The Most Distant Places

A well-done video on the travels of the Romans across their world and the state of knowledge of geography.  Covers explorations to China, India, sub-Saharan Africa, and northern Europe.  I touched on some aspects of this topic in The Farthest Outpost.

The Danchenko Motions

Sounds like the title to a Robert Ludlum novel, doesn't it?

I've reviewed the government motions in limine and the response of defendant Igor Danchenko, a US based Russian national.  Read together they reinforce my notion that the government will have a difficult time convincing a jury, particularly one in the DC area, to find Danchenko guilty (and they may very well be correct in that conclusion).  At the same time, the motions reinforce my confidence in the underlying accuracy of the real story behind the Russia collusion hoax:

(1) The Steele Dossier, created by the Clinton campaign, was phony.

(2) The FBI was fully aware of this by the time Trump was inaugurated, or shortly thereafter.

(3) Director Comey knowingly misled the President during their dinner of January 27, 2017, when the President told the Director he was considering ordering the FBI to investigate the Dossier, and Comey implied the FBI was not doing so, even as he had signed the original application and one renewal of the FISA warrent application stating that he could certify as to the accuracy of the Dossier.

(4) Under FISA Court rules the FBI had an affirmative obligation notify the Court of "any misstatement or omission of material fact".  Not only did it fail to do so, it certified as to the reliability of the Steele Dossier in two subsequent renewal applications made to the Court, even after interviewing Danchenko.

(5) The Mueller investigation, which disavowed any relevance of, or reliance upon, the Dossier, was aware of this by the time it began its work in May 2017. 

(6) Based on his response to the government's motion, Danchenko's position is not that the Steele Dossier (or Steele Reports, as the government calls the documents), for which he served as Christopher Steele's primary source, is accurate.  In fact, it is explicitly Danchenko's defense that he told the FBI he could not vouch for the accuracy of the information he passed on and of the problems with the allegations, so that whatever he said could not have been material in misleading the FBI.  I think that correct - the FBI knew the information was bad, but was willing to use anything at hand to get Trump.  That's not Danchenko's fault.

The most startling revelation in these filings is that from March 2017 to October 2020, Igor Danchenko was a Confidential Human Source (CHS) for the FBI, despite the fact that by March 2017, the FBI was aware of the lack of credibility of the Steele Dossier, and that Danchenko had been the subject of an FBI counterintelligence operation in 2009 and 2010.  Why did the FBI hire Danchenko as a CHS despite knowing this and that the information which he provided to Steele, and upon which the FBI relied in its representations to the FISA Court were reliable, was not, in fact, reliable?

Danchenko's answer in response to the motion in limine is that he will argue the fact that the FBI made him a CHS knowing this background, is further evidence this investigation was not material to his credibility he intends to introduce testimony from one supervisory special agent who agreed "one of the upshots [of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation] has been a relationship with [Mr Danchenko] which has provided the FBI insights into individuals and to areas that it was otherwise was lacking because of the difficulty with which the FBI has in recruiting from that part of the world". (p.26)  That Danchenko can make this credible claim, based upon his designation as a CHS, demonstrates the problems the prosecution has by going after Sussman and Danchenko for false statements while ignoring malfeasance by government officials.

The more likely explanation is it allowed the FBI and DOJ to keep Danchenko out of sight, once they knew of his problematic role in the Steele Dossier, and then from further questioning from Congressional Republicans, particularly after the Mueller investigation fell apart. (1)

I'd like to know who approved Danchenko as a CHS - given his role and the prominence of the investigation this would have had to be approved by senior FBI/DOJ officials.

UPDATE: The CHS revelation regarding Danchenko has also prompted a filing by Carter "The Most Innocent Man in America" Page, for reconsideration regarding the dismissal of his civil lawsuit against James Comey and other government officials.  While I doubt on legal grounds that Page will be able to revive his lawsuit, the factual allegations (which are, in all regards accurate) lay out the extent of the scheme involved in obtaining the FISA Warrant and its renewals against him.

"This case involves an FBI lawyer who made a false statement in seeking a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance At of 1978 ("FISA") search warrant.  Furthermore Defendant Clinesmith [Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to making the false statement] (and perhaps other individuals) intentionally altered Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") emails, which originally identified Dr. Page as a CIA source, to instead state that Dr. Page was not a CIA source.   Through these efforts, the individual FBI Defendants contrived a fairytale to justify illegal surveillance of Dr. Page.  Extensive proof shows that FBI leadership, including Defendant Comey and other individual Defendants, knowingly presented a false narrative of Trump-Russia collusion for a period of years to the public and within congressional hearings in which numerous agents testified to the narrative under oath.  Further proof demonstrates that political operatives in Washington, effectively laundered thousands of dollars under the guise of "legal services" to create a fabricated dossier [a reference to the Federal Election Commission finding that resulted in penalties imposed on the Clinton Campaign].  But with this month's Danchenko payoff admissions by Defendant DOJ and with these new prima facie realities exposed, the vastly underestimated deception and potential strata of fraudulent acts inherent in that extensively pled original guise has now grown infinitely worse."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The government motion and defendant response involve the government's intent to introduce evidence at trial related to the defendant's knowledge, motive, and intent which it anticipates the defendant will object to based on materiality and relevance.  

Among the areas the government seeks to introduce evidence:

Regarding the role of Charles Dolan, the Democratic operative, Hillary supporter, and Kremlin-connected DC insider:

"Dolan's role as a contributor to the Steele Reports was highly relevant and material to the FBI's evaluation of those reports because, among other things, (1) Dolan maintained a relationship with several high-ranking Russian government officials who appear in the Steele Reports, (2) Dolan maintained a relationship with another of the defendant's alleged sub-sources [a Russian national in Cyprus], (3) Dolan was present in Moscow with the defendant when the defendant allegedly gathered some of the information reflected in the Steele Reports, and (4) Dolan's historical and ongoing involvement in Democratic politics had the potential to bear on his reliability, motivations, and potential bias as a source for the Steele Reports." (p.4).

Admission of emails intended to show Danchenko "fabricated these facts regarding [Serge] Millian", alleged to be a provider of key information to the Steele Dossier.  The government also reveals that Serge Millian left the US in March 2017, stating "that he left the United States due to threats on his and his family's personal safety because of his alleged role in the Steele Reports. . . Millian has repeatedly informed the Government that he had concerns for his and his family's safety (who reside abroad) should he testify.  Millian also informed the Government that he does not trust the FBI and fears being arrested if he returns to the United States". (p.23)

Seeks to admit evidence of an uncharged false statement regarding "Donald Trump's alleged salacious sexual activity at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow".  This was the one specific allegation Director Comey alerted President-elect Trump to at their meeting on January 6, 2017.  Trump was outraged and Comey's notes, written immediately after, conclude that his reaction was an indication of guilt.  It also led to his outburst to DNI nominee Dan Coats a couple of weeks later (see The Forrest Gump of Campaigns).

