Update no.1145

 Update from the Sunland

No.1145

18.12.23 – 24.12.23

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- Erstwhile America’s Mayor turned penultimate villain Rudy Giuliani [982, 991, et al] filed for bankruptcy after the US$148M defamation judgment against him.

-- [The person who shall no longer be named] gained a big win on Friday. SCOTUS rejected the Special Counsel’s petition for an expedited ruling on presidential immunity in the federal interference case [1125] giving Tiny the very delay he sought. His strategy . . . delay, delay, delay. He is gambling that he will win the presidency again, and using the authority of the presidency, he would likely dismiss all the federal charges against him and probably pardon himself.

 

United States Steel (USS) has apparently agreed to be purchased by Nippon Steel for US$14.1B. I imagine they had good reason to sell the company, but I have mixed feelings about the move. Selling an essential manufacturing company to a foreign country, even a close ally, does not appear to be in the best interests of the United States. This sale still must be approved by the regulators, so it is not a done deal yet. Like our precious freedoms, capitalism can be used against us to ill-effect. Such is the nature of the beast.

 

Finally, one of the states has done what must be done by the U.S. Constitution. On Tuesday, the Colorado State Supreme Court issued its en banc ruling in the case of Anderson v Griswold [2023 CO 63; Case No. 23SA300]. The decision was a direct appeal of a district court ruling {DC CO Denver Case 2023CV32577]}. The Colorado Supreme Court decided 4-3 that [the person who shall no longer be named] is disqualified from running for and holding any office in government up to and including president of the United States. The ruling has poked the hornet’s nest to say the least.

The majority decided, “we conclude that because President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list President Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.” A key element of the majority’s hung upon their assessment that §3 of the 14^th Amendment is “self-executing,” meaning congressional implementing legislation is not required in the context of this application--qualification . Congress did decide to criminalize §3 with the passage the Crimes and Criminal Procedure [PL 80-772, 62 Stat. 683; Title 18 U.S.C.; (25.6.1948)] as set forth in 18 U.S.C. §2383. The majority stated, §3 “cannot be read to mean that only those charged and convicted of violating that law [18 U.S.C. §2383] are constitutionally disqualified from holding future office without assuming a great deal of meaning not present in the text of the law.” The dissent treats §3 as a crime and thus subject to due process of law, i.e., Tiny must be charged and convicted in a court of law of violating 18 U.S.C. §2383. For clarity and reference, the law in question is:

U.S. Constitution, 14^th Amendment, §3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Further, the law passed by Congress criminalizing §3 reads:

18 U.S. Code §2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Lawyers representing [the person who shall no longer be named] argued, among other things, that the president is not specifically listed in §3 as senators, representatives, and electors are, and thus the section does not apply to the president. None of the justices bought that argument. The dissent also rejected the majority’s rationale that §3 was self-executing.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has so far chosen not to charge Tiny under 18 U.S.C. 2383. Imposing §3 would be easier and simpler if Tiny had been convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2383, but I agree with the majority in this case that is not required by the explicit words of §3. This case is sure to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but I doubt it will be decided in time to meet the Colorado secretary of state’s deadline of 5.January.2024, for inclusion on the primary ballot. SCOTUS could order extension of the stay and maintenance of the status quo ante, which would complicate primary vote counting.

For what it is worth, I agree with the majority in Anderson, §3 of the 14^th Amendment is not a crime. There is no punishment. It is only a qualification (or rather a disqualification) like the other elements Article II, §1, cl. 5, just another qualification. Due Process is associated with criminal law and prosecution does not apply. Further, no one has a right to run for president. It is a privilege with qualifications. Either you meet the qualifications to run, or you do not. The 14^thAmendment simply added another qualification. The majority affirmed the secretary of state’s authority to validate the qualifications to appear on an election ballot including the §3 disqualification.

As appears the case in Colorado, the political parties (here the Republican Party) want the secretaries of state to carry the burden of conducting an election and the state to foot the cost of conducting an election, but they want to hide behind the First Amendment that is their sole right to determine eligibility. Rightfully, so the Colorado Supreme Court rejected the Republican freedom of speech argument in determining eligibility for office.

Let us never forget, no one did any of this to [the person who shall no longer be named]. There is no conspiracy against him. He chose to do what he did all by himself, and in fact defied dozens of expert advisors to break the law to feed his ego. This is what happens when you break the law.

 

Former Attorney General Bill Barr interviewed with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Wednesday, 20.December.2023. During that interview Barr said, “I strongly oppose Donald Trump for the Republican nomination, but I think that this case [Anderson v Griswold] is legally wrong and untenable. And I think this kind of action of stretching the law, taking these hyper-aggressive positions to try to knock Trump out of the race are counterproductive. They backfire. He feeds on grievance just like a fire feeds on oxygen. And this is going to end up as a grievance that helps him.”

