Update no.933

Update from the Sunland

No.933

25.11.19 – 1.12.19

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

            To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- Another judicial setback for the BIC came this week in a district court judge’s opinion memorandum ruling—Judiciary Committee v McGahn [USDC DC Case 1:19-cv-02379-KBJ].  As some of us have seen, the BIC’s obstruction of justice so brightly illuminated in the Special Counsel’s Report [804, 902] continues to this day.  United States District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected the BIC’s and the USG’s petition for summary judgment to prohibit the former White House Counsel from testifying before Congress.  In her introduction, Judge Jackson noted: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.  On May 20, 2019, President Donald J. Trump directed former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II to decline to appear before the Judiciary Committee in response to a subpoena that the Committee had issued to McGahn in connection with its investigation of Russia’s interference into the 2016 presidential election and the Special Counsel’s findings of fact concerning potential obstruction of justice by the President.”  What is frankly more shocking to me is the USG “robustly denies that federal courts have the authority to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over [the McGahn] subpoena.”  Of course, in his continuing diligent efforts to obstruct justice, the BIC and the USG will appeal Judge Jackson’s ruling to the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court in their extraordinary effort to delay all congressional oversight.

            The BIC’s actions here are baffling in that McGahn has already testified before the Special Counsel for 30 hours.  

            Just a little footnote opinion here!  As the gears of the impeachment process continue to turn, the Republicans have picked up another of McConnell’s favorite mantras—let the people decide.  In the main, I absolutely agree.  This is a constitutional republic “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  What such chants miss by a mile here is the reality that impeachments are all about cleansing the office—making an emphatic statement on acceptable or tolerable conduct by the president (or any other governmental official).  Impeachment is not a court of law; that comes later, after he is removed from the office.  We, the People, will have our voice heard in 11 months, and partially heard in the primary season that begins in late January.  Congress must make a clear and emphatic statement regarding the BIC’s conduct and behavior, so future presidents are disabused of the notion that they can become a dictator or king. 

            Kudos must go to the BIC for signing into law the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act, AKA PACT Act [PL 116-072; H.R.724; Senate: unanimous consent; House: voice vote; 132 Stat. xxx]—a rare, bipartisan, unanimous, congressional action.  The law introduced a term that seems to have been derived from the pornography business—“animal crushing.”  The term means “actual conduct in which one or more living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians is purposely crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise subjected to serious bodily injury.”  The law makes unlawful any “animal crushing” and/or the distribution of video, photograph or depiction of “animal crushing.”  The law explicitly excludes veterinary euthanasia, slaughter for food, and “hunting, trapping, fishing, a sporting activity not otherwise prohibited by Federal law, predator control, or pest control,” among others.  While the new law does not precisely prohibit intentional animal fighting events, e.g., dog or cock fights, I think such conduct is covered under the “serious bodily injury” provision of the new law.  The law does not have punishment provisions other than specified in Title 18 Section 48.  This law has been long overdue.  The outright cruelty demonstrated by some malfeasant human beings deserves the condemnation and felonious punishment by We, the People.

            Congress passed another important piece of legislation a week ago—the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 [PL 116-xxx; S.1838; House: 417-1-0-13(4); Senate: unanimous consent; 132 Stat. xxx].  The BIC has had the law on his desk since the 21^st of November.  Perhaps the BIC intends to use a pocket veto to avoid taking action, since Congress passed the bill with a veto-proof majority.  The PRC leadership has reacted very strongly against the nearly unanimous congressional action.  The new law extends the provisions of United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 [PL 102-383; S. 1731; 106 Stat. 1448; 22 USC 5721; 5.10.1992], codified U.S policy toward Hong Kong in advance of reversion to the PRC control [1.7.1997] after the expiration of the 100-year lease [9.6.1997] and British governance. The law makes a clear statement of support for the protesters in Hong Kong, who seek freedom.

            Representative Thomas Harold Massie of Kentucky (a Republican) was the only member of Congress to vote against the resolution.  [Just a related FYI: Massie publicly stated that former FBI Director James Comey should be in prison rather than convicted Russian spy Mariia Valeryevna ‘Maria’ Butina; now that is rich.]  Massie’s statement sets quite the tone; this is OK for my tribe but not for yours.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.932:

Comment to the Blog:

“It went to the Spam box again. 

“Someone needs to designate a ‘White House Crime of the Week’ award to add to the impeachment counts and guide law enforcement on the rest of the perpetrators.

“The threat of injury to Ukraine came in impairing their defense against Russia.

“Working with the Republicans is not a reasonable aspiration.  Take the Senate, win the Presidency, and run over them.  Working with them would repeat the wasted time of the Clinton era.

“I can't resist pointing out that your other commentator would make a stronger argument if they used language better. The past tense of ‘seek’ is ‘sought,’ not ‘seeked,’ and that's not all.  Also, most of us are tired of hearing about Hillary Clinton and/or Obama.  Clinton's not the President. Obama's Presidency is over.”