Seeks to admit evidence of the counter-intelligence investigation which asserts, "In late 2008, while the defendant was employed by a prominent think tank in Washington DC, the defendant engaged two fellow employees about whether one of the employees might be willing or able in the future to provide classified information in exchange for money.  According to one employee, the defendant believed that he might be in a position to enter the incoming Obama administration and have access to classified information." (p.30); and that the FBI initiated a "full investigation" after Danchenko "(1) had been identified as an associate of two FBI counterintelligence subjects and (2) had previous contact with the Russian Embassy and known Russian intelligence officers".   The investigation was closed after "the FBI incorrectly believed that the defendant had left the country." (p.31)

The Danchenko response takes the position the government is selectively cherry-picking statements to construct a misleading narrative.  It implicitly argues any representations to the FBI were immaterial because it didn't matter to the agency and did not impact its investigation, and Danchenko had no control over how Steele characterized and reported the information he passed on to him.

Regarding Dolan, Danchenko "(1) told the FBI about the Moscow trips with Dolan, (2) told the FBI that Steele knew of Dolan, (3) told the FBI that not only was Dolan doing work with Olga Galkina [the Cyprus connection] but that Mr Danchenko himself had introduced them, and (4) told the FBI that Dolan had connections and relationships with high-level Kremlin officials, including President Putin's personal spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov." (p.17)

Regarding Millian, Danchenko "unambiguously and consistently told the FBI that he had never definitively spoken or met with Millian". (p.10), only claiming "he spoke with an anonymous caller who he believed was Millian". (p.23)

Regarding the Ritz-Carlton,  Danchenko "told FBI that he was told about a well-known 'rumor' regarding the activity and 'that he had not been able to confirm the story' when he later met with hotel staff". (p.9), only reporting it as "rumor and speculation". (p.10)

Because the court will be reluctant to pick between different factual narratives, I suspect it will allow most of the government's motion, but if Danchenko can establish these assertions as facts, or create sufficient doubt about the government's narrative, to the satisfaction of the jury, the government will not obtain a conviction.

The bottom line is that the emptiness of the Russia collusion allegations have been further demonstrated by the very nature of the Danchenko and Sussman defenses but, as I wrote when the Danchenko indictment was announced:

There are clearly many shady and unethical actions by a lot of players here but to what extent they are also illegal is to be determined, as well as Durham's willingness to go there.  This recent column from former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy puts it this way:

. . . many things that smack of abuse of power are not prosecutable crimes. The law necessarily gives government officials a wide berth to use aggressive investigative measures based on dubious suspicions. It is easy to see the abuse, but much harder to establish it as a crime. That is why a system that fails to hold abusive officials politically accountable will be a failed system. Establishing their criminal guilt is much harder.

That no one has been held accountable for this scandal is appalling and weakens our democracy.  That the institutional media, which breathlessly reported every leak from the intelligence community, DOJ, and Mueller, without the slightest skepticism or interest in undertaking its own independent evaluation, has ever acknowledged what really happened from 2016 to 2020, effectively undermined its own credibility.

Unfortunately, Chuck Schumer was correct when, in January 2017, he publicly warned Donald Trump "you take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."

-----------------------

(1) By now, the bad faith of the Mueller investigation should be evident to any fair minded observer.  The May 17, 2017 order authorizing the investigation stated it would be "a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's offer to interfere in the 2016 presidential election".  By the time of the Mueller report in 2019, his team knew (1) the Steele Dossier, containing allegations purporting to come from Russian sources, could not be verified; (2) Igor Danchenko, a Russian national who had been the subject of a counterintelligence investigation, was the prime source for the document; (3) Charles Dolan, a Clinton supporter with Kremlin connections, was also a source; (4) the Clinton campaign had paid for the Steele Dossier; (5) FusionGPS and Christopher Steele, who compiled the Dossier, were also working for Kremlin-connected Russian oligarchs; and (6) FusionGPS was working with the Russian lawyer who set up the Trump Tower meeting with Fredo Trump Jr, yet Mueller professed not to know anything about the Steele Dossier, and there was no mention of any of the above facts in the Mueller Report, not even to rebut any implications of these actions.  Obviously, Muller and the Clinton supporting lawyers who constituted his team, felt it necessary to suppress any information regarding these connections.

UPDATE:  On September 29 the Department of Justice charged Oleg Deripaska, a Putin-associated oligarch, with conspiracy to violate US sanctions imposed upon him and his company.  Christopher Steele worked for Deripaska before, during, and after his work for the Clinton Campaign assembling the Steele Dossier.  In addition, Senator Mark Warner (D-Va) was in surreptitious contact with Deripaska while the senator was effectively running the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation on Russian interference with the 2016 election (for more on this see footnote 11 on my Election Tampering post).

Army Of Shadows

Gritty, brutal, and unsparing in its depiction of the costs of resistance to the Nazis, Army of Shadows is quite a film.  It tells the tale of a French Resistance cell from the fall of 1942 into the spring of 1943, at a time when the Nazis dominated Europe and liberation remained only a dream.  The cell members struggle not only against the Germans but against informers in their own ranks, and are faced with making choices among options most of us would never want to encounter.

The movie, released in 1969, stars Lino Ventura and Simone Signoret.  It is methodical and understated, tense and dramatic.  The cell leader is referred to as "The Boss" but his name is Luc Jardie, a philosophy professor before the war.  In one scene his deputy looks at five books; we see each title and Jardie shown as the author.  The Jardie character is based on Jean Cavailles, a professor of philosophy, who joined the Resistance, headed one of its sabotage networks, and was eventually arrested and executed by the Gestapo.  The five books shown in the film were authored by Cavailles.

I'd not heard of the film until a couple of weeks ago.  A little research discovered why.  Army of Shadows, directed by Jean-Pierre Melville, was released in September 1969, a year after the 1968 student riots and five months after the resignation of President Charles de Gaulle, the leading French Resistance figure of WW2.  Most film critics, who opposed de Gaulle, saw the film as glorifying his role and the Resistance figures associated with de Gaulle, heavily criticizing the film, a criticism echoed in Cahiers du Cinema, the prestigious film magazine, and one relied upon by foreign distributors.  The film was a box-office failure in France and did not even receive distribution at art cinemas in the U.S.

In the 1990s, Cahiers du Cinema published a reappraisal of the movie, and after restoration it was finally released in the United States in 2006 to acclaim from film critics, many of whom placed it on their Top 10 lists for the year, including the New York Times, whose critic called it the best film of the year.  Roger Ebert wrote, "This restored 35mm print, now in art theaters around the country, may be 37 years old, but it is the best foreign film of the year".

Dear Landlord

 Written by Dylan but owned by Joe Cocker. 

Dear landlord
Please don't dismiss my case
I'm not about to argue
I'm not about to move to no other place
Now, each of us has his own special gift
And you know this was meant to be true
And if you don't underestimate me
I won't underestimate you

 

You can watch Joe performing Dear Landlord in all his glory, right here.  Dylan's original can be found on the John Wesley Harding album.

Judge

I'm rooting for Aaron Judge to hit at least 62 home runs and win the Triple Crown and for the Yankees to lose quickly in the playoffs and for Judge to sign with another team in the off season (unfortunately, I think he'll end up back with the Yanks).

I appreciate excellence in a ballplayer and what Judge is doing is extraordinary and he seems like a decent guy.  Even if he is a Yankee.

His pursuit of Roger Maris also raises complicated feelings for many of us long-time fans.  The record book is the record book and should not be changed; Barry Bonds holds the major league record with 73 dingers.  But there is a part of me that will always consider Judge the real single-season home run king if he gets to 62.

