Presidential Race 2016 / Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton / So much talk. Why should I even bother? (Part 1)

I understand the offered wisdom from friends, acquaintances, as well as many of the ‘pundits’ (you know the media guys and gals who know everything) is to vote.  If necessary, ‘vote for the one you dislike the least,’ but still vote.  OK, I get that.  But, this is for the President of the United States, not the local school board.  Too bad they never put ‘none of the above’ on ballots.  It would give many of us a chance to express our actual point of view.  Well, I’m going to give you my opinion – although no one asked; and darn few will actually read this – fewer will care.

You see, it’s about my grandchildren (very young) and great-grandchildren (not yet born).  This election is potentially an unusually historic time in American history; one for the books.  Historians will study this election for decades, maybe centuries.  This election could be considered to be an election like no other.  The potential implications for all our futures could be, probably will be, significant.  I’d like my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren to know what I thought.  Hopefully, somehow, this will be saved for them – perhaps unlikely, but there is that possibility.  But, understand, this is not going to be some clichéd dissertation on preserving the sanctity of their future.  This is about communication – me to them.

I have often considered that I know so little about what my grandparents’ thought about anything.  And, at this stage in my life, it kind of bothers me.  I don’t know if my grandparents were particularly religious or not.  I don’t know what they really thought about politics, parenting, relationships, music, almost anything – except the very basics of life:  work, eat, a roof over their heads, and the ordinary human comforts of life.  I don’t know if they ever voted.  I don’t know much about their early life – only a few things.  I don’t even know much about what they thought about me.

My grandparents, on my mother’s side, I knew quite well – sort of.  My parents and I spent several years living with my grandparents while I was in grade school.  Later they lived across the street; and, subsequent to that, always in the same town until their deaths.  What was my grandfather like?  He spoke little and worked hard on the small farm he had for many years.  He could be cross with me, but never raised his voice.  He sometimes showed a kindly nature, even instructive to me (particularly about animals and farming); and at other times he was downright mean, but never in a physical sense.  It was the small things I remember.  “You’re in my chair – get up and sit somewhere else.”  “Don’t bother the pigs or the calves.”  “Go feed the chickens – do something worthwhile with your time.”  “You and your friends go play somewhere else.”  Often times, when my grandmother, ‘Ma,’ heard those comments from ‘Pa,’ she quickly chastised him.  It might be something like, “Just leave the boy alone and go do something constructive.”  My grandfather never talked back.  He just headed for the barn.

My grandfather came from a family of seventeen brothers and sisters.  According to my grandmother, who knew all about his family, my grandfather’s father, my great-grandfather, was a despicable and cruel individual.  Kids were expected to work, and work hard, from a very early age – or pack-up their few belongings and get the hell out.  As a result, my grandfather had little in the way of what we might now consider to be a childhood.

My grandparents had many hard times – some of those times were told to me as lessons in how unfair and difficult life can be; how they lost their farm in Wisconsin and had to move West to work in the shipyards during World War II; and how, just before they moved West, their beautiful eighteen-year-old daughter died of 'blood-poisoning' and that they didn’t have enough money to buy her a headstone.

My grandfather, on my father’s side, told me that he was ‘born under a rock,’ and didn’t want to talk about his past life.  For a small boy, the rock comment was memorable.  He died when I was about eight or nine.  I later learned that he left home at fourteen or fifteen, went to work in a logging camp, and never looked back.  His early adulthood was remarkable by hard work and hard living, excessive drinking, cussing and two or three marriages.  As a father, he was by all accounts, remote and showed little responsibility; as well as little interest in his sons and daughters.  As a grandfather, he seemed kind and interested in me, but was known to drink too much.  I had my first trip to a tavern when I was about six, accompanying my grandfather.  My mother made it clear to him that was never to ever happen again.

Why did I bring any of this up relative to the current election?  I suppose to show the contrast between then and now.  Life has become so leisurely for many of us (not everyone of course, but most of us) that we have nearly unlimited time to think about and discuss the so-called ‘important issues’ like what Presidential candidate do we dislike the least; and should we even bother to vote.  Friends can get downright testy about the issue.

And, for my grandchildren and my future great-grandchildren, so that they might not have to guess, I will tell them what I’m thinking about now.

To be continued…

True Nelson

PS:  In case you are wondering, the picture above is Ma and Pa on their wedding day - April 16, 1911.