My response to the Blog:

            If it is going to your Spam box, the redirection is done by your ISP.  I’ll call my ISP to see if I can create some protected distribution list that would enable me to use the TO: line rather than my current process that required the BCC: line.

            Yeah, you got that right.  But, you and I see that the emperor has no clothes.  Many other Americans see him bejeweled in robes of ermine and velvet with a crown of gold.

            Well, now, that is an interesting argument.  I am not sure how that would play under judicial review.  The argument for bribery with substantial evidence is an easy lift.  The same state for extortion would be a heavier lift, IMHO.

            I appreciate your opinion, but long journeys begin with small steps.  We have gone so far off track, the journey back will take a long time.  We simply must get back to the state of negotiation and compromise to the common good of We, the People, and this Grand Republic.  Domination of one ideology and political dogma is just another form of autocracy or dictatorship; I am NOT in favor.  However, negotiation and compromise require at least two parties willing to do so for the common good.  From my perspective, the Republican Party has taken the position of my way or the highway; they are right and everyone else is wrong.  The people who vote in Republican primaries seem to believe intransigence equates to strength; it is a graphically false equivalence, and it will take a long time to realign such fallacious thinking.  As long as Republicans maintain that position, perhaps overwhelming defeat and marginalization is a necessary step.  We must never forget that we need debate, argument, negotiation, and compromise.  What matters is who votes.

            Early on in the Update and Blog process, I decided to let voices be heard as they wish to speak, i.e., if a citizen took the time to express their opinion, they deserved to be heard—my tribute to freedom of speech.  Further, the contributor is NOT alone.  The same phenomenon can be heard coming from Republican politicians, talking heads, believers and loyal sycophants.  The reliance on those tired arguments is indicative of how weak those arguments are and verges upon they did it so we can do it, which is a lame attempt to lower the bar into the gutter.

. . . Round two:

“The notion of compromise is based on two or more parties working together to achieve some parts of what each of them wants.  The Republicans haven't had to do that back to the Clinton Administration.  (Clinton gave them what they wanted and took credit for it as if it had been his idea.)  The Democrats haven't made much of a difference going back again to the Clintons, who took over the party via the Democratic Leadership Council for the purpose of bringing in large ‘donations’ from Wall Street and other sources, which has meant giving up most of their policy goals.  The current situation does not call for compromise, which historically only comes about when neither major party has the upper hand.  It calls for the independent wing of the Democratic Party to defeat Big Money.

“Assuming you reach a wide audience, the advantage of having commenters who are less literate and who use stale and invalid arguments is that they harm their own positions with most readers by their poor writing and persuasive skills.  Because so many of them share the same viewpoint that is opposed to mine, in the aggregate they do me a favor by looking so dumb.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Indeed . . . as I stated.  Thank you for your observations.  We are both agreed.  Money is NOT speech, despite what the Supremes claim.  Money should not ever decide an election at any level up to and including for the federal employment job of president.  Unfortunately, with the Supremes’ Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [558 U.S. 310 (2010)] ruling, it will take a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supremes.  We will have to endure many more elections before that can happen.

            I appreciate your perspective.  I tend to be less critical of the form and more focused on trying to glean the content.  What is fascinating and attractive to me is . . . why?  I have searched for the answer in many historical events with varied success.  Regardless of our views of the man, and his behavior and actions, this administration qualifies as a historical event.  I still search for why.

 . . . Round three:

“In terms of form versus content, there are a couple of legitimate points about form.  One is that we are trying to address a general audience.  The bulk of readers will measure grammar and logic as indicators of intelligence, whether they do so consciously or not.  The other point is that while I work at getting past grammar, at least to a degree, logic is both form and content.  I see no reason to respect factual errors, unsupported prejudice, or fear expressed as anger.  Let's face it.  If people don't make sense, I don't respect them.  Neither do other intelligent readers.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            I am far from perfect.  I make mistakes.  No matter how many times my books are edited by me and multiple people, mistakes make it into the final published work.  Regardless, I continue to strive diligently to choose my words carefully, craft sentences in a proper and communicative manner to deliver a cogent argument or descriptive image, but I misfire from time to time.  Not everyone feels the same.  As long as I can glean the message, meaning and intent, I tolerate the variance in form.

            I agree.  As I often say, you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to your version of facts.  Facts are facts.  All these damnable conspiracy theories drive me batshit crazy; 1.) people believe them, 2.) they contain a sliver of fact with gobs of supposition, and 3.) most folks are unwilling to check such stories.

            Lastly, I give everyone a lot of latitude if they are willing to make the attempt.  I believe in the necessity of public debate, especially with those other opinions among us.

 . . . Round four:

“I understand and appreciate your diligence.  That's not a question for me. I merely wanted to point out that some of my fellow commentators harm their own causes with our larger audience by failing in those aspects of their writing.  They typically oppose my positions, so it doesn't bother me that they look so bad in print.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            Message received and understood.  ‘Nuf said!

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)