Update no.1117

Update from the Sunland

No.1117

5.6.23 – 11.6.23

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- On Thursday afternoon, [the person who shall no longer be named] was indicted by a federal grand jury in South Florida under Special Counsel Jack Smith on reportedly seven federal felonious counts related to the former president’s mishandling of highly classified national defense documents. This is just the classified documents case [1074, 1077]. The insurrection case as well as the Georgia election interference case, are still pending. Reportedly, he will be arraigned in Miami this coming Tuesday (13.June.2023). Since he was a child (and he still acts like a child), he has sought prominence and attention. Well, he finally attracted the attention he deserves.

The first 27 pages of the 49-page grand jury indictment, United States v. Trump [USDC SDFL Case no. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC], offered a detailed summary of the evidence against the defendants. The following felonious violations of federal law are alleged:

COUNTS 1-31 - Willful Retention of National Defense Information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e))

COUNT 32 - Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1512(k))

COUNT 33 - Withholding a Document or Record (18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A), 2)

COUNT 34 - Corruptly Concealing a Document or Record (18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(l), 2)

COUNT 35 - Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation (18 U.S.C. §§ 1519, 2)

COUNT 36 - Scheme to Conceal (18 U.S.C. §§ l00l(a)(l), 2)

COUNT 37 - False Statements and Representations (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(2), 2)

COUNT 38 - False Statements and Representations (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2))

Tiny is solely charged in Counts 1 through 31 and 37. Nauta is listed as a co-defendant in Counts 32 through 36 and alone on Count 38. Counts 1 through 35 carry a Maximum Term of Imprisonment of 10 to 20 years for each count. Counts 36 through 38 call for a maximum term of five years. Whether the punishment is served consecutively or concurrently is decided by the judge at sentencing and could amount to several hundred years in prison. Trump Attorneys 1, 2, and 3 were not subjects of this indictment, but the evidence presented against [the person who shall no longer be named] does not bode well for their future employment. Based on the evidence presented in this indictment, I would expect separate criminal charges against Trump Attorneys 1, 2, and 3 to be forthcoming and disbarment for all three at a minimum. Of note, the boxes display no markings of organization, i.e., number, type, catalog, or contents. There is apparently no registry of the contents of those boxes. The facts are the facts. The law is the law. This has absolutely nothing to do with politics despite the screams of the fBICP and MAGA loyalists. The reason the DoJ is against Republicans is they break the law, period, full stop.

In a rather disturbing announcement, Judge Aileen Mercedes Cannon [1078] has been initially assigned to preside over the trial. You may remember her from the fiasco of her decision in authorized a special master review requested by Tiny in the precursor case, Trump v. United States [USDC SDFL WPBD Case no. 22-81294-cv-AMC] [1078]. Her ruling was overruled by the Circuit Court of Appeals and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The fBICP minions immediately gathered around ihr Anführer and defended him. They accused the Department of Justice of being weaponized against them, implying that the charges are capricious and non-substantive. Tiny’s charges are serious felonious crimes that other citizens have been sentenced to prison for many years for far less significant violations. When the fBICP sycophants say anything about weaponization of the Department of Justice, they really mean the law does not apply to them; it only applies to everyone else. What is particularly sad at a very personal level in this sordid affair is his indicted co-defendant. Waltine Torre Nauta is a former U.S. Navy culinary specialist petty officer from Guam assigned to the White House. Tiny retained Nauta’s service after he departed the White House. Nauta was a loyal, obedient valet, personal assistant, and so-called body man, who acted by the explicit direction of [the person who shall no longer be named]. Tiny dragged Nauta into the cesspool in which he dwells. Nauta is likely going to be convicted of serious crimes and sent to prison for many years for his loyalty to a man who did not deserve such loyalty.

Founders and Framers did not explicitly or implicitly address the question of an individual running for or holding federal office after being convicted in a court of law. Based on my reading of the U.S. Constitution and associated supporting documents, I believe them assumed the Electoral College would be the appropriate buffer / filter to avoid a convicted felon becoming president of the United States. They never imagined a conman, huckster, snake-oil salesman would ever get past the Electoral College. They were wrong. It happened. Now, we must deal with the consequences.

 

More Republicans and fBICP adherents entered the 2024 presidential race with Christie and Pence joining this week. The more candidates who enter and challenge [the person who shall no longer be named], the more likely they will dilute the opposition against the conman, huckster, snake-oil salesman and nearly guarantee his renomination.

