Update no.971

 Update from the Sunland

No.971

17.8.20 – 23.8.20

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

 

            To all,

 

            The Democratic National Convention occurred this week in a virtual video format that offered an extraordinary message of union, involvement, and potential prosperity.  The Biden-Harris ticket clearly embraced his former party opponents, political opponents, and everyday working folks.  The inclusion of Republicans in the national message moment was unusual, refreshing, and encouraging.  The format reflected the constraints imposed by the current and on-going COVID19 pandemic.  The breadth of the virtual convention was nothing short of awesome, featuring extraordinary diversity, inclusion, unity and optimism.  I will freely confess to tears welling up in just the expanse of the roll call vote of the states and territories nominating Joseph Robinette ‘Joe’ Biden Jr. of Delaware and Kamala Devi Harris of California for the presidency and vice presidency in the upcoming election.

            The four-day virtual convention featured many prominent speakers, both Democrat and Republican.  From my perspective, the most notable were Michelle Obama, John Kasich, Colin Powell, Jill Biden, Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Mike Bloomberg, among so many others, including Steph Curry and his family with their two precocious girls.  Although I am not a fan, Hillary Clinton also spoke and offered an admirable speech.  For all the polished rhetoric, the ultimate scene-stealer was a 13-year-old boy from New Hampshire, Brayden Harrington, who is struggling to overcome his stuttering.  “Joe Biden cares.”  Brayden gave us heart and genuine admiration.  The most remarkable phrase from the four days to me was, we must lead “by the power of our example rather than the example of our power.”  That phrase alone brightly illuminates the stark difference between Joe Biden and the BIC.  The choice is clear.

            It is the Republicans turn to inspire us next week.  I eagerly await the message.

 

            Many of us criticized President Bush (43) for his slow and tepid response to Hurricane Katrina [195], as a below the bar effort that cost far too many lives.  I have also persistently condemned his attempt to fight a war on the cheap instead of mobilizing the nation to deal with the threat we faced; again, his decisions cost far too many lives.  I have also claimed the worst president in my lifetime was President Jimmy Carter, not because he was not a good and decent man, but because of his gross mismanagement of important governmental functions, not least of which was national security matters.  Compared to the BIC’s performance, or rather paucity of performance, Bush-43 and Carter are highly revered saints.  I shall live the remainder of my life with a new low standard for presidential conduct—the Bully-in-Chief (BIC) [796-971].

 

            The fifth and final volume of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) was released on Tuesday, 18.August.2020.  For reference, the first volume was released by the SSCI on Thursday, 25.July.2019.  All five volumes contain and present 1,316 pages of more hard evidence of Russian government interference in the 2016 election as well as the malfeasance of the BIC and his cronies during the campaign for the 2016 presidential election.  This time, the report cannot be sloughed off as some political partisan hack job or BIC-declared hoax.  The committee is run by Republicans, and it has bipartisan support.  The SSCI report confirmed and indeed expands upon the findings of the Special Counsel’s report [804, 898, 902].  Of course, the report matters not to the BIC or his loyal supporters.  They will most likely not read any of the volumes, or if they do, they will attempt to discount the findings as part of some so-called deep state conspiracy against the best president ever to stand on this planet in the past, present, or future (sarcasm).  They are entitled to do and believe as they wish.  I do respectfully disagree.  While not intended to be such, the report is an indictment against the BIC and his political campaign on a host of levels, not least of which was their failure to confront the Russians for their criminal activity and cyber-warfare against the United States.

 

            The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York filed an indictment against Brian Kolfage, Stephen Kevin Bannon, Andrew Badolato, and Timothy Shea—United States v. Kolfage, Bannon, Badolato, and Shea[USDC SDNY 20 cr 412 (2020)].  There are two principal charges against all four of these American citizens: 1.) Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, and 2.) Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering.  The charges stem from the creation and operation of We Build the Wall, Inc., a non-profit, GoFundMe, organization.  They raised US$25M in contributions from supportive citizens and allegedly skimmed off millions of the collected funds for their personal use. The indictment listed a page worth of bank accounts and acquired property to be confiscated.  Perhaps even at the fitting level, the FBI arrested Bannon on the 152-foot mega-yacht The Lady May owned by exiled Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui and anchored off Westbrook, Connecticut.

