Update no.974

 Update from the Sunland

No.974

7.9.20 – 13.9.20

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

 

            To all,

 

            The follow-up news items:

-- On 19.March.2020, two and a half months into the COVID19 pandemic [946], the Bully-in-Chief (BIC) told journalist Bob Woodward, “I wanted to always play it down.  I still like playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic.”  This exposé is physical, evidentiary proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the BIC outright lied in his public statements.  Then, he stated, “I did not lie.”  That statement alone defined the fact that he does lie, or he has no concept—NONE—of what a lie is.  Which is more dangerous to this once grand republic or to We, the People.  Then, as he always does, he has tried and continues to try to blame journalist Bob Woodward for not making public the BIC’s March contradictory statement.  Since the BIC refuses to be president, perhaps Bob Woodward should.  Let us just be clear: Bob Woodward was doing research for a book he was writing.  The BIC was elected to be president, not Woodward.  Woodward accomplished his task.  The BIC is not even close to doing his job.  The worst part of it is, We, the People, hired him to be our leader.  What this latest episode shows in graphic detail is he has no freakin’ clue what leadership means, what it entails, or what his obligations to all of us are by his employment.

            Then, he had the audacity to cite Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, which means he also has no clue about history either.  He has not studied that era or those leaders.  Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill said anything even remotely similar to the BIC’s statement with the White House sign behind him, “I didn’t lie.  What I said was you have to be calm, and you can’t be panicked.  I don’t want to jump up and down, and start screaming death, death!”

            And his constant hand gestures that say, “No, no, it’s really this big.”  He is a joke.  Unfortunately, he is a joke that kills innocent people.

 

            The BIC is digging his own grave, and we are compelled to watch him, shovel load by shovel load.  And, he keeps digging the hole deeper.  During a U.S. Labor Day news conference on Monday with the White House as his backdrop, the BIC said, “I'm not saying the military's in love with me.  The soldiers are.  The top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight wars so all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.  But, ah, we're getting out of the endless wars.  You know how we're doing.”  I suppose the BIC was attempting to invoke Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” admonition, but instead, the idiot just insults people.  The BIC literally has no clue what the Defense Department does for national security or the republic, and of all people, he is the commander-in-chief, or at least he was hired to be serving us in that capacity.  Oh well, we do not get it right every time, but at least we have the opportunity to correct our mistake this coming November.

 

            The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an intriguing ruling on Wednesday, 2.September.2020, in four parallel cases—United States v. Moalin [9CCA No. 13-50572 (2020); D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04246-JM-1].  Four ethnic Somali men, residing in San Diego, California, were convicted on 22.February.2013, of providing material support to a designated terrorist organization— al-Shabaab [The Youth].  The four men involved were:

-- Basaaly Saeed Moalin – naturalized U.S. citizen, taxicab driver

-- Issa Doreh – naturalized U.S. citizen, worked at Shidaal Express, a hawala

-- Mohamed Mohamed Mohamud – legal refugee, imam at a mosque frequented by San Diego’s immigrant Somali community

-- Ahmed Nasir Taalil Mohamud – legal visa, taxicab driver.

The three-judge panel unanimously confirmed their convictions.

            The four men were convicted in part by warranted wiretap surveillance recordings and wire transfers of funds.  The foundation of their appeal was the disqualification of the wiretap recordings as “fruit of the poisonous tree” in that investigators were tipped off by the illegal, overly broad, NSA surveillance disclosed by Edward Joseph Snowden (a Booz Allen contractor and fugitive from justice, exiled in Russia) of the highly classified, TS SCI-PRISM surveillance program data on 20.May.2013 [599, 610]—three months after their convictions.  The Appeals Court judges did not buy the argument.

            What is a point of curiosity for me is the amount of time between the presentation of arguments before the three-judge panel [10.November.2016] and the rendering of their opinion [2.September.2020]—four years later.  The judges did not offer an explanation for the delay, although I suspect they had homework to perform.  The Snowden disclosures certainly complicated the appeal and judicial proceedings.  However, based on the evidence presented and discussed, I believe the judges made the correct assessment.  Whether this case goes any farther is yet to be determined.