Just a reminder, there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits a twice impeached, confirmed sex offender, and likely soon-to-be convicted felon from running or even serving as president of the United States. To my knowledge, the Founders and Framers did not even debate such a potential, set aside provide for restrictions on the potential. My guess, they probably considered such a possibility as virtually impossible. The voters would never support such a ridiculous event, and the Electoral College would provide a collective buffer to a less than honorable candidate. I must note here that premise has never been exercised or executed. It failed in 2016; it can fail again. Nonetheless, in our present circumstances, the larger the number of Republican candidates for president significantly enhance the potential that [the person who shall no longer be named] will be nominated again, which is one step too close to another serious challenge to our democracy.

 

Oklahoma approved expenditure of state treasury funds to the tune of US$26M for funding of a religious (Catholic) charter school. Oklahoma's Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved the plan to create the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in a 3-2 vote. I imagine the board’s decision will be (or should be) challenged in court. A few years ago, I would have said I cannot imagine the decision surviving judicial scrutiny. Today, I am not so sure. So much for separation of church and State.

 

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Allen v. Milligan [598 U.S. xxx (2023); No. 21–1086]—affirming the district court rejection of an Alabama redistricting plan (HB1). The justices voted 5-4 with Roberts and Kavanaugh voting with the liberals. The chief justice wrote the majority opinion, which was unremarkable. The debate among the nine justices was over the validity and application of §2 [79 Stat. 437; 52 U.S.C. §10301] of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) [PL 89-110; 79 Stat. 437]. Of course, Justice Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion. The noteworthy segment of his opinion was his purposeful ignoring of history, as if it does not matter. He also implicitly says, yeah what happened in the past was wrong, but hey, all is forgiven. We start anew. I will say that Justice Thomas is correct intellectually in that all levels and forms of governance, society, and social intercourse should be blind to a citizen’s skin pigmentation [I will add here that we should]. Unfortunately, institutional segregation, discrimination, and oppression cannot be overcome by a ruling of five justices in black judicial robes. It takes years, decades, and centuries of learning from history and methodically counteracting the root causal factors and effects. We have only just begun the long struggle to overcome the evil grips of institutional racism. Justice Thomas is flat wrong. We cannot and must not forget history. The U.S. Constitution makes it quite clear; we cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of race [I extend that prohibition to anyone or combination]. Regrettably, far too many people inside and outside of government see themselves as superior and thus empower to oppress others not like them by any one or combination of the social factors. The rest of us must do better and help the oppressed among us despite the narrowmindedness of the Supremes’ dissenters.

Gerrymandering has always fascinated me in a morbid sort of way since I first learned of the practice in school; What is the reason(s) for a convoluted voting district—sh*ts and giggles? There is a reason legislatures gerrymander voting districts. I highly doubt they are drawn for generous altruistic reasons. The fallacy in all this is the presumption of future voting knowledge. Thomas acknowledges the broad invariability of voting performance, i.e., the political polarization of our society. Reading between the lines, we are headed toward the division of districts based on past voting records.

The issue is access to political power. No one can predict future voting, nor can we prescribe the solution to political power. The dissenters in Milligan are perceptive enough to recognize that trying to equalize the future is chasing their tail and ghosts. Whatever criteria the Supreme Court may dream up or devise, the more nefarious factions within our body politik will find a way around it since it all about power.

Here is an idea. The constitutionally mandated, decennial, U.S. Census should establish the racial make-up of each congressional district in each state. We have got to put an end once and for all time this damnable Jim Crow (in all its versions).

With equal populations . . . not registered voters, nor voting citizens, and not even adult citizens—population. The best we can do and/or hope for is to give minorities and the oppressed within our society the opportunity. Yet, at the end of the day, the old adage prevails—we can lead a horse to water, but we can’t make him drink. People will vote as they choose.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1116:

Comment to the Blog:

“As you pointed out, the most salient fact about the debt ceiling is that the relevant law should be repealed ASAP.

“Joni Ernst and her Republican colleagues don’t merely ‘appear like’ parochial tribal hacks; that’s exactly what they are. The economy’s doing all right except that greedflation is still running higher than wages.

“Two central topics are plenty. Rest and enjoy your day,”

My response to the Blog:

Well, thanks, and yet, I do not understand, after this most recent experience, why is it the Democrats do not even make an attempt to repeal §1 [40 Stat. 288]? After the cudgel has been used to extort changes and the weapon dropped, it appears the Democrats picked up the bludgeon and handed it back to the Republicans to be used the next time—January 2025. This has got to stop.

I was being generous, but you are, of course, quite correct. As long as the fBICP, MAGA bunch have their hands on the instruments of power, we will see more fascist, ‘greedflation’ largesse.

Well, thank you for the pass. Like all of us, I must deal with what comes.

 . . . Round two:

“Self-care is always appropriate.

“The Comstock Act is one more example of the Democrats’ ‘lovable loser’ approach to policy, along with the filibuster and the debt limit.”