Judge has had a terrific season from start to finish but since July 15 he's raised his performance to another level.  After 87 games he had 31 home runs, a .274 batting average along with a .354 on-base percentage and was slugging .596.

In the 57 games since July 15, Aaron Judge is batting .388, with an on-base percentage of .512 and is slugging .886, with 29 homers.

Idiocracy

 The GOP organization of my home county, Maricopa, has passed (by a 13-11 vote) a resolution censuring Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, for "specific actions" during the August 2022 Primary Election; "disregard for the irregularities reported in the Arizona Senate audit of the 2020 Election"; and "inaction on election integrity".

Richer is a Republican, who unseated the incumbent Democrat recorder in the 2020 election; the same election supposedly rigged to ensure Trump lost Maricopa County.  In addition, 4 of the 5 county supervisors are Republicans and they are directly responsible for poll management on election days.

You can read Richer's detailed response here and I've done this post as a easily located note to myself  so I, or any reader, can find this compendium of relevant information, as the response contains extensive footnotes and links on the topic.

I closely followed the cyber ninjas "audit", reading their report, the County response, and learning a bit about Arizona election law along the way.  The "audit" was an embarrasing fiasco, which should have been evident to anyone looking at the relevant information without an agenda.  Sadly, that was not the case for many in the Arizona GOP.  And, for that matter, does anyone think Donald Trump spent even five minutes actually objectively evaluating the evidence claiming the election was stolen?

My summary from my post last September (see Grouchy), which contains many relevant links and remains accurate today:

I'm grouchy because after yesterday's report on the Arizona "forensic audit" by the cyber ninjas, there are still those who claim the Arizona election results were not legitimate and still believe the "ninja dust" thrown out by the audit team despite their own results - their hand count matched that of Maricopa County (actually Biden's margin got a bit bigger) and they presented no evidence to support the Dominion software conspiracy theory.

Living in Maricopa County, I have followed this much more closely than any of the other election disputes.  The bottom line is pretty simple if you look at precinct results.  The votes Donald Trump picked up in Hispanic precincts were more than offset by Biden gains in the wealthier white precincts; a pattern consistent across metro areas nationwide.  End of story. 

Of course, if there really had been a conspiracy by Democrats to steal the election, the institutional media would not report it.  Between the Democrats, GOP, and the institutional media that explains why we are in such dire straits now.

Bill & Louie

Bill Murray and Luis Tiant together recently.  El Tiante, now 81, was so much fun to watch when he pitched for the Red Sox in the 70s.  And it's Bill Murray's birthday today - he's 72.  Looks like Bill is in his What About Bob? posture.

And How Was Your Day?

On June 18, 1815, Frederick Cavendish Ponsonby had what could be characterized as either a very, very, bad day or a miraculous day, because it had elements of both.

It was the day of the Battle of Waterloo.  Ponsonby, commander of the 12th Light Dragoons in Wellington's army, led his unit in a charge against the French, which was initially successful but momentum took the cavalry too far into the French lines where it suffered heavy casualties.

In the course of the action Ponsonby was wounded in both arms, then knocked off his horse by a saber cut.  After being dismounted he was stabbed in the back by a French lancer.  As he lay helpless on the ground, a French soldier robbed him of valuables.  He caught a momentary break when a Major from the French Imperial Guards Dragoons recognized him, gave the grievously injured Ponsonby some brandy, and then left, promising to find help.  After the French cavalryman disappeared, another French soldier appeared and used Ponsonby's prone body as a shield while he fired at the British.  Later that day the Prussian cavalry appeared on the field, promptly charging the French and trampling Ponsonby in the process, injuring him further.  As evening approached the Prussian infantry appeared and the wounded man was robbed yet again.

With the end of the battle as night fell and Napoleon and the remnants of his army fled, a badly wounded British dragoon crawled onto Ponsonby's legs where he slowly expired and then the commander was discovered by a soldier of the 40th Foot, who stood guard over him all night to protect him from further robbery.  Surprisingly, Ponsonby survived, regaining his health under the nursing of his sister, Lady Caroline Lamb. Undoubtedly his recovery was hastened by being bled of 120 imperial ounces in the two days after the battle!

After coming across this story, I did some more research on Ponsonby and came across his biography at the History of Parliament website and it is quite fascinating and amusing - it quotes a contemporary who attributed his recovery after Waterloo to "the extreme tranquillity of his character, which was never ruffled by irritation or discontent".  Ponsonby, born in 1783, was the second son of the 3rd Earl of Bessborough, meaning that under British inheritance law he was out of luck, as everything would go to the first son, so in 1800 he joined the army.  He rose quickly, serving with distinction during Wellington campaign on the Iberian Peninsula (1809-14) and being promoted to colonel.

Ponsonby's sister who served as his nurse, Lady Caroline Lamb, was quite a character in her own right.  Caroline, a writer and poet who spoke French, Italian, Latin, and Greek, was also a wild child, engaging in a scandalous affair with Lord Byron and an affair with Wellington immediately after Waterloo.  Mental instability, exacerbated by alcohol and laudanum abuse, led to her death at 32.  Her husband, William Lamb, became Prime Minister four years later.

After recovery from his wounds, which left his right arm permanently paralyzed, Ponsonby resumed his seat in Parliament, though one commentator noted that "though an amiable man, Fred Ponsonby is the worst of all representatives, never going near his constituents or the House of Commons".

He left Britain in 1821 traveling to Italy and onto the Ionian Islands and Malta.  According to the Parliament website:

The need to remain abroad stemmed from his gambling debts, in settlement of which the duke of Wellington, who had taken an interest in his welfare since Waterloo, wrote on 21 Mar. 1822 to advise him to take a post in the Mediterranean ‘at present, and to look to go to India hereafter when you will be a major-general’, which will enable ‘you in a few years to return with means to pay your debts’:

I cannot conclude this letter without urgently entreating you to recollect what it is that has obliged you to separate yourself from your family and friends, and to quit the most advantageous and agreeable position that ever fell to the lot of any man in England. I am afraid that you can go to no part of the world whether near or distant in which you will not find means and opportunities of getting into similar scrapes; and you may rely on it that their only result will be to occasion fresh and increased regret to yourself and sorrow to your family and friends and to none more than ... [myself].

With help from Wellington, Ponsonby received appointment in January 1824 as inspecting officer of the Ionian Islands.

Returning to England the following year he married a daughter of Colonial Secretary Lord Bathurst.  The wedding provided some mirth as "At the altar he could not find the ring. After 20! minutes search, it was at the bottom of his pantaloon pocket". 

From 1827 to 1836 Ponsonby served as lieutenant-governor of Malta.  A long-time acquaintance visited the island and "found him living unpretentiously in a small house with a single servant, and was gratified that his host ‘has acquired by his rapid rise no humbug and pomp of office, but is just as free and open as I remember him fifteen years ago’"

He is one of the simplest, most manly, unaffected men that I know, with very good sterling sense, a sweet temper, and with the manners and experience of a man that has seen much of the world and has profited by what he has seen. The extreme, patient good humour with which he submitted to all his sufferings during the battle of Waterloo and in his very slow recovery afterwards, are said to have been the means of carrying him through ... Since that day he has been unable to use the fingers of his right hand and now writes with his left; but he contrives with singular ingenuity to wield a racket or indeed clench anything with it. Lady Emily is just as she was before her marriage, very good-humoured, but with a silly giggling manner which often offends, though only meant to do so occasionally.

