Update no.1093

 Update from the Sunland

No.1093

19.12.22 – 25.12.22

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

 

To all,

 

Happy Holidays to all! Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to those so inclined. To our British cousins, Happy Boxing Day as this edition of the Update goes on the wire. ‘Tis the season of generosity and celebration. It was also a very big week for reading and learning.

 

The follow-up news items:

-- On Monday, 19.December.2022, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6^th Attack on the United States Capitol {HSCJ6} [1020its final public hearing and issued its 154-page Introductory Material to the Final Report of the Select Committee document. The report delineates the HSCJ6 criminal referrals to the Department of Justice for prosecution against:

-- Donald Trump – former president of the United States

-- Mark Meadows – former chief of staff to the president

-- Rudy Guuliani – lawyer to [the person who shall no longer be named]

-- John Eastman – lawyer, legal advisor to [the person who shall no longer be named]

-- Jeff Clark – Department of Justice lawyer

The HSCJ6 voted unanimously to send four violations of federal law to the prosecutors for their consideration. The cited federal laws were listed as: 

-- Obstruction of an Official Proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c))

-- Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)

-- Conspiracy to Make a False Statement (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001)

-- “Incite,” “Assist” or “Aid and Comfort” an Insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383)

They also added two cited conspiracy statutes that they apparently felt they had insufficient evidence to include in their referrals, however they wanted the Justice Department to include in their investigation.

-- Other Conspiracy Statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 372 and 2384)

In addition to the criminal referrals for the leaders, instigators, and enablers of the insurrection noted above, the HSCJ6 also recommended four fellow members of the House of Representatives for official censure and investigation by the House Ethics Committee. They are:

-- Representative Kevin McCarthy of California

-- Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio

-- Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania

-- Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona

Several of those representatives sought presidential pardons in the days after the insurrection [991] failed to achieve its objective. None of them received a presidential pardon. While the HSCJ6 limited its recommendation to the Ethics violations, the Department of Justice is not so constrained. While these representatives were not included in the criminal referrals, the report illuminates numerous facts that establish them as significant contributors and enablers of the BIG LIE and the insurrection. In my humble opinion, all of them should be subject to criminal prosecution for federal crimes, but that is not my decision. The judgment will be made by Special Counsel John L. ‘Jack’ Smith. We eagerly await the indictments and charging documents in each case.

-- On Thursday, 22.December.2022, the HSCJ6 [1020] released its 845-page final report. The report begins with the BIG LIE and steps through every step of the insurrection [991]. The report established and documented that “[T]he central cause of January 6^th was one man, former President Donald Trump, whom many others followed. None of the events of January 6^th would have happened without him.” [emphasis and redaction mine.]

Once again [the person who shall no longer be named] has made history. In addition to being the only president to be impeached twice, he is now the only president to be referred by Congress to the Justice Department for prosecution. Just a little reminder FYI: his conviction in the Senate fell just ten votes short as the majority of the fBICP ignored the evidence, the facts, and the reality of what they had done to protect ihr Anführer.

At the bottom line, the HSCJ6 concluded, we all concluded that only one man was ultimately responsible for the January 6^th insurrection—Donald John Trump. History will so record.

Now, the prosecution, conviction, and punishment of the January 6^th insurrection perpetrators rests with Jack Smith. I expect him to move swiftly to that end.

 

Ourmiddle son sent the following query:

“Specifically, the panel [HSCJ6] said Trump ‘oversaw’ the legally dubious effort to put forward fake slates of electors in seven states he lost, arguing that the evidence shows he actively worked to ‘transmit false Electoral College ballots to Congress and the National Archives’ despite concerns among his lawyers that doing so could be unlawful.

“How can it be legally dubious but also unlawful?

My reply:

            This particular issue reaches back to the Electoral Count Act of 1887 [PL 49–90; 24 Stat. 373]. The law uses rather ambiguous language that Eastman argued left open the potential for conflicting information. I have not finished my reading of the HSCJ6 summary document, but I fully expect there should be a recommendation to Congress to amend the 1887 law to tighten the language and close any potential loophole interpretations. There is much more work ahead.

His follow-up comment:

Interesting 

My follow-up reply:

            Indeed!

            The genesis of the act comes from the highly contentious 1876 election. The Congress of the day tried to fix the problems that surfaced in the wake of the 1876 election; that effort was the 1887 law, which was itself a compromise. Eastman tried to exploit that compromise. I expect Eastman to be criminally prosecuted, and all of this will be examined in court in gory detail.

