Yes, Trump Is A Felon, Who'll Be Locked Up As Soon As His One Off Term Is Done

"Hmmmm...mebbe I should'na kept calling Mueller's probe a witch hunt."

With last week's  two court filings made by federal prosecutors  out of the Southern District of New York(SDNY).  it's now clear the current resident in the White House is a felon.   Reading the applicable documents (in the link above) one readily sees that Trump  (denoted "individual 1")  directed his then adviser-lawyer, Michael Cohen, to make illegal payoffs to two women who claimed to have had sexual relationships with Trump, implicating the Dotard in the violation of campaign finance laws. They recommended that Cohen receive a prison sentence of about four years.  In the filing, it is also clear that in the process of spelling this out Trump is a so far unindicted co-conspirator.

Let's now get this in perspective: The Dotard's own Justice Department is claiming that he has committed campaign finance violations, paying hush money to two mistresses: Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. By virtue of this hush money ploy it thereby followed he was trying to manipulate the 2016 election result by buying the women's silence. (Given that had the story materialized charges would have been filed at the time and Trump's odious campaign would have crashed and burned.)

 Note that this is all a separate creature from the Russian conspiracy  (not 'collusion' since there is no federal statute for that) that Robert Mueller is pursuing.  While it is true Mueller said in his own court filing that Cohen had provided him “useful information” on matters at the core of the Trump-Russia investigation,   it is also clear from the separate SDNY filing that Cohen was not as forthcoming with the facts of how and  why Trump had him pay off two mistresses in order to keep his campaign violations secret- and thereby sneak into the White House as a felon.

In their  separate filing, federal prosecutors in New York said Cohen “acted in coordination and at the direction of” Trump when setting up payments to buy the silence of Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, and Stormy Daniels, a pornographic actress, who were considering making public their allegations of affairs with Trump.  Cohen and Trump paid the women to suppress their damaging stories and “to influence the 2016 presidential election”, according to the filing .  As I noted in a previous post this is a major no-no and indeed, a felony.  A candidate simply cannot hide his campaign finances or redirect them to outside ends to secure his nomination, or election. It's that simple.

Of course, the inbred hillbilly and Trump toady Sarah Sanders, told reporters the filings contained “nothing of value that wasn’t already known”, saying Cohen had “repeatedly lied” and was “no hero”.  But she misses the point as anyone with even non-Mensan IQ can see. That is, that Trump is clearly named as the primary Cohen instigator (and hence felon), directing his thug to buy off the women. A 2-bit Queens thug, grifter and conman hiring another guy of similar pedigree to do his dirty work for him. Who'da thought?

The SDNY prosecutors added that Cohen was motivated by greed and “repeatedly used his power and influence for deceptive ends", noting:

“After cheating the [Internal Revenue Service] for years, lying to banks and to Congress, and seeking to criminally influence the presidential election, Cohen’s decision to plead guilty – rather than seek a pardon for his manifold crimes – does not make him a hero.”

Furthermore, Cohen's perjury didn't end with his lies and omissions to the SDNY   Cohen previously pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about Trump’s plans to develop a building in Russia. He admitted the project continued well into Trump’s campaign for the presidency – contradicting Trump’s account – and that Cohen spoke with a Kremlin official about securing Russian government support.

In other words, we have direct evidence of a devious and nefarious synergy between Trump and the Russkies,  that permeated the Trump campaign.  Let's clear the air here and state emphatically that Trump is guilty of at least two felonies and hence two impeachable offenses.  Sadly, the putative future Dem Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (Jerry Nadler) seems not to grasp that impeaching Trump is not just a matter of political calculation but of holding him accountable.  As MSNBC's  Lawrence O'Donnell' made clear to Nadler last week any failure to impeach Trump now - even if it doesn't lead to indictment (by the Senate) -means that Trump and any followers will believe he's above the law. (Jerry kept telling Lawrence the Dems "need at least twenty Republicans" - but that is only for indictment in the Senate, not impeachment.)