            There are numerous tables on the Web that present the number of criminal indictments, criminal convictions, and prison sentences of each presidential administration since Nixon and including the BIC (so far).  The worst by nearly three (3) times the next worst (Nixon) is none other than the BIC, and he is not done yet.  The bottom three (worst) are Reagan, Nixon, and the BIC.  The top three (best) are Carter, Clinton, and Obama.  Does anyone note the commonality?  I suspect ol’ Steve and his buddies are going to become guests of Uncle Sam for a long time, unless the BIC decides to issue another one his highly questionable pardons.  We shall see.

 

            The United States of America has 4% of the world's population but 25% of the worldwide COVID19 cases and 22% of the COVID19 deaths.  The hospitalizations in the U.S. versus the world proved more problematic to obtain, since there is a presumably disparate reporting standard; I believe the U.S. hospitalizations are about 21% of the world levels.  What is wrong with this picture?  The BIC persists in his sleight of hand activities regarding testing, as he has repeatedly insisted that if we did not test, we would have no cases.  His contention is irrational, ignorant, and otherwise very un-presidential—a snake-oil salesman’s chicanery.  The BIC’s laissez-faire approach to the pandemic response has brought us to this tragic state, not for what he did so much, but rather for what he did not do.  He publicly declared he was not responsible and literally pitted the states against each other in a common purpose that proved extraordinarily wasteful and injurious.  The governors, for the most part, tried mightily to control the pandemic, but the BIC’s public example of defiance of the protection measures as some obscene demonstration of freedom and individual rights made matters far worse.  Not abiding the protective measures is simply disrespecting other citizens, and his negative example has absolutely nothing to do with individual rights.

 

            U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero issued his 103-page ruling on the Supreme Court’s remand in Trump vs. Vance [591 U. S. ____ (2020)] [965, 966].  In his Second Amended Complaint, the BIC claimed the grand jury subpoena to Mazars USA LLP “is overbroad and issued in bad faith.”  Marrero’s decision was well written, comprehensive, and directly to the point—Trump vs. Vance [USDC SDNY Case 1:19-cv-08694-VM (2020)].  Judge Marrero denied a request for an emergency stay, set a rapid schedule to hearing arguments on the appeal.  The 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected urgent request by the BIC for a stay. The BIC will assuredly appeal to the Supremes, but I suspect the outcome is established given their words in the prior remand ruling.  This is exactly what the BIC struggling mightily to delay the inevitable looks like.  If the BIC does not gain an emergency stay with the U.S. Supreme Court, he may well be required to surrender his tax records for the decision can be rendered.

 

            By a comfortable 107-vote margin, including two-dozen Republicans, the House of Representatives passed a legislative bill known as the Delivering for America Act [H.R. 8015, House: 257-150-0-24(4)].  The bill would restrict changes that might be implemented in the United States Postal Service (USPS) and allocated US$25B in additional funding.  The BIC has threatened to veto any funding for the USPS, so the Republican-controlled Senate is not likely to even consider the legislation.  So, the Senate majority leader will probably do the BIC’s wet work, once again by his inaction, since the BIC never gets his hands dirty.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.970:

Comment to the Blog:

“The Democratic Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees this year still stand against the Chump and don’t stand for anything.  Deja vu all over again.  Senator Harris’s record as Attorney General of California relieves her of my vote.  I’ll note that the next Vice-President is very important due to the unlikelihood of either major candidate remaining alive and well for four years.

“The New York Times morning briefing newsletter this morning (August 17, 2020) leads with a discussion of possible herd immunity in some locations.  That’s the default outcome of the virus if we don’t do anything effective, as indeed we haven’t.

“The past week’s primaries underscore my point that candidates must stand for something if they seek votes.  Ilhan Omar won her primary in a safe Democratic district.  She’s one of ‘the Squad,’ prominently progressive and clearly supporting those policies.  On the other hand, a safe Republican district in Georgia chose a supporter of the Q-Anon conspiracy nonsense.  However insane I believe that is, she too stands for something.”

My response:

            Regarding what Biden-Harris stand for, we shall respectfully disagree.  Unfortunately, far too much of what they stand for is the antithesis of what the BIC has done to this once grand republic in the last four years, so it is so easily colored as anti-BIC.  I believe you are not giving the Biden-Harris team proper credit.  Yes, far too much of this particular rendition of the silly season has become the anti-BIC.  These are the times in which we live.  In the context of survival, there is so little doubt I would prefer Harris over Pence for a host of reasons.