 

            “Holy smokes, Batman!”  What we have all suspected since Attorney General Barr’s confirmation by the Republican Senate, we now have in public, black & wide, documents in a Department of Justice (DoJ) court filing.  The case at hand was filed by Elizabeth Jean ‘Jeanie’ Carroll, stemming from the BIC’s typical antics when he is accused of a crime.  Carroll accused the BIC of raping and sexually assaulting her in 1996.  She described the rape at the hands of the BIC in her complaint filing and in her book “What Do We Need Men For?: A Modest Proposal,” published by St. Martin's Press (July 2, 2019).  Carroll filed the original complaint as Carroll v. Trump [Index No. 160694/2019 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.)] on 4.November.2019.  In §§22 through 42 of her complaint, Carroll described the details of the rape incident; in that description, she alleges that the BIC penetrated her with his fingers and penis.  The whole incident lasted two to three minutes.  Unfortunately, the statute of limitations expired long ago on the original rape case, so he will escape justice.  Carroll also cites the accusations of 12 other named women and one similar court case: Zervos v. Trump [Index No. 150522/2017 (Sup. Ct., N.Y.Cty.)].  But it was the BIC’s runaway mouth that precipitated the legal action, a civil libel and defamation case.

            E. Jean Carroll wrote the advice column “Ask E. Jean” that was published in Elle magazine for 26 years, until abruptly, the magazine declined to renew her contract in December 2019 [coincidence?], ending her primary source of income.  Whether the BIC had any influence in her termination has not been established, but I would not be surprised, taken in the light of similar nefarious actions documented in the Special Counsel’s report.

            After a series of legal actions over 10 months to delay or dismiss the case failed, and the case appeared to be headed toward the deposition stage before a trial by jury, the BIC convinced the DoJ attorneys to file the Notice of Removal and take over his defense.  U.S. Attorney General Barr approved the removal of the case from state court and transferred to federal court under a new case number: Carroll v. Trump [USDC SDNY Case 1:20-cv-07311 (2020)], filed on 8.September.2020.  Barr is not, and apparently never was, the People’s attorney; he is the BIC’s personal attorney with all of the trappings of government around him.  The DoJ argument this week, 10 months after the legal proceedings began, the Carroll complaint was filed in November 2019, while the BIC was serving as POTUS, and thus the DoJ declared that it is obligated to defend the president in this civil case.

            I do not know whether this filing by the Department of Justice automatically supersedes the existing case, or the trial judge must render judgment in favor of the removal notice?  Perhaps, the plaintiff must challenge the removal before a judge engages, and if so, I have no idea what the plaintiff will choose or be able to do in this situation.  Any lawyers in the audience are welcome to share their opinion (anonymously, of course).  If this is allowed to proceed for whatever reason, what it does is further delay the process because the whole case must restart in federal court.  Far more serious if approved to proceed, the Department of Justice will likely declare the case must be dismissed because the president has absolute or at least qualified immunity from civil action while in office.  This is not a move to defend the BIC in a civil action of libel and defamation stemming from a sexual assault by the BIC.  I believe the purpose of the change is solely to dismiss the case on immunity grounds.

            If anyone wants or needs to read, learn, and appreciate what the BIC does to bury adversaries in court, I offer this compilation document as Exhibit Number One—294 pages of legal machinations intended to deny justice.  The BIC and his army of attorneys do NOT want this case to go to trial.  They do not want the BIC deposed under oath and subject to perjury charges, and most of all they do not want the court to order the BIC to provide a DNA sample for comparative analysis.

 

            And, far too many people condemn me for refusing to use the familial name of the president of the United States.  I have read his name so many damn times in the plethora of legal documents from state court to the U.S. Supreme Court, and various investigatory reports.  His name alone is disgusting; I refuse to add even one more utterance.  If that is disrespect for the office of the president, I say so be it.  I believe and have multitudinous evidence that the BIC has been infinitely more disrespectful to the Office of the President of the United States than I have ever been to the BIC.  And, contrary to other accusations, I do not hate the man.  I simply recognize him for the man he is.

 

            In these days of racial reckoning, I found the following article:

“How ‘Prerequisite Cases’ Tried to Define Whiteness – A law of 1790 said that only ‘free white persons’ were eligible to be naturalized.  But courts struggled for years afterward to tell who was white at all.”