 

An article in our local newspaper induced contemplation and cogitation of the principal premise.

“Elon Musk didn't ruin Twitter. He exposed the left's appetite for total control – Opinion: Democrats want to control the political narrative, so of course, they have no qualms using government to attack Elon Musk and Twitter.”

by Phil Boas

Arizona Republic

Published 8:00 a.m. MT Dec 20, 2022

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/philboas/2022/12/20/elon-musk-didnt-ruin-twitter-exposed-democrats-appetite-control/69741108007/?utm_source=azcentral-OpinionsNewsNow&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=baseline&utm_term=hero&utm_content=PPHX-1531AR-E-NLETTER39

The central premise is “Democrats want to control the political narrative.” I do not agree.

To me, this is the inverse of the MAGA folks wrapping themselves in the flag and calling themselves patriots as if the symbolism makes the argument.

I think a more appropriate definition of the issue is where do the boundaries of tolerance lay with general rights like free speech. I do believe most of us recognize that shouting “fire” in a crowded theater just to see the stampede of people trying to escape is over the line. There are multiple thresholds of tolerance. One is the legal threshold threat to the common good, e.g., shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Another is the moral threshold, e.g., lying to someone to induce threatening conduct. Yet another is a propriety threshold, e.g., it is just wrong by any standard of common decency. Just because someone crossed one threshold does not mean they cross them all. Yet, some transgressions cross all the thresholds. If Democrats seek to control the political narrative, it is to maintain some semblance of propriety and morality.

 

The Congress finally passed a very broad spending bill. The publicly available bill bears no resemblance to what is being reported. The available text is so convoluted that it is worthless. Even the title has nothing to do with what Congress passed yesterday. The Press is reporting that the US$1.7T spending bill passed by Congress funds the federal government (at least for now), provides US$45B more in aid to Ukraine, US$40B in additional emergency disaster relief, bans TikTok from all federal devices, and overhauls the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The last one is of particular interest given the discussion above in this week’s Update, but I am not yet able to access the specific language of the legislation. Thus, this is a very expensive trust-me bill that forces us to hope for the best.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1092:

Comment to the Blog:

“The Respect for Marriage Act doesn’t go far enough because people will have to go out of state to marry, and may have to meet residency requirements. However, it’s probably the best that would pass Congress.

“Football in any form doesn’t concern me, but those enormous stadiums with no further uses do.”

My response to the Blog:

Oh my, yes, absolutely . . . nowhere near far enough. Parsing the fundamental rights of citizens by states is an affront and offense to the U.S. Constitution and the very founding principles of this Republic. Under the dark cloud of Justice Thomas’s ominous pronouncement in his Dobbs concurring opinion, the law at least installs a stopgap to protect rights as best they could. I expect the far right to challenge the new law on Thomas’s foundation observation, i.e., marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and neither is freedom of choice.

With the likes of Justice Thomas interpreting our laws, we need a constitutional amendment that once and for all explicitly protect every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, freedom of choice, and the exclusion of the government from the private domain.

Thank you for your declaration. Quite understandable, and you are not alone. However, football in the international sense is of keen interest to a very large number of people. The Qatari stadiums built for the World Cup tournament have multiple uses beyond just football matches. They are magnificent architectural works—very impressive.

 . . . Round two:

“I still wonder at Justice Thomas writing an opinion that could invalidate his own marriage. Then again, his wife’s activities might make him nervous, as they should.

“I certainly agree that we need to enshrine the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy in the Constitution.

“The history of the Olympics and other world-class athletic spectacles shows that they harm ordinary citizens of the host city and country most of the time. The facilities typically fall into disuse and the cost of demolition adds to the burden.”

 . . . my response to round two:

You are not alone in that wonder. However, Thomas’s rigidity to conservative dogma and selective citation of the law in his opinions suggests he may have ulterior motives for such radical positions. He summarily, broadly, and generally rejects “substantive due process” as a means for interpretation, and in that stance, I believe he is categorically wrong. I do not think the Founders were ever as rigid as he is. Yes, his wife’s activities in direct support of the insurrection should make him very nervous and uneasy. However, again, his rationalization in case law seems to be consistent. He would vacate his own marriage to make a strict constructionist point.

We are agreed. Now, we just need to get ‘er done.

Somehow I suspect your rendition of an abysmal future will not be the case in Qatar. We shall see. They are beautiful structures . . . for however long they last. I was not an Olympic or world-class athlete, but athletics was an important part of my younger life.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)