacious arguments.  We, the People, had our vote on 8.November.2016.  We will have our vote again on 3.November.2020.  The impeachment process is completely and entirely about the BIC’s conduct in office—nothing else; he has (or should be) disqualified and removed from office.  Despite the avalanche of obfuscation, subterfuge, distractions, sleight of hand, misdirection, and misinformation, the issue before the House of Representatives and We, the People, remains—the BIC’s conduct, nothing else, full stop.

            George Orwell wrote in his dystopian and perhaps prophetic novel 1984, “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.  It was their final, most essential command.” [8.June.1949]  The BIC publicly proclaims to his adoring audience, “What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening.” [25.July.2018] The words are different; the meaning is identical.  Caveat emptor!

            One senator actually tried to argue that the threshold of impeachment and especially for conviction and concomitant removal from office is those crimes punishable by death, i.e., treason—nothing else; that is about as high of a bar that can exist.  What is implied in the senator’s opinion is the president is above the law, can break any law he wishes, and he will remain immune from prosecution.  The journalist questioning the senator sought to learn the basis for such a claim.  The senator clumsily avoided any form of a responsive answer.  Does anyone want to guess which tribe the senator is affiliated with?  I wonder how he will feel when a president of another party does the same thing as the BIC?

            The first report was from the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, titled: “The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report” and dated: 4 December 2019.   In Chairman Adam Schiff’s Preface statement, he accurately and appropriately quoted Benjamin Franklin to conclude.  When Franklin was asked upon departing the Constitutional Convention, “What have we got?  A Republic or a Monarchy?”  He responded simply, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”  That is exactly the point.  This Grand Republic is as fragile as we fail to defend the essential principles upon which the republic is based.
            The report presents the evidence and findings in two major sections:
I. The President's Misconduct: The President Conditioned a White House Meeting and Military Aid to Ukraine on a Public Announcement of Investigations Beneficial to his Reelection Campaign, and
II. The President's Obstruction of the House of Representatives' Impeachment Inquiry: The President Obstructed the Impeachment Inquiry by Instructing Witnesses and Agencies to Ignore Subpoenas for Documents and Testimony.
Having listened to and watched all of the testimony before HPSCI, the case is clear.  The report documents the testimony before the HPSCI [931932], which I need not to repeat or regurgitate.  Let it suffice to say, I read the HPSCI report and found it consistent with the testimony I heard earlier.  The report is very well documented with the actual evidence.  It is not hearsay and innuendo as some people scream at us.
            I will note here that I dove into the law to establish exactly the instrument of allocation at issue in this matter.  It took me a while, but here it is—Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 [PL 116-006; 133 Stat. 13; 15.2.2019] [893], specifically Division F, Title VII, § 7046 (b) [133 Stat. 358] that allocated not less than US$445.7M of assistance to Ukraine.  The bill was passed by a strong bipartisan majority and signed into law by the president on 15.February.2019.  Five months later, the BIC attempted to use these congressionally mandated funds for his personal political gain.  Among the many aspects of tragedy in this sordid affair, if the BIC had used his personal money to go dig up dirt in Ukraine against his perceived principal political rival, he would not be in this predicament.  But no, he did not make that choice.  Instead, he chose to use his office, the nation’s standing, and congressionally allocated funding, in an attempt to coerce another sovereign nation at war defending its territory to do his dirty work.