By: Matthew Wills 

JSTOR

Published: September 4, 2020

https://daily.jstor.org/how-prerequisite-cases-tried-to-define-whiteness/?utm_term=How %5Cu201CPrerequisite Cases%5Cu201D Tried to Define Whiteness&utm_campaign=jstordaily_09102020&utm_content=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email

Despite the noble words of the Declaration of Independence, our ancestors were not racially blind as “. . . all men are created equal . . .” suggests.  Laws and judicial interpretations fill the history books that document the institutional racism that is our inheritance.  Mathew Wills illuminates two of the myriad laws to confirm his premise.  The Naturalization Act of 1790 [PL 1-II-003; 1 Stat. 103; 26.3.1790] [556], § 1 [1 Stat. 103] states, “That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years . . .”  While the author cites the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) [AKA McCarran-Walter Act] [PL 82-414; 66 Stat. 163; 27.6.1952] [450] as the end of that question or debate, I think we are still in that process.  One of these days, we will grow up and mature to a sufficient level that we will expunge the social factors from our laws and especially from the interpretation and enforcement of the laws.  The law and our public conduct should be blind to the social factors.

            Just a reminder for clarity, I define the social factors as: age, gender, race, skin pigmentation, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, economic status (money), education, political affiliation, marital status (provided that the applicant has the capacity to enter into a binding contract), or disability.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.973:

“I’m still waiting for a bottle of this ‘Snake Oil’.  I‘ve tried our local chemist without luck.

“My God-how does your wonderful country tolerate this dreadful attitude to government and leadership?  Over here we would have sent him on his way months ago.”

My reply:

            Oh no!  No legitimate, ethical chemist (pharmacist in U.S.) would ever provide the toxic BIC’s magic snake-oil elixir.  Best steer clear, my friend.

            I understand and appreciate the sentiment.  However, our form of governance has been and remains different from yours.  The only way for us to remove a sitting president, no matter how incompetent, unethical, immoral, criminal, or the posterchild for the Ugly American syndrome, is via impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by trial in the Senate.  Earlier this year, the House did its part, but the Senate failed to stand up for the nation and rather chose to defend their tribe.  That is our system, however flawed.

            A footnote perhaps: our system of governance assumes the goodness of people who make it through the electoral process to achieve office.  Our system never considered the current confluence of an unethical, criminal, malignant narcissist ever becoming president, and further, that the Senate would intentionally fail to perform its moral duty.  These are the times in which we live.  We had multitudinous signs, clues, indicators, and evidence of the BIC’s paucity of positive character traits, and yet, 62M citizens voted for the man.  I can only conclude that gross negative character flaws are of no concern to a major portion of our voting citizenry.  To me, character matters; I did not vote for that man, and I certainly will not be doing so in the upcoming election.  We can only hope a majority of citizens come to their senses and overcome the toxic effects of the BIC’s magic snake-oil elixir.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“Love the expression ‘snake oil elixir’ we did discuss this some years ago probably when I first contacted yourself about Abilene, a city that has strong connections with WW2 and where I as a non-American based much of my second book and enjoyed writing it. (still non published but that’s my fault.)

“How correct you are about our two governmental systems.  I do find that somewhat surprising, but we live and learn.  When things go wrong I believe that the U/K would work to the good of the nation where as in your case it may work for the good of the ruling party only.

“We live in times that history will record. Our great grandchildren and beyond will talk of their long gone relatives who survived or otherwise this damned virus. Regrettably Cap we are making history and we do not need sycophantic and apple-polishing leaders to guide us to the next dawn in our lives.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            The legacy of worthless substances, or worst toxic materials, is more than a century old.  Yet, I am not aware of things being quite so bad as the BIC’s magic snake-oil elixir.  Unfortunately, far too many American citizen have bought, consumed, and now are addicted to the worthless stuff.  I do not know if we will ever break the grip this foul junk has on so many people, so we can only hope.  We will get a good indication after Election Day.

            Yes, exactly.  I called it tribalism.  Others call it factionalism.  They have developed a greater affinity to their tribe than to this once grand republic.  We are degenerating into a third-rate banana republic—make American great again, indeed!  These are the consequences of the BIC and his worthless junk.

            History, indeed!  This era will not be recorded as a high point for the history of this once grand republic.  We can only hope that following generations are better and more successful that we have been.  My generation has lowered the bar.  I shall hold onto the hope that my descendants will help raise the bar.  We are better than this!