            I think herd immunity is the default position.  The ineptitude of the BIC’s laissez-faire approach to deal with the pandemic has squandered whatever opportunities we might have had to contain the virus.  So, in that context, I suppose we should prepare for 100s of thousands more dead, and I hope that we are not among that unfortunate group.

            Quite true.  We have the additional challenge during this silly season to sort through all the chaff, smoke, deflection, and obstruction to find the information we need.  “Perfect is the enemy of good.”

 . . . Round two:

“Biden and Harris still don’t stand for anything, only against someone.  Granted, that someone embodies the very worst of American manhood, but that’s not the point.  Negative campaigning undermines election turnout and participation in general.  People listen to both sides and conclude that no candidate is worthy of their vote.   Too often that’s true.

“That was also the point of my comment on the primaries. I don't know at all what you thought I said, but I meant to draw attention to candidates that won by standing in favor of policies.  I might see their positions as ludicrous, but they succeed by offering to do something constructive.  They don’t just point fingers at the other candidate.

“I regret failing to link to the article on herd immunity.  The writer points out new, relatively positive expert statements on herd immunity and suggests that it may already be occurring in certain local areas.  ‘Hundreds of thousands more’ dead is a fear, not a reasonable prediction.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            And it is baffling to me why you persist in your contention that Biden does not stand for anything.  He may not be espousing the policies you favor, but he has made his position quite clear.  Presidents rarely take unilateral action to do anything.  Real accomplishments occur in Congress with the creation and passage of laws that the president approves, or rejects.  I am not particularly influenced by “I will . . .” nonsense.  I must judge any candidate’s ability to lead, to seek compromise, to find solutions to contemporary problems.  Presidents cannot just will things to happen as they wish.  Perhaps the issue here is, Biden is too middle of the road, too moderate, and not at one extreme or the other.  My inclination is the middle ground.

            I did not “predict” hundreds of thousands more fatalities.  I said we should prepare ourselves for such tragedies if we continue down this “oh well,” “it is what it is,” laissez-faire approach to pandemic response.

 . . . Round three:

“I'm not particularly interested in any candidate's current statements.  I study history.  Biden has always sought to represent exactly the center of the positions of the Democratic Party management.  Bottom line: he has no position of his own.  Harris's history, on the other hand, consists of carrying out policies offensive to me, and she will likely serve at least part of the term if Biden is elected.

“You contradicted yourself.  You said, ‘I did not 'predict' . . .’ but then you said, ‘we should prepare ourselves’ for exactly that.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            OK, now we have the essence.  Our political differences rests upon your observation.  I am a citizen of the middle.  I appreciate the positions and abilities of those who seek the middle.  I am far more interested in a vigorous debate, negotiation, compromise, and mutually satisfactory (or perhaps equally dissatisfied, depending upon one’s perspective) solutions.  I see his moderation as a positive.

            You say contradiction.  I say differentiation.  Being prepared for a potential event does not mean I believe (or predict) an outcome.  I suppose that is my military training coming to the fore.  We prepared for all kinds of potential events from nuclear or biological warfare to social disintegration.  Just a little FYI: that is precisely why I am so critical of Bush 43.  The military had numerous good models for dealing with an occupation; they had good plans.  But Rummie had to beat down those plans to achieve the lowest possible expenses to accomplish the president’s strategic objectives, and he relieved the Army chief of staff he saw as an obstacle rather than sound advisor.  We bear witness to the result, e.g., rampant looting after the fall of the Hussein regime and the birth of ISIL; that is a direct, tragic example of the USG not being prepared for winning the peace.  More American lives were lost in that failure than were lost in the original invasion.

 . . . Round four:

“You may well be a moderate.  Biden is a follower.  He will change his positions to suit the DNC's donor base.  If the majority of the DNC decided that slate gray is actually aquamarine with neon pink streaks, so would Biden.  My statement stands.

“Your ‘differentiation’ is confusing, and the military context doesn't do anything to clarify it for those of us not interested in military activities.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            Well then, I am afraid we shall respectfully disagree.  I do not see what you see.

            My apologies.  I thought my military experience was relevant.  My bad!

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)