FBI Director, James B. Comey, Unleashes Odd Rationale Why Hillary Clinton Should Not be Prosecuted. Why? I'll tell you why. (Part 2 / Conclusion)

The question arises as to why James Comey, Director of the FBI, would stand in front of the American public, jeopardize his professional reputation, and willingly ‘fall on his sword’ to protect Attorney General Loretta Lynch and indirectly the Obama administration.  He didn’t have to do it, but he did.

As if Comey was sending us a carefully shrouded message, his most telling comment was:

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.  To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.  But that is not what we are deciding now.”

What did Comey mean?  ‘Justice is not always just.’  Doubtful.  The message was more likely, ‘Sorry folks, but this time my hands are tied.’

What about Comey’s reference to the absence of “intent;” which many of us, including Comey, know is not required for several violations of law associated with this investigation?

What about Comey noting that there is no prior precedent that relates to this situation?  Of course not.  Hillary makes her own way, her own rules.  She is one of a kind and follows rules only when they suit her.  She learned the game from her husband, the Manipulator-in-Chief Bill Clinton.

And in regard to William Jefferson Clinton:  If Bill had called or dropped-by Attorney General Lynch’s office and requested to meet with her.  She would have politely, but firmly, declined to meet with him.  But, she was ‘sucker-punched’ by Bill when he approached her on the tarmac.  Somewhat awe-struck I suppose, she couldn’t deny his request for a brief audience.  Was Bill’s effort to contact her happenstance?  Hardly.  Bill has been around the block more than once, and he knows how to manipulate a newbie to the political scene.  He undoubtedly got his message across.  Perhaps a casual statement like:  ‘Hillary thinks highly of you.’  Meaning – you will probably be staying on if Hillary is elected.  That’s all it takes.  Lynch would have received the message and understood.  Perhaps, in an indiscreet moment, a moment she may even regret, Ms. Lynch let Bill know, one way or another, maybe a gesture of some kind, that no prosecution of his wife would be forthcoming.

Oh yes, the so-called three and a half hour “interview”, which should have been a key factor in determining ‘intent’ on the part of Hillary, was apparently only a formality, a social gathering – ‘eye wash’ for the uninformed.  If there was an interrogation format, who conducted it?  I wonder if it was recorded or video-taped.  I bet it wasn’t.

I have been through more than one deposition, on the receiving end, it is a tense and stressful process.  Subsequently, attorneys can spend days, sometimes weeks, analyzing the transcripts and correlating that testimony with known evidence.  It is clear to me that Hillary’s interview was a set-up, a tea party, and that Comey’s decision was already in the works.  ‘To be clear,’ as Comey might phrase it, the decision was made prior to the interview - the ‘fix was in.’ Moreover, for those of us who have worked criminal cases, the announced decision not to prosecute came too quickly following the ‘interview.’  Something was amiss.

You should understand that Comey’s supervisor is the Attorney General.  Ms. Lynch, almost certainly, had been receiving periodic, probably frequent, updates on the FBI’s investigation.  President Obama was also, without doubt, in the loop and received periodic briefings.  For Ms. Lynch to imply ‘hands off,’ and that she was basically remoted from the FBI investigation is just an absurdity.  All the players including Obama, Lynch and Comey knew, or at least anticipated, that any indictment of a potential nominee for President (as well as the probable future President) could potentially cause a National crisis.  So what to do.

I believe that Comey initially resisted.  He was not willing to participate in a cover-up.  Finally, a compromise was negotiated.  Comey was given authority to criticize Hillary Clinton in whatever manner he saw fit; delineate all her transgressions in as much detail as he wished.  He could use the opportunity to praise the Bureau’s efforts, describe the incredible complexity of the case; but, he (Comey) must then conclude with a recommendation that there would be no prosecutions, no indictments, not even for a misdemeanor, of Clinton or any of her subordinates.  Comey felt compelled to agree.  It was expedient.

By doing so, Comey miscalculated and over-stepped his authority.  But, he insured his continued tenure, even with Hillary Clinton as the next President.  And, additionally, by his personal sacrifice, albeit misdirected, he would protect the organization he represented from future potential repercussions - the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The conclusion of a sad chapter in FBI history.

True Nelson

FBI Director, James B. Comey, Unleashes Odd Rationale Why Hillary Clinton Should Not be Prosecuted.

Let’s just say that ‘the bloom is off the rose’ when it comes to FBI Director James B. Comey.

