Update no.1173

Update from the Sunland

No.1173

1.7.24 – 7.7.24

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- Stephen Kevin’ Steve’ Bannon finally reported to federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut, to serve the four-month sentence for his conviction [1032, 1071]. And, who was there with her mouth to send off the criminal? Margorie Taylor Greene (MTG); of course, she was. The bunch were bellicose as always. Bannon portrayed himself as the martyr for the cause.

-- Rudy Giuliani has been disbarred in New York and can no longer practice law. He vowed to appeal the ruling. Oh my, how the mighty have fallen.

-- On Tuesday, Manhattan District Attorney Bragg publicly stated that he is open to delaying the sentencing of [the person who shall no longer be named]. The convicted felon was scheduled to be sentenced next Thursday, 11.July.2024. The judge and prosecutors are digesting the impact of Trump v. United States [603 U. S. ____ (2024); No. 23–939] [see below]. The sentencing of Little Fingers is now scheduled for Wednesday, 18.September.2024, to give Judge Merchan time to study the immunity ruling for applicability and hold hearings if necessary.

-- On Sunday, Boeing plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge and agreed to pay a US243.6M find to avoid trial. The charge stems from the crashes of two B737-MAX8 aircraft—Lion Air Flight 610 (LN610) [878] & Ethiopian Airline Flight 302 (EH302) [896]. Victim families are reportedly livid over what they called a sweetheart deal; they sought a US$25B punitive fine for Boeing’s malfeasance. This is just the beginning for Boeing, and there are still no signs the company is moving to correct the error of its ways for the last four decades of myopic focus on profits above all else. The company has a very long journey on a very rough road before they will see the light of a better tomorrow.

 

In the aftermath of the first debate debacle [1172], President Biden agreed to sit down for a one-on-one nationally televised interview. George Stephanopoulos of ABC News interviewed the president in Madison, Wisconsin. When asked what happened in the debate, President Biden responded, “I was exhausted. I had a bad night.”  The answer may be fine for John Q. Citizen, but it is not acceptable for the president of the United States. The job is relentless, 24/7, healthy or ill, happy or sad, none of those excuses matter a twit. We depend on the president to stand watch continuously. In many ways, it is an impossible job that ages people prematurely fast. He does not get a bad night. He does not seem to appreciate the significance of the vulnerability he displayed in the debate. The president and his lieutenants must manage his time, to find him time to sleep and down time to refresh. That process failed last Thursday night. When President Biden’s responds that he was exhausted and had a bad cold, I hear that he did not respect the debate process. He did not see the danger in his opponent. He should have known how important such debates are.

When Stephanopoulos asked the president if he watched the tape of the debate [1172], President Biden responded, “I don’t think I did. No.” WHAT! Surely he is not that oblivious to the seriousness of his situation and the significance of the future of the nation. A man who does not or cannot recognize the problem is more problematic than a man who just ignores the problem. If I had such negative feedback and backlash from an event I was in, the first thing I would do is look at what everyone else saw. Further, I hope his short-term memory is not that bad; either he did or did not. “I don’t think I did” is hardly reassuring.

Every professional athlete knows he needs a good night’s sleep and a day or two of rest to achieve top performance. When I had an important or dangerous mission the next day, I always focused on getting a good refresh the night before. I am five years younger than President Biden. I know and recognize that I am not the man I used to be, and I must adjust my behavior to accommodate the reality of my physical, mental, and emotional state at it is today . . . not as it used to be.

The Stephanopoulos interview did not help President Biden’s situation. Yet, as I have written numerous times, I would rather have a tottering, well-intentioned, old man as president than a malignant narcissist bent on making himself king, seeking revenge upon those he perceives to have wronged him. Worse, the latter is a conman who is a pathological liar with no morality or conscience. I am not happy with President Biden, but there is no doubt who I will vote for in November.

 

My oh my, what a result from our British cousins. As Americans celebrated Independence Day, the British went to the polls to vote in Parliamentary elections. The Labour Party swept to a landslide victory.

Labour                         412

Conservative               121

Liberal Democrat        71

SNP                             9

Others                         37

A new government has been formed. The Conservatives are out; Labour is in. New Prime Minister Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB, KC, MP for Holborn and St Pancras, received his charge from King Charles III. A new era begins.