I agree with Barr’s observation that [the person who shall no longer be named] sustains his ‘brand’ on grievance. He has woven ‘his perceived persecution’ into his grift. That process has worked for him. Millions of citizens give him millions of dollars and almost rabid loyalty. Yet, I strongly disagree and condemn the implication of his words that Tiny should not be prosecuted because he benefits from the perceived persecution. He is not being prosecuted to ‘knock him out of the political race.’ He is being prosecuted and disqualified because he incited an insurrection to alter the constitutionally mandated presidential election process. At the root, I disagree with Barr’s coloring of the Anderson case as ‘wrong and untenable’ as noted above. Yes, the case is helping Tiny in his continuing grift of the American people but that must never be a rationale for avoiding prosecution. Tiny wants us to be afraid, to hesitate; we cannot!

 

Like my epiphany reported in Update no.1143, I have had another epiphany. It came in the form of a nightmare Wednesday night. The malignant narcissism and egocentricity of [the person who shall no longer be named] may have a far more sinister objective. He wants to go down in history for eternity as the man (singular) who ended representative democracy, tore up the two and a half century old Constitution of the United States, and joined the other dictators in our history books. Whether he achieves the infamy of his de facto model Adolf Hitler is yet to be determined. He claims to know nothing about Hitler, and he probably does not. Yet, I see history repeating itself.  As a self-professed conservative, he has taken us back to 1932. Just as there was in 1932 Germany, we have 74 million Americans (46.8%) who are enabling [the person who shall no longer be named] to achieve the historical prominence the man’s narcissism seeks—his name in gold shining lights. It only took 36.1% of German voters to end their democracy for 20 hard, murderous years. They eventually recovered. Will we?

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1144:

“‘morning mate. Just had a quick scan, could you kindly tell me just what Mr Biden is accused of? Why don’t politicians proceed in the tasks we expect them to accomplish, not ripping their equals into small pieces.”

My reply:

I wish I could answer your query definitively. The best we have is typical right-wing conspiracist accusations. The resolution (H.Res.918) passed by the House gives us none of the probable cause evidence common to an indictment. The resolution is only a procedural assignment to three House committees to go fishing. If you would like to read H.Res.918, here is the URL:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/918/text

The accusations are rather cynical and hypocritical extensions of the life troubles of the president’s son, Hunter. They extrapolate that Hunter was so bad that he must have been sustained and exploited by his father. To me, this is yet another example of the fBICP and MAGAts projecting onto their opponents the very things they are doing or would do if given an opportunity, i.e., the president must be skimming off his share because that is what they would do.

Hunter’s life has to be very painful to the president. Joe Biden’s greatest mistake, if we wish to look at him through a negative lens, is standing by his son as he was screwing up on multiple levels. There is no question Hunter has made monumental mistakes, but that does not translate to the father without hard evidence of malfeasance or some form of associated culpability beyond a father’s love for his son.

I will say in closing that the fBICP had better start presenting hard evidence beyond the accusations real soon, or this distraction will be added to the growing mountain of condemnations of the whole party and all their affiliates. This is a tragic vendetta demanded by one desperate man, and his lemming minions are following him off the cliff.

There ya go; that’s my short answer.

 . . . along with follow-up comment:

“Thanks for all that. It took some reading and understanding!

“What a waste of time for paid staff, for God’s sake get on with doing what your supporters elected you to do and stop this endless bickering. Or alternatively, get out find another job.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

Quite so. I wish our politicians would listen and heed. Alas, I doubt they will do so. We have so many other, more important issues to be dealing with today, not least of which is funding the federal government, already three months past due.

 

Comment to the Blog:

“The Biden impeachment has nothing to do with law.

“The circus with the college presidents over alleged calls for genocide doesn’t matter. Opposition to the Zionist (not broadly Jewish) government of Israel is seen as a threat by the military and commercial interests who rent a majority of the House of Representatives. Hence, the performative support for the killers of the Palestinians.

“Giving specific powerful nations veto power in the UN Security Council is itself a threat to world security. Did someone think those nations would be benevolent?

“Of Tiny’s minions, Giuliani has been appropriately judged, but Alex Jones of InfoWars notoriety has a bigger judgment at $1.4 billion. Jones is trying to negotiate his amount down to $55 million, but I wouldn’t bet on that.

“Whatever we call societal control of Internet activity, my point is that millions or billions of sources worldwide will be very difficult to keep in any kind of order. That’s orders of magnitude higher numbers than point source air or water pollution, for example, and the numbers of specific issues are very high as well.”

My response to the Blog:

Oh my, ya got that right! H.Res.918 is one man’s vendetta.

I do not think your assessment of the Palestinian-Israeli situation is quite that simple. One causal factor very close to the root cause is the ultra-right-wing religious zealots that dominate the Netanyahu administration. They refuse to even discuss or consider a two-state solution; that fact alone is a recipe for constant war.