Benjamin Disraeli also spent time with him on Malta and considered Ponsonby a "most charming fellow". 

Returning to England, in early 1837 he died suddenly while sitting down to a meal.  It was reported that "the physicians long ago pronounced that the action of his heart was disordered, that he might live on for years, but that when the crisis came, he would die suddenly, as if by a pistol shot".

His son, Henry Frederick Ponsonby, served 25 years as private secretary for Queen Victoria.

Below is the account of the events at Waterloo as told by Ponsonby to Lady Shelly who provided it in a letter written to Ponsonby's mother:

”At one o’clock, observing, as I thought,unsteadiness in a column of French infantry of 1,000 men or thereabouts, which was advancing with an irregular fire, I resolved to charge them. As we were descending at a gallop we received from our own troops on the right a fire much more destructive than theirs, they having begun long before it could take effect, and slackening as we drew nearer. When we were within 50 paces of them, they turned, and much execution was done amongst them, as we were followed by some Belgians who had remarked our success. But we had no sooner passed through them, than we were attacked in our turn before we could form, by about 300 Polish Lancers, who had come down to their relief—the French artillery pouring in amongst us a heavy fire of grape-shot, which, however, for one of our men killed three of their own. In the melee I was disabled almost instantly in both my arms, and followed by a few of my men who were presently cut down—for no quarter was asked or given—I was carried on by my horse, till receiving a blow on my head from a sabre, I was thrown senseless on my face to the ground. Recovering, I raised myself a little to look round, being I believe at that time in a condition to get up and run away, when a Lancer, passing by, exclaimed : ” Tu n’es pas mort, coquin,” (You’re not dead, naughty) and struck his lance through my back. My head dropped, the blood gushed into my mouth; a difficulty of breathing came on, and I thought all was over. Not long afterwards (it was then impossible to measure time, but I must have fallen in less than ten minutes after the charge) a tirailleur came up to plunder me, threatening to take away my life. I told him that he might search me, directing him to a small side pocket, in which he found three dollars, being all I had. He unloosed my stock, and tore open my waistcoat, then leaving me in a very uneasy posture. He was no sooner gone, than another came up for the same purpose, but assuring him I had been plundered already, he left me. When an officer, bringing on some troops (to which probably the tirailleurs belonged) and halting where I lay, stooped down and addressed me, saying he feared I was badly wounded, I replied that I was, and expressed a wish to be removed into the rear. He said it was against the orders to remove even their own men, but that if they gained the day, as they probably would, for he understood the Duke of Wellington was killed and that six battalions of the English army had surrendered, every attention in his power should be shown me. I complained of thirst, and he held his brandy bottle to my lips, directing one of his men to lay me down on my side, and placed a knapsack under my head. He then passed on into the action, and I shall never know to whose generosity I was indebted, as I conceive, for my life. Of what rank he was I cannot say; he wore a blue great-coat. * By-and-bye another tirailleur came, and knelt down and fired over me, loading and firing many times, and conversing with great gaiety all the while. At last he ran off, saying: ‘Vous serez bien aise d’entendre que nous allons nous retirer. Bon jour, mon ami.’ (You will be glad to hear that we are going to withdraw. Good day, my friend)

“Whilst the battle continued in that part, several of the wounded men and dead bodies near me were hit with the balls, which came very thick in that place. Towards evening, when the Prussians came up, the continued roar of cannon along their and the British line, growing louder and louder as they drew near, was the finest thing I ever heard. It was dusk when the two squadrons of Prussian cavalry, both of them two deep, passed over me in a full trot, lifting me from the ground, and tumbling me about cruelly—the clatter of their approach and the apprehensions it excited may be easily conceived. Had a gun come that way, it would have done for me. The battle was then nearly over, or removed to a distance. The cries and groans of the wounded all around me became every instant more and more audible, succeeding to the shouts, imprecations, and cries of ” Vive l’Empereur,” the discharges of musketry and cannon, now and then intervals of perfect quiet which were worse than the noise. I thought the night would never end. Much about this time one of the Royals lay across my legs—he had probably crawled thither in his agony—his weight, convulsive motions, his noises, and the air issuing through a wound in his side, distressed me greatly—the latter circumstance most of all, as the case was my own.

“It was not a dark night, and the Prussians were wandering about to plunder, and the scene in “Ferdinand Count Fathom” came into my mind, though no women, I believe, were there. Several Prussians came, looked at me, and passed on. At length one stopped to examine me. I told him as well as I could, for I could speak but little German, that I was a British officer, and had been plundered already. He did not desist, however, and pulled me about roughly before he left me. About an hour before midnight I saw a soldier in an English uniform coming towards me. He was, I suspect, on the same errand, but he came and looked in my face. I spoke instantly, telling him who I was, and assuring him of a reward if he would remain by me. He said that he belonged to the 40th Regiment, but that he had missed it. He released me from the dying man, and being unarmed, he took up a sword from the ground, and stood over me, pacing backwards and forwards.

“‘At 8 o’clock in the morning some English were seen at a distance. He ran to them, and a messenger was sent off to Colonel Harvey. A cart came for me—I was placed on it, and carried to a farmhouse, about a mile and a half distant, and laid in the bed from which poor Gordon, as I understood afterwards, had been just carried out. The jolting of the carriage and the difficulty of breathing were very painful. I had received seven wounds; a surgeon slept in my room, and I was saved by continual bleeding—120 ounces in two days, besides a great loss of blood on the field.

Uffington White Horse

I saw this while on a bike ride through southwest England in 1978.  Its about 20 miles from Avebury which we visited at the same time. The White Horse was built into the landscape around 1000 BC and has been maintained by local inhabitants for the past 3,000 years.  Now that's dedication.  I have not found any information on the mechanisms of memory and tradition that kept this ritual intact for so long.  The original purpose of the horse design remains unknown.  This article provides some additional background.

Forgotten Americans: Revisiting Patrick Cleburne

In the Forgotten American series, I've profiled people who were never publicly prominent or were prominent once but now are mostly unknown except perhaps to niche audiences.  In each instance they made valuable contributions to our country.