 

The Supremes waited as long as they possibly could, until the very last day of the session, to release their decision in the immunity case—Trump v. United States [603 U.S. ____ (2024); No. 23–939]. The appeal to the Supremes stems from the federal election interference case—United States v. Trump [USDC DC Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC (2023)] motion to dismiss [1125] and the associated appeal to the DC Circuit, United States v. Trump [DC CCA No. 23-3228 (2024)] [1152]. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, stated, “This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency.” What Roberts failed or refused to acknowledge is [the person who shall no longer be named] is the only one of 46 presidents so far to have conducted himself in a criminal manner during and after he served as president [except Nixon since he was pardoned for his crimes]. Roberts concluded, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.”

Justice Sotomayor wrote for the minority and articulated the essential facts associated with the former president’s alleged criminal conduct. She also observed, “It is a far greater danger if the President feels empowered to violate federal criminal law, buoyed by the knowledge of future immunity.” “Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.” With this ruling, “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.” Sotomayor concluded, “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.” No decision from the Supreme Court should ever get to that stage, but it has.

Justice Jackson added her dissent, nothing, “To the extent that the majority’s new accountability paradigm allows Presidents to evade punishment for their criminal acts while in office, the seeds of absolute power for Presidents have been planted. And, without a doubt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. “If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.”

This ruling is yet another case where the strict constructionists suspend their insistence on original meaning and interpretation to futher their objectives. Congress has passed no law against [the person who shall no longer be named] (or any other president for that matter). Little Fingers is the one who chose to violate existing law. Further, this decision resolves nothing. A nefarious fellow like [the person who shall no longer be named] will claim that all of his actions before, during, and after the January 6^th insurrection are official in-the-line-of-duty actions (or inactions as the case may be). The prosecution will rightly claim that nothing he did in his incitement to insurrection and interference with the electoral process was official; it was all unofficial and outside the immunity protection described in the immunity decision. The impasse will then force the judge to adjudicate each item, and then each judgment will be appealed and re-appealed. Worse yet, the majority excludes any evidence that might be construed or assumed to be an official act from being admitted in any prosecution of a former president.

The majority failed to recognize or acknowledge that a president can be elected that has no respect or regard for the law, no respect for the traditions and precedent of the office. Like the Founders / Framers, the majority assumes the general good of anyone elected as president. [The person who shall no longer be named] could not care less about what his conduct is doing to the service of future presidents; he only cares about himself. The majority is this case fails to even acknowledge that such men could make it to and contaminate the Office of the President of United States. I highly doubt the Founders / Framers ever intended in any form or fashion to have a president as a criminal entity immune or effectively immune from prosecution. It is unconscionable. The current rendition of the Supremes was emphatic that the president has no immunity—none, zero, niente—for unofficial acts. Unfortunately, this immunity ruling opens an enormous, potentially infinite, Pandora’s Box of horrors. All a criminal president has to do is declare his actions “official” and he will probably die before justice could be served. The Founders / Framers as well as contemporary Supremes have not considered that a president might get elected who is solely interested in self-promotion and aggrandizement rather than serving the interests of the republic and the People. But, here we are! We had such a president and that malignant narcissistic man may potentially be re-elected to a position of such power and immunity. Once again, the strict constructionists among the conservative faction of the current Supreme Court bench choose to ignore their professed dictum of adherence to meaning of the words as originally written and as the meaning was intended when written. Convenient! As is so bloody common in the political domain, the strict constructionist faction among the Supremes chooses when, where, and how to ignore their professed principles to extend their vision of the law. They have created immunity where none exists in the Constitution as written. They amplify what they wish and ignore what they choose, just as they do in the political domain. These are the times in which we live.

Despite my misgivings and criticism of the Supremes’ immunity decision, I do believe Chief Justice Roberts sought and attempted to find some compromise ground in this case. From my perspective, both sides have gone too far to make their points. The majority wants us to believe the president is still subject to the law, and the dissent wants us to believe the president is now above the law. The reality seems to be somewhere in between. What the majority’s standard establishes now will dramatically complicate the prosecution of any president or former president for criminal conduct in or out of office by requiring the courts to determine whether every fact involved in the prosecution of a president or former president is “official” or “unofficial” without defining what those words mean under the law. President of the United States is such a unique job, he may well claim only he can judge whether his actions were official or unofficial, therefore only he can decide what is legal, in essence the law and the Constitution do not apply to him.