I’m somewhat surprised by the Director’s conclusions regarding the Hillary Clinton email 'issue' (as she, Hillary, had previously and so accurately described, and as it turned out to be, a “security review”); but I can’t say that I was particularly shocked.  I’m sure Director Comey was under tremendous pressure and his appearance at the podium, as he read from the teleprompter, reflected that discomfort.  This will not go well with the public.  This will not go well with FBI Agents, current and past.  I think, however, I can explain to you what his possible motivation was, which has little to do with the case findings or the actual evidence.

But, first, I’d like to discuss some of the specifics of his statement.  I watched on television most of his remarks.  I have read the transcript several times.

Generally speaking, he gave Hillary Clinton a thorough ‘dressing down’ for her handling of classified documents.  Also, included in his remarks, was the strong criticism of Hillary Clinton’s State Department and that Agency’s lack of proper controls covering classified documents.  Unfortunately, the FBI was unable to quantify the resulting harm to our National security; but the potential appears to have been considerable.

For the FBI, particularly the Director of the FBI, to formally give a public recommendation regarding prosecution as put forth to the U.S. Department of Justice (the Attorney General officially considered to be his boss) is, to my knowledge, unprecedented in the history of the FBI.  Comey’s quote:

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Prosecutive decisions have always been the assigned authority of federal prosecutors within the U.S. Department of Justice.  Said prosecutors make the decision as to whether or not prosecution is appropriate based on the evidence provided by the FBI; and they have a couple ways they can do that:  If warranted, they can indict based on an ‘information,’ or they can present the evidence to a Federal Grand Jury to review the evidence.   Comey took it upon himself to circumvent that long-standing process.

Yes, I understand that the Attorney General’s little chat with Bill Clinton muddied the waters; but that didn’t require the process to be ‘bagged.’  (And, wasn’t that meeting on the airplane just a little too convenient and cozy?)  That said, the Attorney General’s Office should have made the decision with (as Attorney General Lynch described it) Justice Department “career prosecutors.”

Perhaps, Director Comey decided that the U.S. Department of Justice currently has ‘no reasonable prosecutors,’ so he had to, personally, save them the inconvenience and potential embarrassment in wrongly evaluating a rather complex investigation.

To be continued…

True Nelson

Bill Clinton (former U.S. President) and Loretta Lynch (current U.S. Attorney General) / / THE CONVERSATION

Let’s not be fooled by Bill Clinton’s recent meeting with Attorney General Lynch; and her subsequent decision to recuse herself (recuse with a very small ‘r’).  She has (since the meeting with Bill has been disclosed and widely publicized) stated that she will turn over any final prosecutorial decision (Re:  the Hillary Clinton imbroglio) to career prosecutors within her office.  Don’t believe it.

OK, anyone reading this will immediately think / say:  ‘And why would we care what your opinion is?’  Well, I spent my career in law enforcement and conducting investigations of the most complex nature.  I’ve worked with a U.S. Attorney’s Office as a member of the FBI’s Strike Force.  Furthermore, I have worked with corporate attorneys, prosecutors in several states, civil attorneys and defense attorneys.  You do pick up some things along the way.

Bill Clinton’s reported visit to Loretta Lynch was not accidental, circumstantial, or (as some might opine) just plain ignorant.  Bill Clinton is a wise and an astute politician.  He was President, of course; but he was also Attorney General in Arkansas.  He knows very well that his efforts to meet with Lynch are/were improper.  Additionally, Lynch knows very well that agreeing to meet with Bill Clinton was improper.  Moreover, Clinton did not go out of his way to tell Lynch about his grandchildren.  There is something else going on.

Understand that Bill Clinton is not only the husband of a suspect in a federal crime which is currently under the direct responsibility of the FBI and the Attorney General’s Office.  But, he too may be a potential suspect in a federal crime.  Is it not conceivable that the FBI’s investigation has now expanded to the Clinton Foundation?  Why else would the FBI inquiry be taking this long?  Clearly, the investigation is no longer only about Hillary’s emails.

I’m not sure if the meeting was previously planned by Bill - maybe not.  Maybe the situation presented itself, and he just wanted to gauge Lynch’s body language.  I do think, nonetheless, that the meeting worked almost too perfectly in giving some perceived political cover to Lynch and the Obama administration.  Now, the public will be lulled into believing that the U.S. Attorney General’s official decision will be fact-based and impartial.