 

Comment to the Blog:

“The Chump’s Elixir, like all of those before it, has a ‘magical’ (addictive) ingredient.  The old medicine show compounds included plenty of alcohol.  The Chump’s brand excuses and supports the prejudices and irrational fears of the buyers.

“Attorney General Barr must be utterly corrupt, inexcusably ignorant, or both.  I expect it’s both.

“We already knew that the Chump’s words are mostly the unfiltered output of a sick mind.

“Biden shows lesser character flaws than the Chump.  He’s a party hack rather than an Orwellian villain.  Senator Harris probably has relatively more integrity than either of them, although her policy history worries me.  There are ‘technically viable’ (ballot access to 270 electoral votes) Libertarian and Green Party USA candidates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_and_independent_candidates_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election”

 . . . my response to the Blog:

            Your first paragraph brought a broad smile to my face and in my heart.  I had not considered an addictive aspect to the BIC’s magic snake-oil elixir, but I do believe you are spot on correct—irrational fears indeed.

            I am beginning to see Barr in exactly that light—not good.

            Yes, we did. I would add the qualifier . . . a very sick mind.  The BIC spewed more just yesterday afternoon.

            With all due respect, a third-party ticket cannot be viable if it does not appear on the ballot in all 50 states and territories.  Tickets that fail to appear on all ballots can only be considered spoilers.  Thank you for adding the link; the associated information is interesting and valuable.

 . . . Round two:

“I referred to the Green and Libertarian tickets as ‘technically viable’ because they have access to enough ballots that they could theoretically win.  They won't but they could, and they're an alternative to voting for greater or lesser evil.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            From the URL you provided, I would agree with the viability of the Libertarian Party; they are missing only one state—Rhode Island.  However, the Green Party is missing 20 states.  They would have to win virtually every state in which they are on the ballot—highly unlikely, verging upon impossible; however, theoretically and mathematically possible.  I don’t know why the Greens aren’t on all ballots, but I suspect that is a metric of their organization; thus, my spoiler comment.  At least the Greens will appear on the Ohio ballot.  You have more choices than we do in Arizona.

            I have confidence you will vote for the best candidate on your ballot.  I can assure you, I will do the same.

 . . . Round three:

“There are underlying issues about ballot access nationwide.  Laws about the electoral process pass quietly because the dominant parties share an interest in not facing other competitors.  I still refuse to vote for evil.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            Yes; it is an aspect of what we generally call gerrymandering—the majority party in a state using the law to enhance or amplify their domination.  I call it tribalism.  I do not know if we can overcome the phenomenon.  The Republican Party, or rather the BIC Party, appears to have taken the position that it is their way, or they will burn the house down.  Very sad!  And all if this pessimism from a normally optimistic citizen.

            I remain baffled by your insistence that evil is the metric of decision.

            I suppose it is wise to prepare ourselves mentally and emotionally for an even more grotesque additional four years with the BIC occupying the Oval Office.  As a collateral consequence, perhaps we should also prepare ourselves for the BIC finding a way to circumvent the 22^nd Amendment to the Constitution, if he lives that long.

            Ah yes, these are the times in which we live.

 . . . Round four:

“The current corporate tool, Biden, is being presented to progressives as a lesser evil than the Chump.  Plenty at the DNC aren't trying to present him to us as beneficial to the country but merely less harmful.  Senator Clinton was sold the same way.  Same offer, same answer.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            That seems like a rather cynical and broad overstatement.  I do not and cannot endorse that generalization; I know you do not need my endorsement—I’m just sayin’.

 . . . Round five:

“Cynical, maybe.  Overbroad, I think not, based on his and the DNC's history.  Good luck getting real change out of them.”

 . . . my response to round five:

            I think our differences here are based in expectations.  I just finished yet one more legal action by the BIC to deny justice to anyone who would dare challenge him (see Update no.974).  I am far beyond exhausted by the tumultuous chaos induced by and surrounding the BIC.  At this stage, I just want stability.  I am not seeking and do not expect any administration to implement dramatic social change.  I just want stability.  Once we achieve that state and let the dust settle from the cataclysm that has been the BIC’s administration, we can consider further social change on our journey to achieving the ideals upon which this republic was founded.  Long journeys begin with small steps—stop the pain.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)