            The U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) finally released its report of findings regarding their investigation into the FBI’s opening of the potential collusion/collaboration with Russian interference leading up to the 2016 election.  The Report was released on Monday.  The title of the report is “Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation.”  Four specific members of the BIC’s election campaign were the subjects at the focus of the investigation: George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn.  The candidate was NOT a subject of the investigation.  The very first sentence speaks volumes.
The Department of Justice (Department) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) undertook this review to examine certain actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department during an FBI investigation opened on July 31, 2016, known as "Crossfire Hurricane," into whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Whoever selected the code name for the investigation was brilliant in anticipating the firestorm likely to be created by the knowledge of the investigation’s existence alone.  It is important to note here that of the four subjects of the investigation: two are in prison, one pleaded guilty and is awaiting punishment, and the fourth remains the object of an active criminal investigation by federal and state prosecutors.  That track record puts an exclamation point on this topic.
            Please note the date when the investigation was opened (in blue).  The first FISA warrant was not issued until 21.October.2016.  The investigators satisfied the judge’s review with sufficient hard evidence to justify the warrant.
            Surprisingly, after all this testimony over the last three years, I learned a few new things in the OIG report.
            Christopher David Steele is a British former intelligence officer with the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) from 1987 until his retirement in 2009.  He ran the Russia desk at MI6 headquarters in London between 2006 and 2009.  In 2009, he co-founded Orbis Business Intelligence, a London-based private intelligence firm.  What is new, Steele was introduced to the FBI in 2010.  In 2013, he was certified by the FBI as a qualified intelligence source.  In June 2016, Steele and his consulting firm were hired by Fusion GPS to look into Russian interference in the 2016 election campaign and process.  The resulting accumulation of information was reported in what has become known as the ”Steele Dossier.”  Steele provided a dozen of his progressive reports to the FBI between July and October 2016.  This is important in that the BIC, his sycophants, and Republican operatives have incessantly bombarded us in their effort to saturate our capacity to absorb information to the effect that their claim was the Steele Dossier was a Clinton and DNC instigated hit job.  The OIG report clearly establishes all those claims were false if not outright fraudulent.
            The OIG delineated 17 errors, mostly of omission, with respect to the four FISA surveillance applications.  The OIG stated:
While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified.
In most instances, the agents and supervisors told us that they either did not know or recall why the information was not shared with OI, that the failure to do so may have been an oversight, that they did not recognize at the time the relevance of the information to the FISA application, or that they did not believe the missing information to be significant. 
The OIG makes no judgment on whether any one or combination of the 17 errors would have or might have altered the judgment of the FISA Court in approving the warrants.  As a footnote, the Attorney General decided to publicly place far more weight on those omissions to the BIC’s benefit.
            Regardless of the BIC’s oft-claimed assertion the USG (the Obama Administration) inserted spies in his 2016 election campaign, the OIG stated:
After the opening of the investigation, we found no evidence that the FBI placed any CHSs [Confidential Human Sources] or UCEs [UnderCover Employees] within the Trump campaign or tasked any CHSs or UCEs to report on the Trump campaign. Finally, we also found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI's decision to use CHSs or UCEs to interact with Trump campaign officials in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation[emphasis mine]
As the last sentence clearly states, there were no spies, governmental or otherwise, inside the BIC’s election campaign.  The BIC’s subsequent public statements to the contrary are categorically and patently false—the BIC is lying folks!  But, that is not a news flash, is it?

            As is life is for all of these days, the BIC felt compelled to weigh in with a tweet of his infinite and inviolate wisdom.
I don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!
4:16 AM - 10 Dec 2019
Please note his words . . . the report “given to me,” rather than the report I read.  I’ve read a chunk of the report and I do believe Director Wray was spot-on correct, and the BIC was painfully and dreadfully wrong.  Hey, we have reason to be thankful; the BIC is consistent—disparage, reject, dismiss, marginalize, et al, anyone and everyone who disagrees with him.  Except for his praise of the men & women of the FBI, his words sound strikingly like the Russian dictator Putin.  Ol’ Vlad has to be dancing a happy jig in his extravagant Kremlin office, except he is savvy and skilled enough not to gloat.  Sadly, the person who wrote the above public words is the man elected by We, the People, to represent all of us and this Grand Republic.  The BIC has stood to the mark and been found wanting.
            In the arena of symbolism, on the day the BIC became the fourth president in history to face impeachment and his articles of impeachment were publicly disclosed (H.Res.755), the House Majority announced passage of the USMCA trade pact, and more significantly, the BIC met in the White House Oval Office with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov . . . the Russians, not our allies in the Ukraine—Russia!  The message came through loud and clear, Mister President.  Your loyalties are in plain view.

