A Political Quiz: The Genius of the Leader of the Republican Party

Raise your hands if you agree with Senator Kennedy that it very well might have been Ukraine that interfered with the 2016 presidential election on behalf of Hillary Clinton and not Russia on behalf of Trump.

Raise your hands if you think it was the Deep State the made up the facts the Russia interfered in the 2016 election and by Deep State I mean all our intelligence agencies who agree that it happened.

Raise your hands if you agree with Senator Kennedy that even though there is no evidence that Ukraine interfered in the election there might be some evidence that it did.

Raise your  hands if you believe that even though there is no evidence that the Moon is made of Cheddar cheese there may be evidence that it is.

Raise your hands if you believe the interference by Trump in the military justice system on behalf of a Navy Seal who was turned in by his fellow sailors because of his actions against civilians and who posed with a dead body of a slain man was in the interests of the nation.

Trump’s Withheld Ukrainian Aid: He Never Explained – Only One Answer Possible

It’s clear Trump withheld aid to Ukraine. It was aid in the amount of $400 million that had been appropriated by Congress that had already determined that Ukraine had been meeting its obligations to receive the aid. Part of its obligation was to act against the Soviet legacy corruption that had grabbed Ukraine by the neck and was strangling it.

It’s clear that the Ukraine had a Maidan Revolution. The second revolution in ten years. The first was the Orange Revolution. These were an attempt by the people of Ukraine to root out the corrupt leaders that were working more in line with Russia than the Ukrainian people.

The Maidan Revolution was in 2014 against Victor Yanukovich who had rejected the people’s desire that Ukraine unite more closely with the West and away from Russia. Because Yanukovich was a Putin ally he tried to pull Ukraine into the Russian orbit. During the mostly peaceful revolution Yanukovich stationed snipers on buildings who fired at the unarmed protesters. He was forced to flee the county. He headed for Russia where he was welcome with billions of Ukrainian money.

Trump’s Contempt for Government Workers

I saw it early on after Trump announced his candidacy. He never did any public service for the country.  I felt that not having thought of the nation all his life rather than himself, he would be unable to appreciate what it meant to work for the benefit of others.

He easily confirmed my feelings early on. He attacked John McCain because he was a prisoner of war. Trump said McCain was no hero: “I like people that weren’t captured.” This from a man who faked a disability to avoid serving. Who would find comfort knowing that this person Trump did not like those people who fought in combat who ended up  missing or were captured or are dead. He could not like them and had no empathy for  people who wore the uniform because they did what he didn’t do. His MO was to resort to belittling others who had more courage than he did.

It isn’t only the people who wore the uniform but also people who worked in government. That is shown by his shabby treatment of Marie Yavanovich who worked for 33 years in the State Department. This woman whose family fled the Soviets and Nazis to come to America for its freedom, an immigrant so many Trump supporters are conditioned to hate, joined the State Department to show her appreciation for what America did for her.

The Fallacy of the Trump defense: It Comes Down To Accepting Corruption If Trump Does It.

I received a comment that sets out the full GOP/Trump defense. I examine it

1. Your error in logic is this: Because X occurs AFTER fact Y, does not mean it occurred because of fact Y. After Trump’s phone call with the New Ukrainian President (read the TRANSCRIPT) aid continued to be withheld for several weeks. (Late July to early September.) A better explanation is that Trump temporarily withheld aid until he was assured the New President would spend it well and was sincere about addressing corruption.

Reply: We haven’t seen the full transcript, it has been hidden in a secret place. Trump’s phone call mentioned nothing about corruption. The aid was resumed after the whistleblower came out with the complaint and the news became public. Nothing changed in Ukraine to assure the president of anything other than Russia continuing its aggression.

2. You write that all countries have corruption. Yes, to lesser or greater extents, but I’ve read that Ukraine leads the list (is “one of the top three most corrupt receiving U.S. aid”). Trump ran on a promise not to waste US dollars on corrupt governments.

Trump’s Toast: Knowing The Time Line

The Republican position used to try to save Trump from the toaster is that the allegation that he tried to squeeze Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy into making a public announcement about opening an investigation into the Biden’s and Ukraine’s interference into the U.S. 2016 presidential election that put Trump into office can’t be true because he restored military and other aid before any statement was issued.

Because the eventual goal doesn’t come about does not mean the goal was not intended. What must be examined is whether anything happened to cause the person to be unable to achieve the goal. Take the Pat Née example where he was sitting outside the bank with his weapons. The FBI descended on him and his cohorts to stop them. That doesn’t mean they didn’t plan to rob the bank.

