Update no. 1152

 Update from the Sunland

No.1152

5.2.24 – 11.2.24

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- A three-judge panel of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard the appeal of [the person who shall no longer be named] in the case United States v. Trump [USDC DC Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC (2023)]—United States v. Trump [DC CCA No. 23-3228 (2024)] [1125]. Tiny sought dismissal of the charges based on his contention that he had absolute immunity [AKA the divine right of kings] for any crimes during or after he served as president. The circuit judges were not impressed. They concluded, “Finally, we are unpersuaded by his argument that this prosecution is barred by ‘double jeopardy principles.’ Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.” He will undoubtedly appeal for an en banc ruling, which should be denied as well, and then to the Supremes. We cannot predict any court accepting Tiny’s arguments, but courts are unpredictable. The three-judge panel was quite thorough. The court proceeding for Tiny’s election interference federal criminal trial remains scheduled to begin in early March, but I suspect it will be delayed to allow for any subsequent appeals. We shall see.

-- On Thursday, the Supremes heard oral arguments in the direct appeal of Trump v. Anderson [case no. 23-719 (2024)] [1149], the Colorado disqualification case against him—Anderson v Griswold [2023 CO 63; Case No. 23SA300] [1145]. I listened to the audio broadcast of the oral arguments in Tiny’s appeal of the Colorado’s citation of §3 of 14^thAmendment of the U.S. Constitution as a self-executing disqualification to be on their state ballot. The lawyers that presented and argued before the court were Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, counsel for [the person who shall no longer be named]; Jason Murray, counsel for the Colorado voters; and, Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson. Lawyers for [the person who shall no longer be named] and the voters and state of Colorado offered sharp, cogent responses driven by queries from each of the Supremes. A ruling by the Court is expected late this month or next.

From my perspective, the Supremes seemed to ignore the elephant in the room—insurrection. No one is doing anything to Tiny; he did this to himself. There is no one else to blame, although he will strive mightily to do so, to portray himself as the victim, a martyr for his believers. The tone and content of questioning by the justices left me with an impression that they are considering the law independent of the context, as if they are purposefully and intentionally ignoring the reality of the January 6^th insurrection. It is like the majority are among the election deniers as well. They focused on procedure rather than content. Colorado was not deciding the national election. It was only doing what is its responsibility under the Constitution. Who is qualified to be on the state ballot for president. Judging by the interrogation of the lawyers by the Supremes, I suspect they will overrule Colorado, which will put Tiny back on the Colorado primary ballot. The Supremes’ decision is expected late this month or next. Again, we shall see.

 

The following eMail thread with a regular contributor may be of interest.

“Here's an issue worth discussing. Also, this is an example of why I usually don't count ideals as motivation in political or corporate life.”

URL: https://popular.info/p/publix-versus-the-public?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1664&post_id=141372927&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=a27i&utm_medium=email

My reply:

Yes, indeedie! This is a very worthy topic. Once and always, follow the money. And worse, we allow (or rather Congress allows) Francelli to write off her massive donation as a business expense and thus pay lower taxes. Any business person of any size uses revenue - expenses = net income equation as the basis for taxes. The wealthy inordinately abuse the equation under the definition of expenses. That is going to be a tough nut to crack.

We need more prosecution to deal with unscrupulous doctors; they are the root of the opioid crisis.

"That's just my opinion, but I could be wrong."

 . . . follow-up comment:

“While the tax write-off is also a scam, the point of the article is that Publix made an enormous return on investment. Their ‘penalty’ for selling Oxycodone unethically was about $10 million to rent politicians, whereas their competitors paid out hundreds of millions for the same offense. Renting politicians needs a large penalty of its own.

“In this instance, the doctors are also offenders. We don’t know from this article if/how they evaded justice.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

Quite correct! Dark money is a deep, if not fatal, flaw in our form of governance. The Supremes, even before Tiny’s contribution, gave corporations the rights of citizenship and money is speech. But, these are the times in which we live. Yes, Publix should see the same punishment as Walgreen’s and CVS. Further, the doctors are the real root cause of the opioid epidemic. Of course, we cannot ignore the demand for psychotropic substances. I will say doctors are not ‘also offenders,’ they are THE offenders. Yet, I could also argue the consumers are the ultimate offenders, which is exactly why our laws must undergo major reform to deal with the inherent demand that drives everything. But I digress, Publix must be held accountable for their contribution.

 

The long percolating fBICP effort to impeach Homeland Secretary Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas failed to pass the thinly fBICP dominated House—214-216-0-1(4). This is yet another embarrassment for Speaker Johnson, who cannot seem to find the handle for herding his covey of cats.

 

The Republican minority in the Senate asked Senator Langford of Oklahoma to negotiate a bipartisan immigration reform bill; several Republican senators joined him in the task. He did so in earnest. After four months of hard work, the negotiating team produced a draft bill that met many of the Republican demands—Senate Amendment 1386 to H.R. 815, re-titled the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2024. In addition to significant enhancement to border security, the Senate bill included important, if not vital, funding for Ukraine and Israel. The fBICP got nearly everything they wanted, and Democrats did not get many of the changes they sought, e.g. DACA pathway to citizenship. The Senate bill was certainly far short of what I have long advocated for, namely a defense in depth that engages the states in the enforcement task. Then, [the person who shall no longer be named], who is not president or an office holder of any sort, decided that he did not want the bill passed because he needed the border issue to be a festering wound, so he had a hot-button campaign issue. [The person who shall no longer be named] did not care what the language or provisions of the bipartisan, negotiated bill were; he did not want any attempt to solve the problem. He wanted a festering wound, chaos, and tragedy, so he had a subject to campaign on for the coming general election. Further, as a consequence of his opposition for a border solution (partial and incomplete as it was), they also tanked vital aid to Ukraine, Israel, and humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. The cynicism of the man is beyond description. And the fecklessness of his fBICP minions in Congress is beyond description.