            On Wednesday, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Evan Horowitz testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on the OIG Report noted above.  He testified under oath to the details contained in the report.  What was different and unique was the Majority focus and singular obsession with the 17 errors made by three separate Crossfire Hurricane teams in the FISA applications against Carter Page.  The Republicans chose to paint those errors, which the IG characterized as largely administrative in nature.  He further testified that the errors may not have altered the outcome, but they definitely colored the retrospective examination.  Director Wray agreed and began corrective action as soon as he read the report.  When asked if he would have submitted the applications, Horowitz responded, “Not in that form.”  Per the IG’s testimony, those 17 FBI errors tainted the whole of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.  Having read and listened to the IG’s testimony, I would agree.  The Crossfire Hurricane agents’ and lawyers’ administrative omissions may well contribute substantively to the BIC getting away with his crimes in office and his conduct unbecoming to the Office of the President.
            Later Wednesday evening, the House Judiciary Committee held an internal public meeting to make speeches about the articles of impeachment.  If anyone needed a display, a demonstration, of the consequences of tribalism in a representative democracy, listen to and watch this meeting of the Judiciary Committee.  My congratulations go to the Republican Minority members in holding so solidly to their devotion to their tribe over principles and substance of this Grand Republic.  The Minority members unanimously declared by their votes that the BIC’s conduct in office is acceptable to them—reasonable performance.  None of them, not a one, attempted to defend the BIC’s conduct; it is OK and acceptable to them.
            In 1995, we witnessed the power of social outrage to defeat overwhelming, hard, technical evidence in the acquittal of O.J. Simpson in the brutal murder of his ex-wife and her boyfriend.  In 2019, we witness the power of tribalism to overcome substantial testimonial and documentary evidence of the BIC’s criminal conduct and conduct unbecoming of the Office of the President.  And so it goes.

            The British people voted in their general election on Thursday.  The Conservative Party achieved significant gains; 326 seats needed for an outright majority.
            Party                            Seat     vote portion
Conservative Party                 365      43.6%
Boris Johnson
Labour Party                           203      32.2%
Jeremy Corbyn
Scottish National Party             48        3.9%
Nicola Sturgeon
Liberal Democrats                    11      11.5%
Jo Swinson
Democratic Unionist Party         8        0.8%
Arlene Foster
Sinn Féin                                     7        0.6%
Mary Lou McDonald
Plaid Cymru                                4        0.5%
Adam Price
Green Party                                 1        2.7%
Jonathan Bartley & Siân Berry Am
Brexit Party                                 0        2.0%
Nigel Farage
UK Independence Party              0        0.1%
Patricia Mountain
Other parties                               3        2.1%

            TIME magazine announced their 2019 Person of the Year—climate activist, Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg of Sweden.  The next day, the Bully In Chief (BIC) tweeted:
So ridiculous. Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!
Donald J. Trump added,
Roma DowneyVerified account @RealRomaDowney
4:22 AM - 12 Dec 2019
The BIC just count not stand it that the TIME editorial staff chose a 16-year-old female, over him.  He missed, again!  To put this in perspective, the BIC had some group develop a fake TIME cover with himself on it for display at his fake gold plated properties with his licensed name on them.  Well, the TIME staff chose well.  Just when we think the BIC cannot get any lower class, he proves us wrong.  You know, if the BIC was still just a self-proclaimed businessman who has repeatedly declared bankruptcy to stiff those who tried to work with him, we could marginalize and ignore him; but, we cannot.  He is the duly elected President of the United States of America; he is NOT a private citizen.  This disgusting episode is yet one more item of the gargantuan list of his conduct unbecoming the Office of the President.
            In an odd juxtaposition, the First Lady’s anti-cyber-bullying, “Be Best” campaign has remained silent regarding the 73-year-old BIC’s cyber-bullying of a 16-year-old girl.  When queried by CNN reporter Kate Bennett about the incident, the spokesperson for Melanija Knavs responded, “It is no secret that the President and First Lady often communicate differently — as most married couples do.”  She cannot call him out because he would throw her away too, like he does anyone and everyone who disagrees with him or condemns his conduct.
            After all, the BIC thinks he possesses the divine right of kings, including sovereign immunity—the king can do no wrong.  Well, he may think he is king, or a dictator, even as his tribe in the Senate persists in protecting him, but he is NOT a king!  I have faith in this Grand Republic that the bill will eventually come due for the Bully-In-Chief.