Do you believe that?  Do you think that government attorneys working in Lynch’s office, working for Lynch, would not consider Lynch’s opinion?  Do you think that they would throw away their careers for principle?  Well, I don’t happen to believe that.  I’ve seen the game played.

Something will come down – a criminal referral of some sort.  The FBI Director cannot spend all of this investigative time and money and not come up with something – not without becoming a law enforcement laughingstock.

I would say Hillary will probably be charged with some sort of misdemeanor.  She will make a public, perhaps tearful, apology; and continue on.  She will be forgiven by most.  Nobody is perfect.  Right?  And Hillary will be the next President of the United States.

True Nelson

Shooting (Massacre) in Orlando, Florida / When will this sleeping giant awaken? (Part Two and Conclusion - for now)

A few evenings back, right after the shooting in Orlando, I heard Dianne Feinstein on the PBS NewsHour say, quite authoritatively I might add, that assault weapons, specifically the AR-15, are designed for military use and solely for killing people – “and shoot big bullets.”  Apparently that was her basic answer to what should be done to prevent other mass-murders.  Let’s just ban the AR-15.  It just made me cringe.  Politicians, liberal politicians principally, have a fall-back response to incidents like Orlando - banning “military style” or “military grade” weapons – that way they don’t really have to define or clarify whatever gun image they may have momentarily floating around in their head.**

OK, my response would be that the genesis of all guns was for military or combat use in one form or another.  So I ask, what military are you referring to?  Is this in regard to World War I or II or perhaps the Spanish American War?  The .45 caliber auto (1911) was quite popular in the Spanish American War.  Or do you mean the Civil War and the Enfield 1853 Rifled Musket, and yes those guns did and do shoot big bullets.

It is just becoming idiotic.  It could be funny if it wasn’t for the fact that these people are actually making laws that affect all of us.

Ladies and Gentlemen, wake up.  The problem is that we have no actual leadership in Washington.  So what do we do (my opinion)?

First, we use our military might to crush ISIS.

Second, we don’t admit any refugees from Muslim countries without proper vetting / agreed upon by the FBI.  Just common sense, don’t you think?

Third, American Muslins should be made to understand that their cooperation is vital – that if they are not part of the solution, they are the problem.

Fourth, new civil laws should be developed, as well as appropriate criminal laws, to punish those who withhold information that could prevent the FBI from identifying a potential terrorist.  Don’t we all get a little tired of the old refrain by family and friends of the terrorist.– in that no one seems to have had any idea that the mass-murderer in their midst could ever actually do anything like that.  Nonsense.

Fifth, let’s set up a terrorist ‘hotline’ to receive information.  Publicize it nationally and provide additional FBI personnel to follow-up.

Sixth, determine how and where ISIS is disseminating their recruitment efforts and propaganda, as well as the latest information on what new atrocity they have committed or planned.  And destroy that capability.

And yes, I have some less grand recommendations regarding guns and gun ownership.  Understand that I do not buy many of the lame arguments tossed-about by politicians.  However…

I do believe that we should stop selling large capacity gun magazines that have no credible purpose in self-protection, hunting, competitive shooting, or just plinking.  How many cartridges should a particular magazine hold, I will leave that to others – but something reasonable.  It’s time that gun owners and the NRA made a good faith effort to compromise at some level.

Secondly, although this might surprise you, in my opinion AR-15s and similar weapons like the Sig Sauer MCX Rifle, should be placed in a special category – perhaps requiring additional licensing, background checks or extended waiting periods for new purchasers.  Current owners should be ‘grandfathered.’  The AR-15 has become a SYMBOL to the unstable, potential mass-murderer.  The AR-15 is no more deadly than many other weapons on the market; but due to the fact it is continually publicized, criticized, and discussed makes it the weapon of choice even to, or especially to, those who know little about guns.  As a result, those intent upon mass murder do not have to spend their limited mental resources selecting a weapon.  And, could potentially spend some valuable time asking themselves:  “Am I insane or what?”  Currently, the AR-15 has its own publicity agent – the news media.  We can do something about this.

Well, that’s a start.  Let’s get to it.

**On the same PBS NewsHour program where Ms. Feinstein made her comments, an ‘expert’ also appeared to explain the function and capabilities of the AR-15 (as we now know an AR-15 wasn’t the particular weapon used by Mateen.  It was a Sig Sauer MCX Rifle).  Said expert mentioned that the AR-15 makes a devastating wound due to its tendency to “tumble.”  That is a fallacy.  Admittedly, the bullet, .223 caliber does make a devastating wound.  However, the harm to the human body is caused by the velocity of the bullet, not a tumbling effect.  All bullets, of course can deflect or compress if they strike something hard in the body such as bone.