 . . . my response to round two:

Quite so! I have learned far more medical stuff in the last nine months than I really cared to learn, but such is life. The situations are becoming more complicated and frequent, but again such is life. We press on as best we can.

Ah, you know me so well. You selected the perfect example. The Federal Anti-Obscenity Act of March 3, 1873(AKA Comstock Act) [PL 42-III-258; Chap. CCLVIII, p.598, Sess.III; 17 Stat. 598]. The act was passed during the 42^ndCongress with a Republican majority in both chambers and was signed into the law by President Ulysses S. Grant (Republican). The composition of the 42^nd Congress was:

House: Republican, 135; Democratic, 102; Liberal Republican, 3; Independent Republican, 1.

Senate: Republican, 55; Democratic, 14; Liberal Republican, 1; Independent Republican, 0.

The worst of it is, we are still dealing with the consequences of the Comstock Act to this day, e.g., Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration [USDC ND TX Amarillo Div. case no. 2:22-CV-223-Z (2023)]—150 years after the Comstock Act became law. The debt limit and contemporary use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate are 20^th Century artifacts, arguably efforts by Republicans to hold onto waning power. The Republicans held a substantial majority in both chambers in 1873, so I am not sure what the Democrats could or might have done to stop that damn repressive / oppressive moral projection law. Nonetheless, suppression of our precious freedom of choice and fundamental right to privacy is a direct product of Republican moral projection for more than a century and a half. They persist to this very day, which is one of myriad reasons they must be relegated to the scrap heap and dustbin of history—the sooner, the better. We, the People, must vote!

 . . . Round three:

“The Democrats might not have been able to stop the Comstock Act in 1873, but they've had plenty of opportunities in the 150 years since then to repeal it. No action so far.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Point taken. Quite so! The Democrats had substantial majorities in both chambers in past Congresses in the last 150 years. They could have repealed that damn law. They did not. One of these days they must get the freakin’ law off the books. I do not know, and if I was to guess, I suspect saner minds assumed the law had been nicked away over the years by various court rulings. As we have recently witnessed, even an outmoded law can be reinvigorated by a zealous prosecutor or judge. The validity or constitutionality of the Comstock Act has never been challenged on the whole or repealed, and we see what can happen.

 

Another contribution:

“Looking forward to that! Political happiness is at a low ebb here too. It just underlines my personal view on that cult.

“Your political low tide is much more serious than our minor disturbance. What a bloody mess. Trust you are feeling on the mend now bud. We’re having coffee in our garden in what could be the first day of a dry hot summer. We have 27degs C now which as you know is quite warm for this side of the pond.”

My reply:

In such discussions, I constantly recall the wise words of Sir Winston about democracy being the worst form of governance . . . except when compared to all the rest. Yes, our politicians are human beings. They are all flawed as we all are. Some are ethically, morally, or criminally flawed. What we are suffering at the hands of [the person who shall no longer be named] is embarrassing, disgusting, nauseating, and otherwise revolting. But, we shall endure and overcome.

Yes, our version of political intrigue is far more serious, threatening, and concerning. We are the closest we have ever been in our history to abandoning democracy for autocracy or dictatorship. A bloody mess, indeed! Again but, we must remain relentless in our defense of democracy and freedom. Tiny represents a disastrous form of authoritarianism. A conman, huckster, snake-oil salesman bamboozled 74M Americans, and many of those still believe conman. He must and will be stopped.

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I would say I am 100% for a 75-year-old man. The struggle with old age continues.

We will only reach 33degC today; the sky is clear, and wind is light and variable.

 . . . follow-up comment:

URL sent:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65869992

“Have the USA ever had a president locked up and still serving ? it appears that should he be found guilty of these crimes he will still run for residentiary at the White House--what pure nonsense.

“Looking forward to your words Cap.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

Good article . . . accurate.

No, we have not had a president or former president convicted and incarcerated. We should have . . . Richard Nixon. President Grant was arrested for speeding in his carriage. But, no president has ever been incarcerated. The current indictment (reviewed in this week’s Update) is very detailed and damning. And yet, he will be tried in South Florida, so conviction is not a slam-dunk. After all, a jury acquitted O.J. Simpson; the same could happen with Tiny despite the hard evidence. The Constitution and the law do not prohibit a citizen from being elected and serving as president from prison; I do not know how that would work, but it is technically and legally possible. The authors of the Constitution never considered such a potential—sad but true.

 . . . another follow-up comment (open):

“Thanks Cap, all clear and accurate. It’s difficult for me to shed my tears on that person why, because I’m not an American and personally I would consider an infringement of our friendly rights to be that critical but then I don’t need to do,  as you my friend are totally capable of combatting his handling of what was a most serious position in the world of politics that he has  made something of an utter mess of. We shall see what John the law makes of it all.”

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)