            Who’da thunk it!  I had visions of spending my retirement writing the books that excited me.  Instead, I am spending endless hours listening to congressional testimony, reading voluminous documents, and researching the basis of various elements.  I need to get back to my writing rather than this nauseating and disgusting episode in American history.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.934:
Comment to the Blog:
“We openly and publicly debate many issues.  Not calmly or rationally, but openly and publicly.
“I enjoyed Pelosi's response to the question about ‘hate’ for the Chump.  Whether or not it's an accurate statement of her feelings, it's at least dignified and clear.
“If Brexit comes up for another vote, perhaps they can be presented with a clear plan to vote on, not ‘we'll do it somehow or other.’”
My response to the Blog:
            Are you referring to the specific ‘you’ or general ‘you’?  If the latter, I don’t know how I can agree.  Watching & listening to the entire impeachment hearing today (presentation of the Intelligence Committee findings) was painful and nauseating in the extreme.  The Minority worked mightily to make it about everything other than the BIC’s conduct. There was very little debate.
            My feelings and opinion precisely.  I was impressed—strength with respect.
            We’ll see how Thursday’s UK election turns out.  At the moment, it looks like the Conservatives may take a clear majority, which may well give Johnson the leverage he needs to push his version of Brexit.  However, neither party is united with respect to the Brexit task.  I suspect, despite the election, Brexit is far from over or a done deal.
. . . Round two:
“I got hung up in the format of these emails and because I didn't use ‘you.’  I responded to your sentence beginning, ‘We don't debate . . .’ in reference (as I read it) to the United States population in general.  We do indeed debate.  Everything, at length.  Now it occurs to me that you might have referred to our elected representatives.  They debate also, although they don't agree on the questions in contention or the facts about them.  Perhaps you meant someone else.  Watching those proceedings in their entirety is beyond my capabilities.  I'll keep whatever sanity I have intact.
“History seems to turn on odd details sometimes.  In the case of Brexit, the wording of that referendum left the details open enough that voters could believe in whatever style of ‘exit’ they wished for.  That's the central mistake that's come back to haunt them.  Now we see whether the UK voters buy Boris Johnson's trumpery (prior meaning) about the Continent having to play nice because of the UK's importance.  I wish the British well and I hope they recover soon, whichever horse they bet on to carry them through their mistake.”
 . . . my response to round two:
            The beauty and curse of the second-person pronoun “you” is that it is both singular and plural—same word.  Yes, I used the first-person plural pronoun and that was by intention.  Yes, many of us debate the issues in a serious and constructive manner; however, far too many simply curse, demean, disrespect, and otherwise attempt to intimidate anyone and everyone who does not agree with their opinion—the BIC being the commander-in-chief of that segment.  My Inbox being just a minor reflection.  My concern is the disenfranchisement of those in that group.  They are American citizens just as we are.  There are real reasons they are so bloody angry and desperate.  We need to engage them as best we can.  What we witnessed with the 41 members of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary on Monday was not a debate of any kind; it was tribal verbal warfare.
            You were much smarter than me.  It was like watching a train wreck; I could not turn away; I got nothing else done.  It was nauseating, disgusting, and a whole bunch of other negative emotions.  I recognize that it was a step that had to be taken to further the process, but it was a stain on the democratic principles upon which this Grand Republic has stood for 231 years against the bloodletting of the Civil War, the destruction of two world wars, the Great Depression, and the debacle of the Vietnam War era.  What we witnessed on Monday is not who we are.
            The referendum simply defined the desired end-state for those who voted, not the path to achieve the outcome; therein lies the rub.  I believe, erroneously or not, that the vote result was not the majority, only the majority of those who chose to vote.  Like you, I wish our British cousins good fortune on their journey.  Either way, I don’t think it really matters at this stage.  They need to get this tragic affair behind them.  Even a “No Deal” Brexit would be better than this festering sore.
 . . . Round three:
“The discussion of ‘you’ confuses me.  I couldn't find it in the original post or my initial comment except in the Sandburg quote.
“In the meantime, today's development is that articles of impeachment have been chosen. ‘Abuse of power’ is so vague as to be useless.  ‘Obstruction of Congress,’ on the other hand, will be debated for generations of legal scholars.  The Democrats have shot themselves (and the country) in the foot again.”
 . . . my response to round three:
            The discussion of semantics is not worth the time.  Closed.
            In a different reflection of the same issue, I am disappointed that the BIC may well get away with his blatant obstruction of justice (a felonious crime), campaign law violations (a felonious crime), ad infinitum.  The bar has been lowered (or raised depending upon one’s perspective) so low that future presidents should be referred to as temporary kings (or queens); perhaps we should drop any reference to the presidency and just call them your majesty.  This is not a criminal prosecution (hopefully that will come later after he is no longer in office).  The Republican-controlled Senate will likely declare nothing wrong here; they will formally lower the bar into the gutter.  What lays ahead for We, the People, is concerning, to say the least.  Yet, I cling to an abiding optimism in the ultimate resilience of this Grand Republic.  I hold onto my faith that we shall ultimately overcome this debacle.
 . . . Round four:
“I wish you and our nation well, but faith in human behavior is not a strong point for me.  I'll continue praying.”
 . . . my response to round four:
 “I am what I am, and that’s all that I am.”

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

Cap                  :-)