True Nelson

Shooting (Massacre) in Orlando, Florida / When will this sleeping giant awaken?

I’m not sure what to say.  Anyway, no one particularly cares what I have to say.  But, I have some thoughts – mainly for posterity.  No, I’m not presumptuous enough to suggest that future generations would be interested in what I’m thinking at the moment; but some, very specific individuals, maybe my grandchildren or my great-grandchildren might.

The massacre in Orlando, Florida, this attack on innocents by a radical Islamist terrorist, should be the final wake-up call for Americans; but, somehow, I doubt it.  Our political leaders choose to diminish, soothe, manipulate, simply redefine the situation - placate the population.  They say:  'How about stricter gun laws?'  Yes, brilliant, I feel better and safer already.

Example:  Omar Mateen wasn’t a ‘for real’ member of ISIS.  He was simply a ‘home-grown’ terrorist (as Obama has indicated).  As if all Americans should share in the responsibility of what happened in Orlando.  ISIS laughs.  But… I for one don’t feel guilty.  I just feel ashamed of our national leadership.

Japanese Naval General Isoroku Yamamoto is credited with the following quote subsequent to the attack on Pearl Harbor (admittedly said quote has never been officially documented; but if he didn’t actually say it in those words – no doubt he probably thought it at the time - or subsequently).

“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

America is, once again, the sleeping giant; perhaps comatose would be a better description.  When will we, our leaders, say that’s enough?  No more.  When will this giant awaken?

To be continued...

True Nelson

Portland, Oregon Police Bureau's Chief (Larry O'Dea) Shoots Friend in the Back (RE: The Oregonian 5/25/16)

You’ve probably heard.  Larry O’Dea, the Portland Police Bureau’s Chief was sitting around a campsite in Eastern Oregon, back in April, drinking beer with his buddies, and shooting squirrels, when he accidentally shot one of his friends in the back.

Let’s try to put aside that these guys sound like they are about sixteen.  It’s hard to, but let’s try.

More importantly, perhaps, is that they lied to Harney County law enforcement who were investigating the incident – stating that the victim apparently shot himself.  Now, get this, it appears that this judgement-impaired group of 'hunters' (and I use the term hunters very loosely) conspired to lie to the investigating Sheriff’s Deputy in order to, apparently, conceal the Chief’s involvement in the shooting.  I think there are laws against filing a false police report, but I will leave that to others to decide.

Reportedly, most of those in this group of 'hunters,' with the exception of O’Dea, were former / retired Portland police officers – who should know better – one would think; but, nonetheless, decided to make-up a story.  As it turned-out, the victim (not yet identified – and why I’m not exactly sure) was quite certain that he did not shoot himself.  And, he should know.  It has been reported that he will be OK.

The Chief decided to ultimately confess his transgressions, a few days after the shooting, to Portland Mayor, Charlie Hales (his boss).  Hales decided to keep it quiet until it could be determined how this all was going to ‘shake-out.’

Well, approximately one month has passed since the incident – and the s--- has finally hit the fan.

The Harney County Sheriff didn’t like how things were ‘shaking-out’ and decided to turn the inquiry over to the Oregon State Police.  The plot thickens.

Now, 'accidentally shooting' someone is often accidental.  Most people customarily admit what they’ve done; and their immediate and usual concern is for the victim.  Apparently, O’Dea’s standards are not the usual.

True Nelson

Recent Developments in the Alleged Murders of Patrick Shunn and Monique Patenaude / My Thoughts...

Tony Clyde Reed has reportedly been arrested in San Diego County by U.S. Marshals as he re-entered the United States from Mexico.  It appears that Tony arranged his own arrest to preclude a potential incident.  He and his brother, John Blaine Reed, have been charged with murdering Patrick Shunn and Monique Patenaude.  Patrick and Monique’s bodies have not been located.  The presumption of homicide is based on crime scene evidence developed by Washington State investigators to include the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office.  John Reed remains at large, presumably in Mexico.

Based on what I’ve read in the media, I have an opinion as to what is developing:

This opinion is my personal and professional take on what is occurring and Tony’s motivations.  I have no inside information; and, of course, both Tony and his brother, John Blaine Reed, should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

It appears that Tony and John have had a falling-out, or have entered into an agreement that Tony should surrender to authorities.  I suspect the former.