Those profiled:

Nathan B Abbott & Edmund De Smedt

E Arnold Bertonneau

Octavius Catto

John Dickinson

Henry Lafayette Dodge

George Sears Greene

Gail Halvorsen

Elbert Hubbard

Johnnie Hutchins

Reverdy Johnson

John Laurens

Ralph Lazo

Helen Dortch Longstreet

Cumberland Posey Jr & Sr 

Otto Frederick Rohwedder

Elihu Root

Bayard Rustin

Juan Seguin

Henry Waskow

One of the first pieces in the series was about Patrick Cleburne, a name well-known to Civil War buffs like myself, but obscure to most Americans,  While the Irish native was considered the best Confederate division commander west of the Appalachians, I wrote about him because of his remarkable proposal, made in January 1864, to free all slaves in the Confederacy.  Recently, I got around to reading Craig Symonds excellent 1997 biography of Cleburne, The Stonewall of the West and doing some additional research on the man and the background to his proposal, so decided to update my earlier recounting of his story.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For many years, ever since the agitation of the subject of slavery commenced, the negro has been dreaming of freedom, and his vivid imagination has surrounded that condition with so many gratifications that it has become the paradise of his hopes.  To attain it he will tempt dangers and difficulties not exceeded by the bravest soldier in the field.  The hope of freedom is perhaps the only moral incentive that can be applied to him in his present condition.  It would be preposterous then to expect him to fight against it with any degree of enthusiasm, therefore we must bind him to our cause by no doubtful bonds; we must leave no possible loop-hole for treachery to creep in. The slaves are dangerous now, but armed, trained, and collected in an army they would be a thousand fold more dangerous; therefore when we make soldiers of them we must make free men of them beyond all question, and thus enlist their sympathies also.  We can do this more effectually than the North can now do, for we can give the negro not only his own freedom, but that of his wife and child, and can secure it to him in his old home.  To do this, we must immediately make his marriage and parental relations sacred in the eyes of the law and forbid their sale.  The past legislation of the South concedes that a large free middle class of negro blood, between the master and slave, must sooner or later destroy the institution.  If, then, we touch the institution at all, we would do best to make the most of it, and by emancipating the whole race upon reasonable terms, and within such reasonable time as will prepare both races for the change, secure to ourselves all the advantages, and to our enemies all the disadvantages that can arise, both at home and abroad, from such a sacrifice.

- General Patrick Cleburne, Army of the Tennessee, January 2, 1864

An earlier installment of Forgotten Americans told the story of John Laurens, a South Carolinian who proposed freeing slaves who enlisted in the Continental Army to fight the British, a proposal rejected three times by his state legislature.

Eighty years later, another Southerner, this time from Arkansas, made an even more radical wartime proposal to emancipate every slave in the Confederacy and it came from Patrick Cleburne, the man considered the best division commander in the Confederacy outside of the Army of Northern Virginia.  The proposal, and its reception, illustrated the chasm that existed between what Cleburne thought the Confederacy was fighting for and what, in reality, it was actually fighting for.

(Cleburne)

Pat Cleburne was an Irish Protestant immigrant to the U.S.  Born in 1828, he enlisted in the British Army, serving as a corporal in the 41st Regiment.  In 1849 he purchased his release from the army and came to America with his two brothers and sisters, ending up in Helena, Arkansas where he eventually became a lawyer and co-owner of a local newspaper.  When secession came, Cleburne, who was never a slave owner, went with his adoptive state believing wholeheartedly in states rights and that the North was trying to assert its sectional superiority, threatening the liberties of Southerners (one of his brothers who settled in Ohio, joined the Union Army).  Perhaps most of all, he was understandably grateful to a community that had accepted him and given him a chance to succeed.

Well regarded by his neighbors and respected for his military experience he was elected Captain of a local militia company and then appointed Colonel of the 15th Arkansas Regiment.  By March 1862 he was a Brigadier-General in what later became the Army of the Tennessee, the Confederate force charged with defense of the expanse of the Confederacy running from the Appalachian Mountains to the Mississippi River.  Over the next two years Cleburne led a brigade and then a division in battle after battle; Shiloh, Perryville, Stones River, Chickamauga, and Missionary Ridge among them.  In every battle he gained laurels for the performance of his troops as well as for his personal bravery, resulting in his nickname of "Stonewall of the West" in homage to Stonewall Jackson and to praise from Robert E Lee as "a meteor shining from a clouded sky".

The problem was that in most of the battles the Army of the Tennessee lost despite the efforts of Cleburne and his troops.  For some perspective, think about the American League in the 1950s and the relative status of the New York Yankees and the Kansas City Athletics; one was the perennial world champion, the other a doormat and derogatorily considered the "farm team" of the Yankees.  The relationship between the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Tennessee was similar.  Lee's army got the glory, often defeating and always, till the end, at least stalemating the Unionists, while the western army continually took its licks at the hands of a series of Union generals, including U.S. Grant.

Nothing demonstrated both Cleburne's abilities and the incompetence of the leadership of the Army of the Tennessee than the Battle of Missionary Ridge on November 25, 1863.  The Confederates were besieging the Union Army at Chattanooga.  U.S. Grant had devised a plan to lift the siege which involved General Sherman leading an assault on the right of the Confederate line along Tunnel Hill, so-named because of the  railroad tunnel running through it.  Meanwhile a diversionary attack under General Thomas was to be launched against the center of the Confederate line along the highest part of Missionary Ridge.

Sherman's attack failed despite a 4:1 superiority in numbers due to mishandling of his forces and Cleburne's brilliant leadership in opposing him.  Meanwhile, under circumstances that still remain controversial today, General Thomas' troops ascended Missionary Ridge against the main part of the Army of the Tennessee which collapsed, fleeing the scene, and only being saved from total destruction by Cleburne's rearguard action.

By the end of 1863 it was clear, at least to Patrick Cleburne, that the Confederacy was in grave danger of collapse and was simply running out of soldiers (see Civil War Demographics for more background).  He'd been talking to a few trusted people about the possibility of freeing the slaves since the spring of 1863, but it was only after the disaster at Missionary Ridge that he finally sat down and worked diligently to proceed a lengthy written proposal.

Cleburne believed that slavery was not the prime reason for secession (for how mistaken he was see Forever Free: Why?).  Though he may have been naive in this belief, he clearly gave much thought to laying out a sophisticated argument in support of his proposal which he set forth in a letter that he read to the assembled leadership of the Army of the Tennessee, including its new commander, Joseph E Johnston, on January 2, 1864 in its winter camp in northern Georgia.  The proposal was not based on sympathy for the plight of slaves, but rather as a practical solution to the manpower problem faced by the Confederacy.  It follows a train of logic to its conclusions, resembling a lawyer's brief sans legal citations. THC urges you to read the entire letter.

He had also taken care to have the letter co-signed by thirteen fellow officers, including three generals and the commanders of regiments from Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Texas.

Cleburne started by summarizing the dire circumstances:

Through some lack in our system the fruits of our struggles and sacrifices have invariably slipped away from us and left us nothing but long lists of dead and mangled.  Instead of standing defiantly on the borders of our territory or harassing those of the enemy, we are hemmed in to-day into less than two-thirds of it, and still the enemy menacingly confronts us at every point with superior forces.

 After spelling out the consequences of defeat he went on to say:

In touching the third cause, the fact that slavery has become a military weakness, we may rouse prejudice and passion, but the time has come when it would be madness not to look at our danger from every point of view, and to probe it to the bottom.  

In the final part of his proposal Cleburne raised arguments that, intended or not, called out its recipients to come to grips with what they were really fighting for:

As between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter — give up the negro slave rather than be a slave himself.  If we are correct in this assumption it only remains to show how this great national sacrifice is, in all human probabilities, to change the current of success and sweep the invader from our country. 

It would remove forever all selfish taint from our cause and place independence above every question of property.  The very magnitude of the sacrifice itself, such as no nation has ever voluntarily made before, would appal [sic] our enemies, destroy his spirit and his finances, and fill our hearts with a pride and singleness of purpose which would clothe us with new strength in battle. 