This cannot be allowed, and that also means skewering the rabid distortions and diversion efforts apparent in the WSJ's editorial today ('Wrap It Up, Mr. Mueller'. p.  A16) in which these lackeys for Rupert Murdoch actually compared Trump's violations to those of John Edwards in 2012 ("for payments made by campaign donors to his mistress.").  But that's comparing rotten apples to fresh oranges.  As Kelly Ann Conway's better half (George) put it, directed at Dotard's tweet that he did nothing and nothing was found:

"Except for that little part where the US Attorney’s Office says that you directed and coordinated with Cohen to commit two felonies."

In Edwards' case there was no conspiratorial direction to intentionally commit felonies. Mucho difference, my friends!  And further,  it isn't a simply reductive case of "lying about sex" as the WSJ's nabobs try to portray it. It is paying hush money to hide the felonies to secure a nomination via fraud, and also an election!   The WSJ editors whining about the length of Mueller's probe is also choice, i.e.  "Mr.  Mueller has been investigating for 19 months....the country deserves an account of what Mueller knows not more dribs and drabs in sentencing memos."  Aw, boo hoo and hoo, cry me a river.  For reference, Mueller is a professional and is aggregating millions of times more real data - including financial -  than Ken Starr used to go after Bill Clinton, for a blow job  And that farce took years, way more than 19 months

Hence, whether an impeachment brings more polarization or division  as Nadler fears (and the WSJ's op-ed trolls anticipate), is irrelevant to the need to impeach the vile maggot in the White House.  What we don't need is more bullshit and disinformation from the likes of the WSJ to try to run interference for the Repukes and obscure the issue for too many 'Muricans.

Still on Sunday's CNN interview  - almost as if precognitively channeling the WSJ codswallop published today  - Jerry Nadler continued his verbal parsing by stating, in regard to the SDNY prosecutors' charges:

"They would be impeachable offenses. Whether they are important enough to justify impeachment is a different question."

Actually,  Jerry is overthinking the issue. IF they are indeed impeachable offenses, then it is manifestly clear that they warrant impeachment, no 'ifs, ands or buts.  What Nadler is really worried about is enraging the Trumpie base, when he spoke on Lawrence O'Donnell's 'Last Word' last week.  But enraging the Trumpie base is what I would call acceptable collateral "damage" if it means refusing to allow the slime ball cretin in the White House to get away with his crimes. And that was also Lawrence O'Donnell's point in his retort to Jerry.

Jerry needs to grow a pair, and grasp that if this foul fungal biped attempted to manipulate the 2016 election result by coercing his mistresses into secrecy then he is guilty.  As a great statesman once put it: "Let justice be done or the heavens fall!"

And hey, at least it's not as violent (or permanent)  as hanging him!

On another sorry note, it appears a Reeptard Senator named Mike Lee is threatening "civil war" if Dems don't toe the line and limit the federal gov't instead of expanding it.   See e.g.

Senate Republican warns of civil war if Democrats continue supporting the federal government

Evidently these Reepo imps like Lee aren't satisfied with repealing the voters' will in WI, NC and MI, they now want a war too. Well, bring it on, Mikey!

See also:

https://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/08/why-didnt-manafort-jury-find-him-guilty.html

Selected Questions- Answers From All Experts Astronomy Forum (Estimating No. of Stars In An 8000 Light Year 'Bubble' Around Earth)

Question: How many stars would be in an 8000 light year ''bubble'' around Earth? And how many habitable planets would said area have?

Answer:  First, let's change the units to parsecs instead of light years. Currently, the stellar density near the galactic center is estimated at 100 per cubic parsec - so that in the Earth's vicinity two-thirds of the way out to the galactic edge it is  much more sparse,  like 0.5 per cubic parsec.

Converting light years (radius = 4000 ly) to parsecs we get a radius R = 1.23 x 10³ parsecs.


We use this to get the  total volume of interest:

V = 4/3 pi R ³  =  7.8 x 10⁹ cubic parsecs


If there are 0.5 stars on average per cubic parsec then the stellar density is:

(0.5) (7.8 x 10⁹ cubic parsecs)  =  3.9 x 10 ⁹ (approx.)

(This would be the same number as in your "8000 light year ''bubble'' around Earth")

The next question (how many habitable worlds?)  is much more difficult because the data is extremely sketchy.  Assuming a habitable planet requires an early spectral type G star (the Sun is G2) then perhaps only 1 out of 100 stars fit that bill. "Habitable" means within the so-called "Goldilocks" zone - i.e. within a suitable temperature sphere about the star.