Theory:  As a fact, or as a tactic, Tony will declare that he had no participation in the actual murders; but that his involvement only occurred after John had killed the couple.  Tony will agree to testify against John in exchange for leniency.  He will probably admit that he assisted in covering-up the crime and in assisting his brother to escape imminent arrest.  He will assist in locating the bodies.  It should be understood that the extent of his disclosures, his veracity, and any evidence he might produce to prove his statements could mitigate subsequent sentencing.

____________________________________

If convicted, neither John nor Tony would face the ‘death penalty.’  Regarding capital murder cases, the State of Washington had the ‘death penalty’ up until recently; but Washington Governor (Jay Inslee) announced a moratorium (in 2014) on the sentence of death in capital murder cases.  However, this moratorium did not, does not, apply to those sentenced to death prior to 2014, and nine men remain on ‘death row’ in Walla Walla.

True Nelson

Brothers in War / The Boys of ’67;’ and Some Personal Memories

Although it was first screened on the National Geographic channel, I watched “Brothers in War” on Netflix just recently.  I highly recommend it.  What can I say?  It’s graphic, disturbing and it will touch your heart.  It brought tears to my eyes.  Some of you will remember the Vietnam War.  For some of the younger folks, it’s just a much maligned, misadventure by our American military.

That said, “Brothers in War” is a very personal account from those actually there.  It’s history.  Everyone should watch it.

“Through gripping first-person accounts and digitally remastered archival footage, including the soldiers’ own home movies and personal audio tapes, Brothers in War recounts the harrowing combat experiences of the men of Charlie Company — one of the last American combat infantry companies to be drafted, trained and sent to fight together in Vietnam.”

I served in Southeast Asia during the war (’68 – ’70).  But, I must admit, with some residual feelings of guilt, my experiences were nothing like those of Charlie Company.

I was a Team Commander for the First Mobile Communications Group (USAF).  Our motto was ‘First In, Last Out.’  Although the First Mobile was stationed in the Philippines, our mission was to deploy and set-up tactical communications equipment and navigational aids, as well as conduct necessary training for the subsequent, long-term operators - often members of the Army or Marines.  When the Marines or Army were finished with the equipment, or it had been destroyed, we would again deploy to recover what was left.  The equipment often contained classified equipment and codes.  Some members of the First Mobile spent time in extreme combat assignments, including Khe Sanh.  I did not.  I was lucky.

My experiences, my hardships were nothing compared to Charlie Company.  While at Chu Lai, I did experience a Viet Cong ‘rocket’ attack.  The Viet Cong efforts were, generally speaking, remarkably inaccurate.  They did score an accidental direct hit on the base PX (photo above), but it was at night and there were no casualties.  Marine Corps’ spotters, during the hours of darkness, watched the jungle hillside which was some distance from the base.  When they saw a flash, they would immediately hit the siren.  Those of us sleeping in the base hooches had a few seconds to sprint to the nearest bunker – usually right outside the door – before the rocket hit.  American helicopters were scrambled to ‘light-up’ the general area from which the rocket originated – efforts that were almost always unproductive.

Personally speaking, an incoming rocket, or the far more frequent false alarms, did disrupt an otherwise sweat-drenched effort to sleep.  But, it was a small sacrifice compared to Charlie Company soldiers’ sleepless nights in a mud-hole.

One Vietnam experience has stayed with me.  I once hopped an ‘in country’ transport on a C-130 moving Marines to their new base – from which they would be deployed.  The pilots and Load Master were Air Force; but, other than myself, the rest were young Marines.  I sat in the back in the jump-seats with this very solemn group of young men, all Marines.  Nobody spoke.  They looked so young.  God, they looked young.  As they say, wars (at least in those days with the military draft in place) were not fought by ‘John Wayne types.’  I wanted to say something to the young man next to me, but what could I say?  Good luck?  I don’t think so.

Back to the documentary, Charlie Company took considerable casualties – killed and wounded.  Upon completion of their one year tour, they (what was left of the original contingent) were flown back to the States.  When they arrived in the U.S., happy to finally be home and to be alive, they were met by anti-war demonstrators who cursed them, threw things at them and spit on them.

They were just boys – often draftees.  They had nothing to do with the politics of the Vietnam Conflict.  And did you know that some were actually ‘conscientious objectors,’ who acted as medics and carried no weapons – but, nonetheless, died trying to save others.