It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all.  Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for.  It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.  

In addition to the audacity of the substance of his proposal, in the process Cleburne also challenged two tenets of white Southern belief about slavery; that the slaves were happy in their relationship with their masters and were incapable of demonstrating courage.  Cleburne stated directly that slaves were dissatisfied with their status, capable of being brave, courageous soldiers if motivated by freedom and imbued with moral agency:

For many years, ever since the agitation of the subject of slavery commenced, the negro has been dreaming of freedom, and his vivid imagination has surrounded that condition with so many gratifications that it has become the paradise of his hopes.  To attain it he will tempt dangers and difficulties not exceeded by the bravest soldier in the field.  The hope of freedom is perhaps the only moral incentive that can be applied to him in his present condition.  

Most threateningly he advocated not just freeing of those slaves who fought for the Confederacy, but also their families and, carrying his proposal to its logical conclusion, all slaves held under any circumstances.

After Cleburne finished reading the letter, there is no direct account of the reaction of those hearing the proposal for the first time but privately the reaction was different, as Symonds describes. General William B. Bate called it “infamous”, “hideous”, and “objectionable,”  and implied that Cleburne was an abolitionist. General James Patton Anderson said that it was “monstrous” and “revolting to Southern sentiment, Southern Pride, and Southern honor.’ General W.H.T. Walker asserted the proposal was nothing less than treason.

General Clement Stevens, speaking to an associate, said that while Cleburne was a "skilled army officer, and true to the Southern cause", he did not have "a proper conception of the Negro, he being foreign born and reared", adding that "if slavery is to be abolished then I take no more interest in our fight.  The justification of slavery in the South is the inferiority of the Negro.  If we make him a soldier, we concede the whole question."

Symonds describes Cleburne as a "true believer" that the South was fighting for liberty and if forced to chose between it and freeing the slaves, it would free the slaves, so the general was "astonished" at the negative reception to his proposal.  Symonds attributes this to his Irish background and relative newness to America.  He points out that Cleburne failed to understand that "many Southerners viewed the loss of slavery as virtually synonymous with the loss of their own liberty", going on to observe:

. . . his misunderstanding of the South's emotional and psychological commitment to the peculiar institution marked him unmistakably as an outsider.  For all his effort to become fully integrated into the culture of his adopted land, he never fully grasped the complicated role of slavery in Southern society.

Though General Johnson forbade any further discussion, Walker decided to send the proposal to Jefferson Davis, feeling it his duty as a patriot to make the President aware of this treasonous document. Walker asked Cleburne for a copy and he agreed to provide one because he wanted his proposal heard in Richmond.  The copy Cleburne provided had one difference from the original, omitting the names of the officers who supported it because Cleburne did not want to expose them to any risk.  After President Davis reviewed the proposal, he wrote General Johnston that there must be no further discussion of the proposal and ordered all copies collected and destroyed, including Cleburne's, which was done, though the general continued to speak about it to select people for at least a few months.

Cleburne suffered no direct repercussions in the aftermath, which can be attributed to his reputation as an outstanding commander, with no one doubting his bravery or commitment to the Confederacy.  Indeed, President Davis' suppression order, conveyed through Secretary of War Seddon stated, "no doubt or mistrust is for a moment entertained of the patriotic intents of the gallant author of the memorial".  Unlike many other general officers, he was not a self-promoter, did not engage in personal feuds, and did not spend time denigrating others in an effort to obtain promotion.  Nor did he, with the exception of the January 1864 proposal, ever seek out controversy, so he was well-respected by his peers.  And by all accounts, the soldiers in his division loved him.

Patrick Cleburne continued to loyally lead his division, seeing extensive action during the battles around Atlanta from July into early September 1864.  After abandoning Atlanta, the army began advancing north into Tennessee.  On November 30, 1864, General John Bell Hood ordered the Army of the Tennessee to make a frontal assault over open ground against an entrenched Union force at Franklin.  Hood insisted on the attack despite the objections of several of his officers, among them Cleburne.  The attack involved a larger force than that in Pickett's Charge across a much longer stretch of open ground and, unlike  Gettysburg, unsupported by artillery.  When one of Cleburne's commanders (who survived) remarked to the General that the charge would be suicidal, Cleburne responded "if we are to die, let us die like men". It was a disaster.  More than six thousand Confederate soldiers were killed, wounded or captured, and six generals killed, including Patrick Cleburne, whose horse was killed under him, and was last seen advancing on foot towards the Union line waving his sword and urging his men on.

Six months later, with the war over, Cleburne dead, the few knowledgeable about his proposal keeping their mouths shut, and all copies thought to be destroyed, it looked like no one would ever know anything more about it.  But it turned out one copy survived.

Cleburne's chief of staff as division commander was Major Calhoun Benham.  Born in Ohio in 1824, the son of Joseph Benham, then the U.S. Attorney for the District of Ohio, Calhoun moved to Kentucky as a young adult, and then joined the U.S. army for the Mexican War, where he served with distinction.  In 1849 he joined many other young Americans in going to California, settling in San Francisco.  He quickly became prominent in state politics, during the mid-1850s serving as U.S. Attorney for the District of California.  Benham was a vocal proponent of slavery and became the friend and ally of David Terry, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, also an ardent pro-slavery politician.  Terry lost his bid to be renominated Chief Justice, blaming it on U.S. Senator David Broderick, who also happened to be an abolitionist and had agitated against the party's pro-slavery wing.  Amid mutual accusations and slanders the two agreed to a duel which occurred on September 13, 1859, at which Terry shot and killed the Senator; there are also accusations that Terry rigged the pistols used in the duel, at which Calhoun Benham served as Terry's second.  When the Civil War began, Benham left California to offer his services to the Confederacy.  For Terry, the duel was not his last violent incident.  In 1889, Terry assaulted U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, who years before had succeeded Terry as Chief Justice in California and with whom Terry had been feuding, the incident ending when Field's bodyguard shot Terry dead.

Benham loyally served Cleburne and the two got along well, but Calhoun was appalled when Cleburne asked him to read a draft of his proposal to free the slaves. After failing to persuade Cleburne to shelve the proposal, he asked for a copy so he could prepare a rebuttal.  Cleburne, desiring a full and open discussion, agreed to do so.  Benham received a copy and prepared a strong, but respectful, response, which he read at the January 1864 meeting.

After the fall of Atlanta, a discouraged and despondent Benham left the army to go to Mexico.  With the end of the war, Benham returned to San Francisco.  When he died in 1884, the copy of Cleburne's proposal was found in his belongings.  Several years later it was forwarded to a Washington DC office which was collecting Confederate documents and in the 1890s it was published for the first time and that is why the text of the proposal was saved for us.

 

John Laurens and Patrick Cleburne were both brave men.  They believed in leading their troops from the front and some characterized their behavior as reckless.  Both died leading their troops in the waning days of a war.  Laurens' proposal was based on moral sentiments, while Cleburne's motive was pragmatic, but perhaps their willingness to rethink slavery and the courage to make proposals that seemed reckless to many of their contemporaries stemmed from the same personal characteristics exhibited in their battlefield behavior.  While one fought to make the declared independence of the new United States a reality, and the other fought to dismember it, both deserve to be remembered. 