 

Then, the House tried to pass a separate bill for supplemental aid to Israel—H.R.7217 - Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024. The bipartisan bill failed to achieve the required 2/3 majority for passage (291 in favor required)—250-180-0-1(4)

 

On Tuesday, Nikki Haley suffered an embarrassing loss  to “None of the above” in the Nevada Republican Primary election, and it was not even close. [The person who shall no longer be named] nor any other living person other than Haley was on the ballot. On Thursday, the Nevada Republican caucuses were conducted and will allocate delegates to the Republican National Convention this summer. Please do not ask me to explain why the Republican Party in Nevada has taken such a confusing and obfuscated process of selecting their delegates to the convention. My only guess is, they intentionally and purposely want the process to be confusing to favor Lieber Anführer, who thrives of chaos. Anyway, [the person who shall no longer be named] won 99.1% of the votes in the caucuses, so he will get 100% of the delegates to the Republican National Convention.

 

On 30.November.2021, Ethan Robert Crumbley, then 15 years of age, armed with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun, murdered four students and injured seven people, including a teacher, at Oxford High School, Oxford Township, Michigan, United States, a suburb of Detroit. Crumbley pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to life in prison, without the possibility of parole, for his crimes. What is unique or unusual in this case is the prosecutor decided charge the parents for their culpability in their son’s crime.

On Tuesday of this week, Ethan’s mother, Jennifer Crumbley, was found criminally liable for mass shooting by her teenage son. Ethan’s father, James Crumbley, will be tried separately with his trial scheduled for next month. I expect him to feel a similar fate as his wife. Ethan confessed his mental health struggles and his parents ignored his pleas for help.

The message is clear, or should be, and I truly hope all of society pays attention to this jury decision. Parents are responsible for the conduct of their children and must pay attention to the mental health of their children. They have an obligation to the community in which they live. As such, it is long past due that parents can and should be held accountable for the actions of their children. For all the evidence and testimony against Jennifer, to me, the nail in her coffin was Jennifer’s testimony under oath on the stand when she said, “I’ve asked myself if I would have done anything differently and I wouldn’t have.” OK! Go to prison for a bunch of years and contemplate the errors of your ways. 

 

Special Counsel Robert Kyoung Hur issued a lengthy report concluding that President Biden had, in fact, improperly retained classified documents, but Hur stated that he would not prosecute the president for the crime. He was painfully clear in explaining that the violations of law did indeed occur, but he had decided not to prosecute the president because he was an old man with a poor memory. Hur stated,

We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness. 

The special counsel did not exonerate the president; he chose not to prosecute; there is a monumental difference.

Regrettably, Hur’s report and findings take on the tone of a political hit job, which is sad. He would have simply presented the facts and left the politics out of his report. Instead, Hur wanted to hand [the person who shall no longer be named] a ripe argument for his political campaign. Tiny will undoubtedly contend and claim that his classified documents case—United States v. Trump [USDC SDFL Case no. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC] [1117]—is no different from President Biden’s classified documents case, and as such, the case against him should be dismissed. While Tiny and Joe share common elements of their crimes—unlawful retention of classified documents—there are significant differences, namely obstruction, failure to comply, et al. If [the person who shall no longer be named] had done what President Biden had done once the documents were discovered, he would not be in the trouble he is in today. Tiny did this to himself. That said, Tiny being Tiny, he will make every effort and more to enhance his grift of the American people and intimidate the justice system to avoid his culpability. I do not think Judge Chutkin or Special Counsel Smith will be affected by Tiny’s whining. However, the believers of [the person who shall no longer be named] will be reinforced by his lies and false claims. These are the times in which we live.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1151:

“Thanks Cap for the update. I was a little worried that you didn’t have a personal comment to make this week! However I was pleased when I read on-this is the Cap we know!”

My reply:

Last week was just one of those weeks. I needed a break from [the person who shall no longer be named]. I could not find a topic that inspired me to write and share my opinions. Hopefully, the moment passed.

Looks like this week may be better. We shall see.

 

Comment to the Blog:

“We could discuss how the decline in violent crime conflicts with various marketing claims. (The examples in my blog response are retailers' claims about shoplifting and politicians' claims that Democratic cities are dangerous.)”

My response to the Blog:

Yes, that is a bountiful topic. Politicians exaggerate to instill fear in their believers and the malleable/gullible. Cities are not violent . . . unless you are caught up in an incident by happenstance. The data are the data. The facts are the facts. I trust nothing coming from any politician of any color. Trust but verify, I suppose is the watch phrase. We must start somewhere. In the case of Tiny and his fBICP, as I have written previously, we can reliably take what they say as accusations against the opposition and that will probably describe their conduct, beliefs, and actions; they accuse their opposition of doing what they are in fact doing themselves, e.g., THE BIG LIE. The crime in cities is no different. They select a specific crime and accuse the opposition of enabling that crime, then they generalize to the whole.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)