If you were one of those demonstrators, how do you live with yourself – the shame of it?  Well, you might say, ‘I was young, perhaps a little thoughtless, but just joined a crowd of my friends and peers.’

Sorry, I don’t buy it.  Who would buy it?  Your wife?  Your kids?  Your grand kids?  I doubt it.

PS:  Incidentally, the above documentary was based on the book by Andrew Wiest, ‘The Boys of ’67.’  A good book if you care to read more about these young heroes.

True Nelson

The FBI, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Hoffa and my thoughts.

The investigation involving Hillary Clinton seems to drag-on into dim uncertainty.  We all are aware of the allegations against Hillary and her private ‘server;’ as well as her reported disregard for State Department procedures and relevant federal laws.

Furthermore, I understand that the Clinton Foundation is also under investigation; but, in that instance, ethical lapses and improprieties may not be considered a federal crime – or will they…  There is some talk that the private ‘server’ used by Hillary was actually set up and paid for by Bill Clinton’s staff in furtherance of the ‘Foundation’ goals.  What does that mean?  At this point, I’m not quite sure.  Conflict of interest – almost certainly.  Crime – don’t know.

What I will tell you is that I’m becoming more and more convinced that the ‘fix,’ or attempted ‘fix,’ is ongoing in the Hillary case.  Let’s be very clear about the status of this case and the resources dedicated.

As we all know, the FBI has practically unlimited resources of money and investigative personnel.  Additionally, the Hillary case is undoubtedly complicated, but it is not the most difficult type of investigation handled by the FBI.  This inquiry has suspects available to be interviewed, actual evidence in a potential crime to be evaluated, and a presumably top level priority; but nothing seems to happen.  The FBI is starting to appear inept – even foolish.  More likely, deals are in the works.

For comparison, let me give you an example of what I might consider a difficult FBI investigation or series of related difficult investigations:  The focal point, for the purpose of this discussion, is the disappearance and presumed murder of Jimmy Hoffa.  This case and some of its off-shoots are still open cases to this day (perhaps now considered pending inactive cases) with the FBI.

Hoffa’s disappearance occurred in July of 1975.  I was an Agent in the FBI at the time.  More than 40 years have passed and the Hoffa case remains unsolved – even though hundreds, dare I say generations, of FBI Agents have worked on the investigation over the years.  I, too, played a small role in attempting to develop an informant who believed he could help the Bureau locate Hoffa’s body.  It didn’t happen.  Why was he murdered?  Uncertain - other than he had enemies.  No doubt about that.

A brief summary:

Jimmy Hoffa, former President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was a powerful and politically connected operator / criminal with close ties to the ‘Mob.’

Robert Kennedy (US Attorney General 1961 to 1964) with the concurrence of his brother and the President, John Kennedy, decided to put the full-court-press on Organized Crime, with particular emphasis on Hoffa.  The FBI, under Hoover, was given their marching orders.

As a result, Hoffa was convicted of various Federal crimes to include fraud and attempting to manipulate a Federal Grand Jury.  He was sentenced to thirteen years in Federal Prison.  Appeals followed, but he was finally incarcerated.

His sentence was subsequently ‘commuted’ by President Nixon when Hoffa had served about four years in prison.  There were rumors that Nixon received a bribe, but no evidence of that was produced.  However, in appreciation for Nixon granting Hoffa early release from prison, the IBT endorsed Nixon during his 1972 Presidential Campaign.  Odd, in a way, because the IBT customarily endorsed Democrats.

Water mostly over the dam at this point, but is an example of an FBI investigation taking a long time, involving numerous suspects, innumerable crimes and elusive criminal associates.  In fact, the Hoffa disappearance (alleged murder) is just one aside to the ongoing comprehensive investigation first demanded by Robert Kennedy in the 1960s.

Now, back to the inquiry involving Hillary.  It is hard for me to believe that the Clinton investigation is taking as long as it has with literally nothing to show.  In this matter, they presumably have a prima facie case involving Clinton or those very close to her.  After all this time, I certainly hope so.

Secondly, as the months pass, the FBI hasn’t even gotten around to calling Hillary Clinton for a preliminary interview.  The FBI Director, James Comey, when asked, simply reiterates that the FBI is being thorough.  Sorry, I just don’t buy it anymore.  Clinton creeps ever closer to the Democratic nomination for President; and Comey says he is being thorough.  Hundreds of Agents, millions of taxpayer dollars, months of investigation – and he’s being “thorough.”  I don’t believe it.  Something is in the works.  Something that has little to do with ‘equal justice under the law.’