Misty

I'd frequently heard from people knowledgeable about music that Sarah Vaughan was one of the great jazz singers but I never warmed up to her, finding most of her recordings overproduced and not caring for the arrangements.  Then I ran across her 1964 concert in Sweden and this rendition of Misty (written by Errol Garner).  The only version I knew was the smash hit by Johnny Mathis, which I thought mushy.  But this is a whole different thing.  What a voice!  And what phrasing.  It sounds completely different from the Mathis version and it's gorgeous.

Particularly remarkable because Sarah starts out complaining of a cold and is sweating throughout the performance, from a fever or bright stage lights or both.

Just the thing for a late night listen.

No Foul

Scottie Pippen just went up a notch in my estimation.  Had not seen this photo before.  The guy he is attempting to either strangle or break his neck is Bill Laimbeer of the Detroit Pistons.  I don't know what proceeded this photo, but I am sure Laimbeer deserved it.  The Pistons enjoyed torturing Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls for several years, and Laimbeer was the master of ceremonies in that effort.  And it wasn't only the Bulls.  Laimbeer is the only player that Larry Bird still hates and will have nothing to do it with.

Go get 'em, Scottie!

I’ll allow it. pic.twitter.com/vgDEJcGJm0

— Super 70s Sports (@Super70sSports) September 10, 2022

The Vast Of Night

It's refreshing to watch a movie that could have easily been cliche-ridden, predictable, and/or a parody of well-worn themes, instead be a unique and enjoyable experience.  At the recommendation of the THC Son we watched The Vast Of Night (2019), the first feature film, and a very-low budget one, by Andrew Patterson. 

Set in the fictional town of Cayuga, New Mexico (from its description meant to be a stand-in for Roswell) in the late 1950s, it takes place in the course of a couple of hours one night while Cayuga is hosting a basketball game in which its high school team is facing the squad from neighboring Hobbs, and most of the town's population is attending.  Mysterious events; sightings of lights in the sky, odd sounds on radio frequencies, begin to be noticed by the few not attending the game, which include our two main characters, teenagers Everett (Jake Horowitz), a fast-talking DJ on the low-wattage local radio station, and Fay (Sierra McCormick), who operates the town's telephone switchboard.

It's how the story is told, rather than the specifics of the plot, which is familiar in its outline to many other sci-fi movies, that makes this movie special.  It's done in a straightforward way; irony need not apply.  The camera work is remarkable in establishing a mood and look, featuring an extraordinary tracking shot that takes us through the entire town.  The young actors do a terrific job, particularly in the extended scene when Fay, alone at the switchboard, begins to understand that something odd is going on.

Highly recommended. The trailer below shows the long tracking shot but gives away none of the plot, unlike most trailers, including the other ones for this film!

Groove

It happens when singer and band are just so tight and you've got a pulsating, rhythmic repeating figure that's so right you just want it to keep on going.  I can't think of any better examples than two performances featured before on THC, both of which are superior to the recorded versions.

Use Me by Bill Withers, from a TV show sometime in the mid-70s.  Slower than the hit record and so delicious.  Concentrate on the instrumentation when listening.  The guitarist is doing some amazing work and as for the drummer, when the first comment on the video is "that drummer is possibly the coolest guy to have ever lived", all I can add, in the words of Mona Lisa Vito, is "it's a fact!".

Next up is I Can't Go For That, a decade old live performance by Ceelo Green and Daryl Hall (with Daryl's crack band).  A remake of the Hall & Oates 80s hit, this version is so smooth and groovy.  Every instrument is precisely right - guitar, bass, drums, keyboard, and Ceelo's seemingly effortless vocal.

I wouldn't mind if both of these were twice as long.

Yo, Adrian

On this date, 180 years ago, the Mexican army occupied San Antonio for the second time in 1842.  Though it would be evicted several days later, the event is a reminder that even after the surrender of Santa Anna after the Battle of San Jacinto in 1836, Mexico refused to recognize the independence of Texas until 1848.

The hostility was mutual, with the Texian republic attempting invasions of Mexico on several occasions, as discussed in the post When Texas Invaded New Mexico.  The first Mexican invasion in 1842 triggered Texian suspicions of the Tejano population and led to Juan Seguin, a hero of the war for independence, to flee to Mexico as recounted in Juan Seguin Returns to the Alamo.   The invasion also led to the bizarre episode of the Texas Archive War.

The Mexican army general leading the occupation of September 11, 1842 was Adrian Woll, and his career exemplies the wandering and cross-national and cultural allegiances of many figures of that period like Sam Houston, who at various times was a citizen of the United States, the Cherokee Nation, Mexico, and the Republic of Texas.

(Woll)

A native of France, where he was born in 1795, the young Woll served in Napoleon's army as part of the prestigious Imperial Guard.  After Waterloo and the Bourbon restoration, Wool sought his future and his fortune in the New World, arriving first in the United States where he had a letter of introduction to General Winfield Scott, then commander of the US Army in the northeast states.  Winfield advised Woll that there were great opportunities for someone like him in Mexico where its war for independence was underway.

Arriving in Mexico and using his past experience as an entry point (serving under Napoleon was a great asset), Woll rose quickly in the military, eventually joining the forces of General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.  After independence he became a Mexican citizen, appointed colonel in 1828 and brigadier general in 1832, assisting Santa Anna in suppressing internal rebellions.

When Santa Anna crossed the Rio Grande in February 1836 to suppress the rebellion in Texas, Woll served as quartermaster general, arriving in San Antonio two days after the fall of the Alamo.  Fortunately avoiding San Jacinto, where Santa Anna was defeated and captured, Wool was tasked by General Filisola, the senior Mexican commander, to seek an armistice with the Texians.

In 1842, Woll was appointed commander of the Department of Coahuila and ordered to invade Texas.  Seven days after occupying San Antonio, Woll's troops were defeated at the Battle of Salado Creek, and retreated across the Rio Grande.

Despite his defeat, Woll was hailed as a hero, promoted to Major General and given command of the Army of the North.  Amid the constant tumult of Mexican politics, in 1844 Woll joined a revolt against Santa Anna, was arrested and imprisoned and then freed the following year.

During the American invasion in the Mexican War, Wool served under Santa Anna once again, until Winfield Scott captured Mexico City, at which point Wool left for Europe, while Santa Anna, deposed once again, fled the country.  Five years later, Woll returned with Santa Anna, who seized power once again, only to be tossed out again a year later, and the general, once again, returned to Europe (Santa Anna ended up on Staten Island).

In the late 1850s, the peripatetic officer returned to Mexico and was reinstated as a general, this time defending the government of Miguel Miramon against the insurgency of Benito Juarez.  Though Wool was successful militarily, the Miramon government collapsed and Woll, like so many times before, returned to Europe.

The final sojourn of the occasional Mexican general occurred in 1863 when he returned to support Napoleon III's effort to installed the Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian of Austria as Emperor of Mexico.  Named as adjutant general of the occupation forces, Woll also became Maximilian's chief aide-de-camp.  In the fall of 1865, Maximilian dispatched Woll to France to meet with Napoleon to urge changes in the military support being provided.  Upon arriving in France, Woll discovered that, under pressure from the United States, Napoleon had decided to withdraw French troops from Mexico, leaving Maximilian on his own.  Woll decided that his best course of action was to finally stay put in France, where he died in 1875.  Maximilian, determined to establish his reign as Emperor stayed in Mexico, where his army was defeated and he was captured and executed in 1867.