The answer to your perhaps rhetorical question is yes, that is exactly what the founders of the United Nations thought. Such thinking may have been naïve or too narrow in view, but it is what it is. One thing for certain, if anyone invades another country to annex territory or dominate the victim, it is the antithesis of UN objectives and purposes.

Yes, you are quite correct. The baseless conspiracy rhetoric of Alex Jones is far more durable and pervasive. At the bottom line, they both spewed false accusations that injured others, i.e., they crossed the line of freedom of speech and should be muzzled.

OK. I would agree with you on that level. I never said it would be easy or devoid of mistakes. Yet, at the end the day, we cannot just throw our hands up and say oh well.

 . . . Round two:

“Those ‘ultra-right-wing religious zealots’ are exactly the Zionists so many of us focus on who the United States Government supports in defiance of the UN.

“I support removing veto power on the UN Security Council. Also, statements of ideals not supported by action mean nothing.

“I look forward to hearing your ideas for controlling the anarchy of the Internet. I haven’t found any I see as workable thus far.

“Robert Reich’s blog https://robertreich.substack.com/ this morning focuses on his experience of 1968. Many of the comments come from people close to my age and experience, and it’s a fascinating dialog.”

 . . . my response to round two:

Quite right and exactly so. The far-right in Israel are the ones who have destroyed all previous attempts at a two-state solution and a lasting peace. Like we must marginalize our far right, so too the Israeli people must marginalize their far right, religious or not. The far-right religious zealots in Israel have pushed the country very close to a theocracy like operates in the Islamic Republic of Iran. If we needed a living example of the wisdom of the separation of church and state, Israel would be an excellent such example.

When more than a few “nations” are led and controlled by dictators or autocrats, we cannot revert to simple majority rule. Further, the UN has very few checks and balances. I am reticent to abandon the Big Five veto authority. If we expel Russia, we may have no choice.

One more time, regulating the Internet, by its very definition and construction, is impossible. My advocacy is to apply guidelines or safeguards to sources (websites, applications, and such)

I do not see 1968 in the same light as Reich. The actual article is:

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/1968

I suppose I am disqualified from commenting since I was in the middle of my four years of undergraduate education at the U.S. Naval Academy, a different bias from Dartmouth. He offers an interesting perspective, nonetheless.

 . . . Round three:

“The Internet is essentially a web--nodes connected by energy, in this case. I reiterate my point that there are too many nodes and they’re too easy to create to effectively control them.

“I doubt you’re ‘disqualified’ from commenting on Reich’s blog, but you’d get many responses from others who comment there. The point of the military is to defend the Establishment; many of us would rather change the Establishment.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Agreed. The Internet cannot be controlled.

Disqualified by my bias. I do not see the events of 1968 in the same light as Robert Reich. Those are very broad words and terms. The government is also the Establishment. What do you want to change the Establishment to?

The forecast says we have a major dose of rain coming tomorrow. We shall see. Still moderate temps.

My days and thoughts have been darker of late; I am writing in this week’s Update.

 . . . Round four:

“The grammarian in me says your viewpoint wouldn’t ‘disqualify’ you but might make you unpopular in that particular context.

“The government is the operative heart of the Establishment. I’d change it to something less corrupt, less a servant to wealth, and less subject to manipulation via the Electoral College and other means.

“Our weather outlook here is winter ‘light’; the current climate gives us easier winters.

“I’m sad that your thoughts are darker. Despite the attitudes that come out in this blog, I’ve learned to ‘argue’ with my depression, and it’s one of my more successful enterprises.”

 . . . my response to round four:

All in the perspective . . . I only acknowledge the potential.

Nice ideals & objectives . . . much more difficult to translate into practical reality.

High stratocirrus moving in, the leading edge of a big storm drenching California. The wet should be here later today and out your way in the couple of days.

Yeah, me too, but these are the times in which we live. I try to confront the black dog, but I am not always so successful. My success rate seems to be falling with age, but that could just be the nature of the beast.

 . . . Round five:

“It's always been difficult to make ‘nice ideals and objectives’ into reality. Even the less ‘nice’ ones (avoiding taxation) took the American Revolution to achieve.

“I wish you well with the black dog. My version of the holiday season is over, which always helps.”

 . . . my response to round five:

Agreed. No argument.

I am OK today, but the frequency of visits seems to be increasing as I age. Perhaps that observation is natural, or it could be that we have mounting stimulants.

 . . . Round six:

“I have been blessed in ways that would be difficult to explain concerning my depression. I wish that on you.

“The gray days seem to add to the depression, even though it's very warm here for December. I'll get out in it just the same; sitting idle is the worst thing for my mood and my health.”

 . . . my response to round six:

I am not sure I have a process other than wait it out; the episodes pass without professional or medicinal intervention. Thank you for your well wishes.

Yesterday was a good rainy day plus. Sunshine today and moderate temperatures. I am very rarely sitting idle. If I am not writing, I am reading in one form or another.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)