Sounds like the good-ole-Nixon days, doesn’t it?

True Nelson

Murder of Pat Shunn and Monique Patenaude // Suspects: John and Tony Reed

This is an alert that I am forwarding to all potential readers regarding the reported murder of Pat Shun and his wife, Monique Patenaude.

I didn’t know Pat personally, but he was a friend of my daughter at Canby High School in Oregon; and Pat and my daughter were both members of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Search and Rescue group.  From all reports, he was an exceptional young man.

The suspects in the murders, now reportedly on the run, are the Reed brothers, John and Tony.  There is information that they may have recently been seen in the Ellensburg, Washington area.  For detailed information, including pictures of the suspects and a vehicle description, I would suggest you go to the Snohomish County Sheriff’s website:

http://wa-snohomishcounty.civicplus.com/Archive.aspx?ADID=4445

“Detectives have advised that the Reed brothers are in possession of a red 2007 Volkswagen EOS Coupes, Washington plates AXH5106, a vehicle that belongs to their parents."

"John Reed is 5’08”, 190 lbs. with hazel eyes and gray hair.  Tony Reed is 5’11”, 150 lbs. with green eyes and gray hair."  John is 53.  Tony is 49.

"Anyone with direct information on the whereabouts of John or Tony Reed, or with information about the investigation into the murder of Shunn and Patenaude, is asked to call 911 or the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office”

Snohomish County Sheriff's Office:  425/388-3845

It should go without saying that the two men are armed and dangerous.

Pat and Monique pictured above.

True Nelson

Three Friends (two liberals and one conservative) analyze the Presidential Primary Candidates

My two best friends and I met for lunch last week and current events were on the menu.  My friends are good guys – lifelong friends; but are pretty much (unfortunately at least from my perspective) liberal Democrats.  Residing in the Portland Metro area, the life of a liberal is actually pretty easy – surrounded by a massive support system of like-minded people.  On the other hand, being politically conservative can be rather lonely at times.  Nonetheless, friendship can usually overcome disagreements.  Let’s see, what did we discuss?

No surprise there, we discussed the primary race and the candidates.  Is anyone talking about anything else?

On the Democratic side, we all three generally agreed that Bernie Sanders was the ‘man,’ ah, sorry, the best candidate.  Democrats that I’ve come in contact with don’t readily admit they plan to vote for Hillary.  If, however, she is the Democratic nominee, I’m sure my friends will give her their vote.

Incidentally, I just finished a book written by Ed Klein called ‘UNLIKEABLE; The Problem with Hillary.’  If you are thinking about voting for Hillary, read it.  OK, OK, my friends will now be searching the internet for information on Ed Klein.  Tomorrow morning they will email me information from some obscure source that Klein is a past Nazi sympathizer or member of the Ku Klux Klan, maybe both.  Although Ed’s name sounds like he might be Jewish which would give me a very solid counter argument.

Ed, if you’re out there somewhere, don’t let me down on this.  Is what you said about Hillary accurate?  I would like to say I was shocked, but...

I’ve kind of committed to voting for Ted Cruz (no relation to Tom Cruise and the Scientology connection) – so I’m safe in that regard.  My friends sum-up their opinion of Ted Cruz as:  ‘Just don’t like him,’ ‘Everyone in Washington hates him,’ and ‘He’s too in-your-face religious.’  OK, got it.  I counter with:  ‘Right, well, I hate most everyone in Washington’ (maybe hate is kind of a strong word).  Let’s just say, I don’t care much about what the Senators and Congressmen think about Mr. Cruz; and firmly believe our elected officials spend almost all of their time thinking about themselves and darn little else.  Regarding the religion part, I’m fine with that; but I think Cruz should tone-it-down just a tad – now that he’s not campaigning in Mississippi.

So what about John Kasich?  One friend informed me that ‘no one likes him in Ohio.’  That might be true for all I know.  As you can see, I’m running out of good counter arguments, and out-gunned two to one.  Although -- it does seem somewhat odd that he is the Governor of Ohio, but no one likes him.  Maybe, it’s a new thing.

Oh, and as far as Donald Trump is concerned, we all three agreed that Donald Trump is totally ‘unlikeable.’  Mr. Klein, how about another book called ‘Unlikeable Too?’  I enjoyed reading the earlier one.

True Nelson