So far only about 1 in 100 fit that distribution according to a sampling of the Kepler space telescope exoplanet findings.

So, given these limiting parameters (fractions), the estimated (again 'ball park') number of habitable planets in that volume (not "area")  would be: roughly    40,000

One must take care, however, to distinguish "habitable" from actually inhabited. The latter, may be one thousand times less - again, or only 40.   In the words of Guillermo Torres, an astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

"These planets do exist. We didn't know that before. What we're really looking for eventually is signs of life. We're not there yet. It will take many years."

Indeed! Which begs the question: 'Can any kind of life on these exo-planets really be determined from a distance?'  I don't believe so.  I suspect it would take actually going there and doing a=careful bio-chemical investigations such as we've done on Mars.  So the most we can do for now is speculate that this or that planet may be life supporting, or potentially "habitable".

SolutionsTo Stellar Emission - Absorption (Revisited) Problems

1) Consider a gas of neutral hydrogen. Using the Boltzmann equation and the information in the table (see April 2 blog post), compute the temperature at which one will expect equal numbers of atoms in the ground state and the first excited state.

Solution:

The Boltzmann equation is:

N₂ / N₁  =     [g₂ / g₁ ]   exp (- E2 – E1) / kT

And from the table, g₂ = 8 and  g₁ = 2

We require the condition that:  N₂ =  N₁     so:

1 =     [8/ 2 ] exp (- E2 – E1) / kT

But:  E2 =  - 13.6 eV and E1 = -3.4 eV, therefore:

1 = 4 exp [- 13.6eV – (-3.4 eV) ]/ kT

1 =  4 exp (-10.2 eV)/ kT

Taking natural logs:

ln (4)  =    (10.2 eV)/ kT

where: k =   8.6174 x 10 ^-5 eV/K

Solving for T: 

T =    10.2 eV/  (ln 4) (8.6174 x 10 ^-5 eV/K)

T =  10.2 eV/ (1.3862) (8.6174 x 10 ^-5 eV/K)

T= 85 388 K or T = 8.54 x 10 ⁴ K

 

2 ) For the Balmer a line (called H- alpha), we know:

E3 – E2 =  - 13.6 eV ( 1/ 3 ²   -  1/ 2 ² )   = 1.88 eV

a)     From this information calculate the ratio N₂ / N₁    

b)     Obtain the specific intensity from: 

I _u  =  2h u ³ / c ²  [1/ exp (hc/lkT]

Solution:

N₂ / N₁   =     [g₂ / g₁ ]   exp (- E2 – E1) / kT

From the table in the Dec. 5th  post;  g₂ = 8 and  g₁ = 2   

k =   8.6174 x 10 ^-5 eV/K

N₂ / N₁    =     [8/ 2 ]   exp (- E2 – E1) / kT

N₂ / N₁      =  4 exp (-1.88 eV)/ (8.61 x 10 ^-5 eV/K) (10 ⁴ K)

N₂ / N₁      =  4(0.113) =  0.452

b)I _u  =  2h u ³ / c ²  [1/ exp (hc/lkT]

We need to use consistent cgs units.  Planck constant h = 6.62 x 10  ^-27 erg-s

c=  3 x 10  ¹⁰ cm/s

l  =  hc/ E =  (6.62 x 10  ^-27 erg-s) (3 x 10  ¹⁰ cm/s)/ 3.0 x 10  ^-12 erg

l  =  6.62 x 10  ^-5 cm 

k=1.38 x 10  ^-16 erg/K

[1/ exp (hc/lkT]  =

1/ [exp (6.62 x 10  ^-27 erg-s) (3 x 10  ¹⁰ cm/s)/ (6.62 x 10  ^-5 cm)  (1.38 x 10  ^-16 erg/K)( 10 ⁴ K)

= 0.113

I _u  =   2h u ³ / c ²  [0.113] erg cm ^-2/s

But  u =   E/h   =  

3.0 x 10  ^-12 erg/ 6.62 x 10  ^-27 erg-s  =  4.53 x 10  ¹⁴ /s

So:

I _u  =    0.226(6.62 x 10  ^-27 erg-s) (4.53 x 10  ¹⁴ /s) ³ / (3 x 10  ¹⁰ cm/s) ²

I _u  =     1.51  x 10  ^-4 erg cm ^-2/s

3)Calculate  the transition probability you get using the Einstein equation:

A ₂₁=   6.67 x 10 ¹⁶ [g f/g2  l²   Å]

What possible errors might cause the values to diverge? (Take g = f » 1)

  l =  6.62 x 10  ^-7 m  =  6.62 x 10  ^-5 cm =  6620 Å

With g₂ = 8  and g = f = 1

A ₂₁=   1.93 x 10 ⁸ [Å^-2]

Compare to standard form (see e.g. Wikipedia, “Einstein coefficients”)  given in multiple physics papers as:

A ₂₁=  [f g1/g2]{ 2 π  u ³  e ² }/ e _o  m_e c³  

A ₂₁ =    1.87 x 10 ⁷    or:    0.187  (in defined units of    10 ⁸  s)      

 

Error sources: Imprecise oscillator frequency f

Error in one of the statistical weights.

Uncertainty in line measurements for absorption and extrapolating this for deduction of  A _21.

Glad To Get To Yellowstone BEFORE The Selfie-Instagram Hordes Arrived

Buffalo seen from our car soon after entering Yellowstone in summer of 2000.

Scene inside Yellowstone - heading to one of the many geysers.

Lake not far from Lodge where we stayed for three days.

At Fountain Paint Pot in Yellowstone National Park, August, 2000.


Overlooking a raging river in Yellowstone National Park, Aug. 2000

According to a recent detailed report by the UK Guardian,  see,  e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/20/national-parks-america-overcrowding-crisis-tourism-visitation-solutions

Americans are overwhelming their national parks, literally "loving them to death".   In Yellowstone, the nation's oldest national park, visitation has surged 40 percent since 2008, topping 4 million in 2017.  Fortunately, we (Janice and I) visited the park long before the instagram era, in August, 2000.  This was while it was still largely unspoiled and one didn't deal with traffic jams and clueless boors. (Like the much publicized recent idiot who came to the park to taunt the buffalo).

Anyway, over a period of four months, from  high summer to late autumn last year, the Guardian dispatched writers across the American West to investigate how tourist crowding is playing out at ground level.  The results were not sanguine and showed clearly the time when we visited was likely the optimum.

For example, the Guardian team found:

- Two mile long "bison lines" in Yellowstone

- Fist fights in Glacier - a small Colorado town overrun by million of visitors.

- At Yosemite, park officials warn visitors to expect "two to three hour delays entering Yosemite valley"

-  At Glacier National Park MT, there are regular, tense standoffs in parking lots.

- A new level of moron has invaded Yellowstone, illegally flying drones and tossing rocks and debris into the sensitive geothermal features.

According to one park ranger, tourists to Yellowstone now regularly scramble from their vehicles - even temporarily abandoning them -  in the hope of getting close up photos. (We shot our buffalo - shown in the top pic - from the car while briefly stopping. We did not get out.) According to the same park ranger: Most visitors "just don't know how to behave in a wild place".

Well, maybe because they were also never taught how to behave in a non-wild place.

In the case of Yellowstone, which became the first national park in the world in 1804, original visitor numbers were on the low side. For example, in 1904, a total of 120, 690 people visited the then national parks which included: Mount Rainier, Sequoia and Yosemite.   By just the mid-century the numbers swelled to tens of millions.  Soon national park destinations became synonymous with summer vacations.

Today, the pace of visitation has outstripped resources. Worse, recent research has ascertained our national parks bear the disproportionate brunt of global warming - while years, hell decades-  of wear and tear have seen parks' maintenance left far behind.   Traffic has clearly become one of the most visible consequences of the tourist tsunami, with some locations seeing thousands of cars per day jamming the entry roads. In addition, some parks have seen a 90 percent increase in vehicle accidents.   Again, according to one park ranger at Yellowstone, "We're exceeding the carrying capacity."