In the Nee example Née learned just before the FBI interrupted their robbery the name of one of the guys involved in planning the heist. He immediately knew the jig was up because he knew that guy was an informant. Suppose Née learned that information the night before the planned robbery. He then said: “hey guys, if Charlie knows about our plans then the FBI knows, I’m suggesting we give up on the idea.” Née then leaves the gang and heads back to Southie. That doesn’t mean Née didn’t plan the robbery. It indicates that the plans had been discovered so it was best to call them off,

Criminal Pat Nee’s Thinking: A Mirror of Trump’s.

Pat  Nee had a funny feeling about the bank robbery he was about to pull off with some other guys. As they waited outside the bank for the right opportunity with the necessary firearms. Pat asked the name of the guy who had set it up. When he was told, a gloom descended on him.  He knew the guy was an FBI informant. With the gloom came car loads of FBI agents.

Pat  was arrested and brought to trial. He complained  that the robbery did not take place. He said: “No crime, no time!”  A few years later Pat stopped doing time.

I thought of Pat as I watched the Impeachment hearings. The allegation against Trump is that he withheld military and other aid for the purpose of squeezing the Ukrainian president Zelinsky into making a public statement on CNN  that he was investigating Joe Biden and his son. Biden is the one guy Trump fears running against.

The president  had all the intent in the world to withhold this aid and actually did it for a while without even at first notifying Ukraine which was fighting an invading Russian army and depended greatly on it. Then he let it go through when  the Whistles Blower, like the FBI with Nee, came along and blew a big hole in the plan.

Telling When A Person Lies Is An Exercise in Folly

One thing to keep in mind is that there is no way to tell when a person is lying without having other knowledge of facts surrounding the person’s statement. One of the great deficiencies in our judicial system is pretending that a judge or jury has that ability without that added material.
We see that every day in divorce proceedings where each side in most cases tell opposite stories of an incident that took place outside the view of others. One person is lying but how do you determine which one. In some cases you can’t; in others you can look at other circumstances to make a reasonable guess. But you can’t know for certain because even someone with a track record of lying could be telling the truth on that one occasion.
An example I often refer to is Boston federal district court judge Mark Wolf who heard Steve Flemmi testify and believed some of his testimony and not other parts. Did you ever pause to think what a mockery of justice that amounts to?
I understand the law regarding witnesses and the duty of a fact finder (judge or jury). One can believe all, a part, or none of a witness’s testimony. But step back and tell me why a fact finder should believe anything a lying witness testifies to? Doesn’t the witness take an oath to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?” If the witness starts breaching his oath shouldn’t he be dismissed outright.
I’m not talking about white lies or non material lies like dissembling about one’s age but those that may affect the mind of the fact finder in making the correct decision.
Judge Wolf believed Flemmi when he identified his source in the State Police which was clearly a lie; he disbelieved him when he told him the source of a leak about the Lancaster Street operation. There Flemmi was correct in telling of it.
Had Wolf considered other facts he may have come up with better guesses. Didn’t Wolf understand that Flemmi was not about to disclose his true source who may have been still around and helping him which was the case. Didn’t his antennas go up when he picked a dead guy?
As to the guy identified as the leak, was Wolf happy to not believe that because he was a former colleague of Wolf”s. He may not have been able to conceive him doing it. Most likely though Wolf did not know how the guy was in a jam at the time. He really had no choice but to subvert the other investigation.
Why then are juries with no practice in discerning lies from the truth given that responsibility when experienced judges can’t do it? Is it based on the idea that six or twelve minds are better than one; or is it simply we don’t know what else to do so we engage in a fiction.
I often thought how frightening it must be to have twelve total strangers who really know nothing about you to sit in judgment on you. Not only that you really know nothing about them. Add to that your knowledge that the witness against you is lying that you were present when you weren’t. To compound it the witness is a life long criminal who lies about everything so lying is second nature to him.
If we can’t tell when a witness lies shouldn’t we not let people who have led criminal lives not testify? How can the United States or a state vouch for such a person? Isn’t there some red line that can’t be crossed?
How bad has it become? John Martorano testified against FBI agent John Connolly who he never met giving total hearsay testimony. He’d say “I heard” or “ someone said”. There is no way to cross-examine hearsay statements. This is wrong.

Gangsters Lie: Why Are People Asked To Believe Them?

There is an abundant number of tall tales told by Gangsters that upon cursory analysis are beyond belief but are accepted as gospel by prosecutors and writers. What is tragic is that they act upon these falsehoods or repeat them giving them a veneer of credence. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the Boston media and federal prosecutors office.

One that immediately comes to mind was the one prosecutor John Durham (familiar name lately) put forth. He had John Martorano testify that Whitey told him and others that FBI agent John Connolly said that he would pass on information to Whitey because he owed his brother Bill a favor.

If there is one thing we know for sure it is Whitey never brought his brother’s name up at anytime. How do we know? Other gangsters closer to Whitey would certainly have testified to it. We also know because Martorano said Whitey knew he better not be giving information because they’d know about it – but they didn’t know their partner Flemmi had been giving info to FBI for ten years.