Of course, [the person who shall no longer be named] has been emboldened by the Supremes’ immunity ruling. He will now declare everything he has done including in his state business fraud felony conviction {People of New York v. Trump [NYSC, Cty of NY Indictment No. 71543/2023] [1107] [1168]} were official acts as president. If he does so, it will force judges in each case to pass judgment on which of his charged actions were official and which were unofficial. Then, those rulings will be appealed to determine with the judges’ rulings were consistent with Trump v. United States. The Supremes will once again be called upon to validate or refute those appeals. After all that, the actual trials might proceed. We are talking years (plural), folks. Added into all this mess, the Supremes have played into Little Fingers’ hands directly by delaying the judicial process. Potentially compounding this turn of events, if [the person who shall no longer be named] should happen to get re-elected to the presidency, we will face additional constitutional challenges with him dismissing the federal cases against him, pardoning himself and other direct players in the insurrection, and suspending the state prosecutions or even imprisonment orders until after he leaves office for the last time. Yes folks, this is going to get very ugly and messy.

Lastly, I will note in closing this topic . . . Justice Thomas had to throw a clot in the churn as he so often does. With no support from his colleagues, Thomas unilaterally declared the Special Counsel illegitimate. He wrote, “If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.” No one joined him, but his concurring opinion will add substantial encouragement to Little Fingers and his lawyers.

We add this one to the stack of bonehead decisions from this rendition of the Supremes.

 

I acknowledge that the MAGAts get quite irritated and animated when anyone compares ihr Lieber Anführer to Der Führer, the dictator of Nazi Germany, but the obvious comparisons continue to mount up. For the record, both men were convicted of felonies before they were elected to the leadership of their respective nations. Both men were accused of insurrection against the nation. One destroyed the country he led; the other is on the verge of doing the same thing to the country he wants to lead.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1172:

“Excellent ‘ranting’ indeed, and evocative comment on religion.

“Too bad most of us are so ignorant of the merits (and perhaps shortcomings?) of Buddhism that we continue hopeless adherence to inherited notions of religion and stubbornly avoid the simplicity of love and hope as the ultimate solutions (echos of Jesus before men misnamed another religion for Him).

“By the way, Cap, I remind you of my proud self-label of Flaming Conserviberal assumed thirty or more years ago as I finally rejected the GOP years before it committed suicide. I have always believed you are of the same mind, my friend.”

 . . . to which a follow-up contribution was added before I could reply:

“Carol would be happy to include you in her circle of beneficiaries.”

 . . . with this insertion:

July 1, 2024

Everyday tyranny

Romans 6:12-23: No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness.

A wholesale store intentionally limits the number of different items offered for sale. The idea is “to help shoppers escape what psychologists call the tyranny of choice, which can paralyze consumers” so that they buy nothing.

The giving of law in religion helps limit the ‘tyranny of choice’ for people in moral and spiritual decisions. Whether it is the more detailed law of Jewish practice, the Ten Commandments, or Jesus’ commandment to love one another, laws can free us. They can simplify our options, while still giving broad human experience which is in harmony with the will of God. 

The primary choice we make defines the entire territory we inhabit: living in the will and grace of God. Paul tells us in Romans to “present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life,” to decide that we will be “instruments of righteousness.” In our culture, boundaries feel fluid, where anything we can get away with can be considered ‘right.” But if we claim to love and follow God, we have to choose the loving and godly way. We cannot harm others, even if secular culture says it’s fine or expected. God asks us to love.

No more ‘tyranny of choice.

My reply to both messages:

Yes, my friend, we have much more in common than we have differences. I have found worthy teachings and life lessons in virtually all established religions including Wicca. It is the pragmatic interpretation and application of those interpretations by so-called ‘priests’ (a generic term for respective clergy) to the lives of others where I diverge.

The added opinion of “Carol” illustrates the line for me. I categorically reject her “tyranny of choice” hypothesis. To me, such a notion is the essence of religious parochialism and moral projection that I rail against. Sin is a matter between the individual and God (in whatever form s/he believes). The state is a regulator of the public domain and must be absolutely free of religious bias, which is what I find so wrong with what Louisiana and Oklahoma have done. The New Testament (Romans) is a Christian book. The application of the New Testament (or any other religious text) to public conduct is wrong; as such, I must condemn “Carol’s” “tyranny of choice” notion.