Collapse

Footage of September 11 from ABC-TV that I had not seen before.  Starts with the collapse of the South Tower and later captures the fall of the North Tower.  Many emotional moments, of which the most poignant occurs about 4 minutes in when fire trucks and emergency vehicles are shown headed towards the remaining tower, even as everyone else is fleeing the scene.  How many in those vehicles, so committed to doing their duty, rushing towards the danger, perished on that day?

Good Navigating

You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean, and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator, at least you'll know where you were when you died.

- Justin Scott, The Shipkiller

Never heard of Justin Scott or his novel, but came across this quote while rereading The Nautical Chart by Arturo Perez-Reverte.  I think it applies to many things in life, though the consequence may not be as dire. You can work hard to set yourself up for success, but it does not guarantee success.  On the other hand, not doing so increases the likelihood of failure.

Perez-Reverte is one of my favorite authors, having read fifteen on his novels.  The Spanish writer cannot be slotted into any one genre.  The six book Captain Alatriste series, set in early 17th century Spain and the Netherlands, as the empire enters its long period of decline, tells the tale of a gallant, loyal soldier told through the reminiscence of an old man, Inigo Balboa, once his young squire.   His other novels are much different.

Queen of the South, his finest novel (recently made into a cable series which greatly deviates from the book), is about a young Mexican woman, fleeing to Spain after the killing of her cartel-linked boyfriend, and recreating herself as a drug lord.

A search for a supposedly lost treasure ship off the coast of Spain with a cast of characters about whom little is certain and none can be trusted (a Perez-Reverte specialty) is recounted in The Nautical Chart.

Set in mid-19th century Spain, The Fencing Master, is about an honorable swordsman, trying to eke a living by instruction in the fine art of fencing, who encounters a mysterious woman, whose skill may exceed his own.

We plunge into the world of antiquarian art dealers and booksellers in two novels, The Flanders Panel and The Club Dumas (the latter, Perez-Reverte's international bestseller).  In Club Dumas, the protagonist finds himself entangled in a virtual reenactment of Dumas' The Three Musketeers, while Flanders involves the obsession of an art restorer to solve a 500 year old murder mystery even as she faces her own possible death at the hands of a serial killer.

The brooding, somber tone of The Painter of Battles, reflects Perez-Reverte's own experience as a war correspondent, including during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.  A moving and provocative novel.

No One's Pitchin', Cause There Ain't No Batters

 On a summer night, some more laid-back music.  From the Lovin' Spoonful in 1966.  Never released as a single, but I had this album and Coconut Grove jumped right out to me the first time I heard it.

 

It's really true how nothin' matters
No mad, mad world and no mad hatters
no one's pitchin' cause there ain't no batters
In Coconut Groove

 

Don't bar the door, there's no one comin'
The ocean's roar will dull the drummin'
Of any city thoughts and city ways

 
The ocean breezes cool my mind
The salty days are hers and mine

To do what we want to
Tonight we'll find a dune that's ours
And softly she will speak the stars
Until sunup

 

It's all from havin' someone knowin'
Just which way your head is goin'
Who's always warm, like in the mornin'
In Coconut Groove

Next Up

We are getting near the start of the trial of Igor Danchenko, accused by Special Counsel Durham of making false statements to the FBI regarding the Steele Dossier.

The Durham investigation has evolved in a frustrating manner.

On the one hand, we've learned much more about the falsity of the Russia collusion story, the emptiness of the Steele Dossier, the involvement of the Clinton campaign in creating the myth, and the complicity of the FBI.

On the other, is the puzzling legal theory Durham is pursuing; that Danchenko and, before him, Sussman, made material false statements to the FBI.  As several legal commentators have pointed out, the problem with this theory, is that the materiality of the false statements is difficult to prove when the FBI knew they were false and were themselves part of the get-Trump gang.  If you've read my posts since 2018, you'll know the FBI (and many at DOJ, as well as the Mueller crew) simply didn't care whether statements were true or false, they just wanted enough to keep the Russia collusion story in play to justify the continuance of their investigations.

Sussman was acquitted because that was a key element of his defense and it will also be the keystone of Danchenko's defense.  Danchenko has recently made filings with the trial court stating that he had informed the FBI that not only was he merely passing on gossip that he could not vouch for, which ended up in the Dossier (and remember that Steele called Danchenko his key sub-source), but the FBI knew this in January 2017, before Comey entrapped Flynn, before senior FBI and DOJ officials made the final two FISA warrant renewals on Carter Page in which they certified as to the reliability of the Steele Dossier, before Comey told President Trump the FBI was not investigating the Dossier, and well before the appointment of Mueller.  In fact, Danchenko claims he even told the FBI in January 2017 that he was concerned that Charles Dolan, a long time Clinton associate who had also been doing PR work for Putin's government, was potentially entangled with the Kremlin.

By trying to portray the FBI as innocents deceived by wicked men, Durham is telling an implausible story.  

The defendants in both cases aren't spending much time on contesting underlying facts.  The narrative of Clinton campaign involvement remains sound.  But as for convictions for false statements, that's another story. 

The irony abounds in the Clinton campaign creating the collusion story using a dossier claiming to rely on, among others, Russian intelligence sources, and with a long-time Clinton supporter with Kremlin ties as another source.  As Andrew McCarthy wrote in his book on all of this, regarding indicia of Russian collusion with Trump and Clinton:

The FBI and the intelligence agencies had no indicia of conspiracy.  They had indicia of contacts - of associations.  That is day and night different.  Everyone had Russia contacts.  The Clinton campaign had not just Russia contacts; it had Bill Clinton meeting with Putin and taking a huge payment while Russia had important business before the State Department run by his wife; it had Hillary Clinton, for all her tough-on-the-Kremlin bravado, running the State Department in a manner that aligned with Russia’s interests; it had Russia money pouring into the Clinton Foundation; its chairman, John Podesta, sat on the board of Joule Energy, a Massachusetts company into which Putin’s venture capital firm, Rusnano, invested $35 million.

Moreover, Clinton was Secretary of State to President Obama, who was openly endorsed by the Kremlin in 2008 and 2012 as Putin made clear he hated McCain and Romney, and, when Hillary became SoS in 2009, rather than follow government security requirements she set up her own email and server system, leaving it open to penetration by foreign governments such as Russia and China.  In summary, given a choice that her emails might one day be available to the public under FOIA, or risk that Russia and China might end up with them, she chose Russia and China.

At this point, I am less concerned with the prosecutions, and even the Hillary side of Russia collusion.  The facts are already out there for anyone interested.  However, I am increasingly concerned that Durham will never publish a full report on his investigation and, even if that happens, the intelligence community thread - the second leg of the creation of the Russia collusion story - will be omitted.  I end, as always, with a plea that Durham tell us what Josef Mifsud was up to in 2016.  The answer to that one question would answer so many questions about what, if any, role the intelligence agencies in the U.S. and among our allies, played in the Russia collusion story.