The numbers explosion since 2008- 2010 is not surprising and is almost totally attributed to the dawning  of the selfie and instagram era.  People today, often the young and clueless (e.g. millennials), don't believe a destination exists unless it's captured in a selfie and dispatched to followers on instagram or Snapchat. This voyeur yen and personal image capture obsession has driven ever more crowds with their selfie sticks, not only to Yellowstone, but to Rocky Mountain National Park, the Grand Canyon and Yosemite. In some cases, like at Yosemite, distracted tourists have become so mesmerized with the scene and getting their selfies they've misjudged their positions - and fallen to their deaths.  They were so taken by getting the photo they didn't look where they were leaning.

What may have to be done to control the mob factor, especially as the planet gets ever more overpopulated, is to adopt a reservation system for the parks. This is already being seriously considered for Yellowstone, and it should be.  In such a system, just like for a fine hotel, reservations would have to be made long in advance - as well as payment.

Yep, it sounds like a sacrilege, but given the masses invading the national parks and the problems being caused - including overflowing porto-potties, it is inevitable.

As I noted, I am glad we got to visit Yellowstone almost twenty years ago - as well as Rocky Mountain National Park and Estes Park (site of the Stanley  Hotel - where 'The Shining' was centered, and many scenes shot.).

Let's also be aware the tourist selfie crush is inundating most of the fragile and beautiful places of the world - where it seems every manjack armed with selfie stick  wants to get snaps. Europe is especially overrun and in places like Dubrovnik, Croatia (a  'Game of ' Thrones'  site)  they are also considering limiting the influx - which, like in France (Louvre), Italy (Venice), often tasks the available resources.  Not to mention all the trash, garbage left behind.   We also beheld the tourist swarm in Prague when we visited in September, 2015, e.g. by the Astronomical clock:



The constant hordes  of humanity eyeballing and instagraming are forcing many more discriminating travelers to consider less popular cities and sights, such as  Jasper, Alberta  (see me entering the post office below)


which we visited this year,  and  Bratislava, Slovakia,  which we visited in 2015, e.g. me by the Opera House :


Yes, travel can be a unique  and even educational experience, but it is now evident too many of the same places are being overrun by tourist crowds which are killing a good thing.  Almost certainly, as the damage from human masses inflicted on precious local infrastructure becomes more pronounced, the numbers will have to be managed or in some cases, like in Venice, severely limited.  Exaggeration? Uh, no.

 In  an article appearing  in  In These Times ('Should Cities Ban Tourists?', August, p. 12, 2015) we're informed that Barcelona's Mayor had insisted the popular Spanish destination needed a "tourist cap" and a "moratorium on new hotel licenses".  This since "tourism is now seen by many as a scourge" and as reported by one resident:

"They have urinated on my balcony. They have set fire to laundry and one even defecated in the building's hallway"


Meanwhile, in the U.S.,  reservations to the national parks like Yellowstone will almost certainly be implemented in the next few years. By way of perspective, when we visited Europe in July and August,  1978 we experienced no similar issues. We easily got into the National Gallery in London  and Greenwich Observatory, same with Windsor Castle, Earl's Court, Westminster Abbey, St. Paul's Cathedral, the Royal Albert Hall for a summer concert as well as the Tower of London with no delays and not being forced onto conveyor belts as they have to do now to rigidly control the time allowed (30 sec), i.e. to see the jewels (WSJ, 'Europe's Culture Storm', May 25, 2015)

What gives is the world is a much more crowded place than it was 40 years ago with nearly twice the number of people and also many more affluent people- namely middle class Chinese - who can now afford to travel at will to wherever they want - from African safaris, to Jungfrau Joch in Switzerland, to Jasper, Alberta. 

 Worse, much of today's tourism is driven by the omnipresent cell phone and the obsession to take selfies of everything on God's green earth.   As comic George Carlin would put it if he was still around: "People, I have to tell ya, this is a very unhealthy habit!"

In the midst of the current  human crush and swarming let us remember it was the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre who once pronounced: "Hell is other people".  For many exceptional places in this world, Sartre's maxim is being proven each and every day.

Stay tuned.

See also:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/05/american-wilderness-trump-energy-threat

House Democrats Need To Get Over Their Latent "Rebellion" And Back Nancy Pelosi!

Nancy Pelosi - The only rational choice to head the House when Dems assume majority rule next year.