 . . . with this follow-up comment:

“I found (and often do) some truth in Carol's assertions independent of the scriptural source, which I consider advisory and not tainted by any particular religious dogma.”

 . . . and my follow-up reply:

I agree. There are many valuable words of wisdom in religious texts. For me, it is the interpretation and the projection of those elucidations where we get crosswise.

 

Another contribution:

US supreme court rules Trump has ‘absolute immunity’ for official acts | US supreme court | The Guardian

“Cap-this cannot be right surely-you are a democracy not a Russian/Chinese state.”

My reply:

Once again, a spot-on article. As of this writing, I am still reading the ruling and digesting the meaning. This week’s Update will have more.

I wish it was not true, but it is. The Founders/Framers and the Supreme Court jurisprudence have made a critical assumption . . . anyone who has gone through the rigors of the election process and become president is an inherently good, well-intentioned person. That is a fatal flaw in constitutional thinking. 45POTUS never was, is not, and never will be a good man set aside well-intentioned. He is a criminal, and as an accomplished conman and grifter, he has convinced a substantial portion of We, the People, that he is acting on their behalf. He has never been for anyone other than himself . . . to see how much he can get out of his grift of the American People. The Constitution and the Law never bargained on such a man making it to the presidency. He did it once. He is on the verge of doing it again. The United States of America (as we have known it) has never been so at risk as we are today.

 

A different contribution:

Trump calls for hush money conviction to be overturned after Supreme Court ruling | ITV News

“Cap, what is next? I do not like the way this is pending. This is a bloody mess that needs sorting prominently and swiftly-leave it to you bud….”

My reply:

Given the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, this action was inevitable. I highly doubt the court conviction will be overturned or the case dismissed, but some elements of evidence may be excluded, which might affect some of the charges, resulting in a retrial or dismissal of those affected charges. In the business fraud case, most of the offenses and evidence occurred before Little Fingers became president. It is the evidence that occurred after he became president that is now vulnerable. It was announced today that Little Fingers sentencing has been pushed back from next week to September; more delay. More to follow, I am sure.

 . . . with this follow-up comment:

“Thanks Cap, what a sad business this is. What this highlights is the fact that some of our political leaders, who we put in power, are in fact ‘not cream of the crop at all’ but the remains of failed human effort to dominate the breed. How sad. What is the solution to political domination?”

 . . . and my follow-up reply:

Quite so, a very sad business, indeed! I cannot dispute a word. It is quite sad. The only option we have is to vote . . . vote for the best candidate on the ballot. It would be nice if the candidate we want is on the ballot, but as for future, I refuse to join a political party, and I am not a part of the candidate selection process. Regardless, we must vote for the best person on the ballot; it is our duty, our obligation as citizens of a democracy. That is my opinion.

 

Comment to the Blog:

“The Oklahoma and Louisiana Christian nationalist laws go against the Constitution so directly that it’s hard to believe even the current Supreme Court would let them stand.

“I agree with your impression of the debate. I’m ashamed of CNN for not fact-checking. As it stands, voting for President this time will be distasteful for much of the electorate, and we’ll see how that works out.

“I’ve been around here long enough to witness parts of your evolution. My analysis of the liberal-to-conservative change some people undergo is that it happens if they become wealthier and fearful of losing it or of not getting still more. I got that from younger people who aren’t getting wealthier.”

My response to the Blog:

Yes, exactly, they most emphatically do. But this is a very difficult rendition of the Supreme Court bench. Alito has offered no excuses for his religious zealotry, and now he has deeper support.

Agreed, as well. It was sad that the CNN moderators did not take a more aggressive stance on the facts. They both are great journalists. They know the facts. But, we are criticizing them, because President Biden failed to confront those outrageous lies. That said, it is always a challenge, but confronting a pathological liar like Little Fingers threatens to degenerate a debate into worthless chaos, just what Tiny seeks.

That is exactly the motivation as I see it as well. My financial situation does not feel threatened. I suppose I should feel threatened, but I do not. If Little Fingers gets elected again, I think I will feel threatened.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)