Enough already about the hackneyed calls from the Right- and clueless "centrist" Democrats- to infuse "new blood" into the House leadership next year.   (Last week, 32 members of the House Democratic caucus  voted against Nancy Pelosi in a secret ballot vote. She can afford to lose no more than 17 member in the main vote in January.)

Make no mistake this revolt against Ms. Pelosi is counterproductive and will undermine Democratic House members' efforts to form a coherent plan going forward for  legislation,  as well as holding Dotard Donnie accountable for his sundry lawless actions, including treason.  What's more , the aimless babble about "new blood" is an idiotic meme that does no good, and sabotages Democratic unity when they need a strong and experienced leader to take the helm. And as journalist Mike Littwin put it: "This is no time for Dems to abandon a proven leader in Nancy Pelosi."

Littwin, in a recent piece in the COS Indy, made no bones about who he prefers and why, and I totally agree. As he noted ('Pelosi Attackers Miss The Big Picture',  Nov. 21-27, p. 7), if the midterms just held truly were the "most important in our lifetime" why in hell would you now consider dumping a person "who hardly any Democrats deny has been an effective speaker". As he adds:

"I'm puzzled, at minimum, about the timing of the rebellion."

Well, I am as well. I hate to invoke conspiracy memes, but it almost appears that the uprising against Pelosi has its roots in right wing elements who seek to provoke House Democrats into rejecting her at the final vote in January.  (See any number of recent WSJ editorials  attacking her, e.g.

The Pelosi Steamroller - WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-pelosi-steamroller-1543453343

And what, pray tell., might be the worst outcome should that transpire? Say Nancy getting fewer than the 218 votes minimum in January?  Well, House Reep Punk extremist Kevin McCarthy - who might get all the other votes - or become de facto leader by default.  This is what "rebellious" Dems need to bear in mind when considering who ought to assume duties as House majority leader.  Given this admittedly outside outcome, as Mike Littwin writes:

"It's hard for me to think of anything more politically misguided than for Democratic centrist rebels in the House to try to kick Pelosi out now."

Note he identified these Dem mutant mutts as "centrists" in other words, idolizers of the Neoliberal state. So why wouldn't they be opposed to a hard core San Francisco liberal like Pelosi?

One of the top rebels is from Colorado, named Ed Perlmutter.  In 2016 he nominated  rebel Tim Ryan to go up against Pelosi, and as Littwin admits "that might have been a good time to change leadership". But no longer! Not after we've seen first hand two years of the Trump fanatics destroying the fabric of our government and the Reepo House majority aiding and abetting at every step.  Littwin again:

"Now is a precarious time, an almost certainly counterproductive time, a time far too important to risk the chance of failure or to toss in someone who needs to learn/grow on the job."

In other words, my friends, given the total absence of checks and balances on the Trumpites, this is not the time for a new be to take control in the House and to be put on a learning curve. No, we don't need wet behind the ears neophytes but an experienced, wily and wise leader. That is Ms. Pelosi, like her or not.

As Littwin put it (ibid.):

"The rebellious House Dems have yet to identify anyone who could do a better job taking on Trump. "

And going on to note that given this,

"The absolute worst reason to dump Pelosi id that the Republicans don't like her. I mean, the idea that Pelosi is uniquely an albatross for Democratic candidates is absurd. Yes, her approval ratings are brutally low (29 percent in a recent Gallup poll) but better than Mitch McConnell's (24 percent)"

And the more cogent point:

"If it weren't Pelosi being demonized it would be someone else. Anyone else. Demonizing Democrats, particularly Democratic women, is what Republicans have long done and what Trump specializes in."

In other words, the Repuke shtick is demonization and it's done to try to tarnish or knee cap effective women leaders. They can no longer emulate their Fuhrer Dotard in pussy grabbing so they try to do it this way.  This is why I am confident the new infusion of House Dem women will prevail on the House rebels like Perlmutter and newly elected CO member Jason Crow, to grow up - put aside childish things - and back Nancy Pelosi.

As I said, having finally come to power after some 8 years in the political wilderness  (since the Tea Party revolt  took control in 2010) this is no time for House Dems to lose their minds, their spines or direction.