The other day when the Heir made a reference to the Incident At Uganda, Carmen kind of looked at him weird like, the what at what???  So the question gets to be, what exactly is an Incident At Uganda?  And the Heir says, take a look at Harvey Weinstein's guilty verdict and you'll soon find out.  And that's because the Heir sees the guilty verdict as an unwinding of Trump claiming he's exonerated and acquitted forever about three weeks ago or so.  The Heir has made a direct connection between Trump's claims then and the Weinstein trial, and that's something you're never going to see on FNN any time soon.  So how does this tie into the concept of the Incident At Uganda?  Well the Heir's definition is that it's not Davy Vs Goliath, and it's not Waterloo either.  The Incident At Uganda is an immense gale force a thousand times more powerful than those two put together.  So what it is to try to explain briefly is about a patently unjust force constantly winning every single "official" battle of process, and using each victory to push a self righteous narrative, untrue though it may be.  And all hope seems lost, and conventional society resorts to a form of fatalism that we're seeing with the progressives right now.  And then out of seemingly nowhere comes something of a silver lining or a contradiction to the narrative of self righteous injustice.  The Heir cites Uganda, because it's a small country most people can't find on a map.  Contrast that to let's say the u.s. or Canada or Europe.  The unjust force defeats all of those, and then it's faced with Uganda, and Uganda kicks that force's butt.  And by doing so, Uganda gives deliverance to the defeated and submitted adversaries, enabling them to put their defeats in the past, and their victories in the immediate future.  The Heir wants to explain more when he gets a chance most appropriate.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby announce that both Weinstein's survivors, and the rest of the people are Totally Exonerated and Acquitted Forever of the charges of Trump and Weinstein.  So make no mistake: the Resistance is alive and well."

So what the Heir's thinking is going to happen on the Insurgent News Network is that starting from post-Impeachment through Election Day, they'll take on the mantle of the Fatalistic News Network, and the Insurgent bit is only for "greatest hits" type segments.  A brief example is their coverage of the intelligence community using violent words such as "eviscerated," "decapitated" and "destroyed."  The Heir wants to give exact video titles when he's able to.  But he's wondering, do they mean that just because of that one guy at the DNI now that the intel community is "destroyed" forever?  And they're never coming back?  Naomi said that the Heir should watch those videos to find out, but he's never going to watch a video with a title using the word "destroyed" with the expectation that they're going to come back and say, well not *destroyed,* destroyed.  Destroyed means destroyed, period and no discussion, as far as the Heir's concerned.  So let's say Bernie Sanders wins the nomination *and* he manages to beat Trump in November.  Since the intel community will have been "destroyed" because of that one DNI guy, will Bernie just throw up his hands and say, you know what?  I'm not even going to bother "rebuilding" the intel groups, because they're "destroyed."  The Heir's thinking there's a stronger chance of Bernie beating Trump and getting fatalistic with intel, than Bernie *not* beating Trump period.  But FNN as true to their name would never cover that.  That being said, the Heir's heartened by Neal Katyal's statements about the long arm of the law, how essentially what goes around comes around, no matter the outcome of the election. And like the Heir did the other day, Mr. Katyal cites the determination of the country's founders.  But that's going to be the exception to the rule until December on FNN, and FNN's likely very unhappy with Mr. Katyal's Resistance-style determination.

"Oh, wait.  The intel groups are actually still there, and alive and well on January 20 2021?  And that they showed through the Incident At Uganda in February 2021 that they never did go away?  Oh, and FNN now in March of 2021 denies *ever* saying that the intel groups were 'eviscerated' and 'decapitated' and 'destroyed?'  Can you spell 'hyperbole???'"

Even another followup.  The Heir's feeling like this is becoming a "liveblog" of some sort.  But just mere hours after he cautioned people not to turn the election into a trial on Trump, he saw at least one video with the Insurgent News Network that's prescribing the exact opposite.  Why, oh why, new Bachelor Girlfriend Filipa wonders, does the Heir even both with the Insurgent Network at this point?  Right now it's mostly the only place where he's able to see those legal eagles come alive, even if at this point those appearances are few and far between.  Right now he's not exactly thinking, if the Insurgent Network does this, I will do that.  He's not at that point yet, and that point may never arrive.  But as far as he's concerned, all the things the legal eagles analyzed about Trump and his associates over the years are still golden, mainly because those things are also true about our culture of personal corruption.  The things that are said about Julian Assange the Heir sees as also applying to Ed Snowden.  But another thing the Heir has to say to boot dress his separation of the election from politics is that it's all fine and well to turn out the Law And Justice vote, but he's pretty sure that's already all turned out.  He doesn't believe there's anyone mad at Trump who still has to be turned out for the election.  Everyone who's mad at Trump has already been turned out, but those numbers alone are just not enough to defeat Trump.  You need to turn out the economic vote, like the Heir said just earlier today.  So again, since the exit polls for 2018 showed voter concern about health care, that's the health care vote, i.e., economics.  What economic concerns do ordinary Americans have going into this election, do they feel the country's on the right track or the wrong track, and what are the Donkeys For The People doing to make it clear that they are the ones to go to for economics?  All those people enjoying lemon creme pies at the Iowa State Fair and the Iowa Caucuses (the Heir's pretty sure they had lemon creme pies at the caucuses), were they worried about health care, and a living wage, and reforms to affordable housing?  The Heir wants to see the exit polls on Iowa and New Hampshire, and maybe enter-polls with Nevada and South Carolina. And the Insurgent Network sure as hell won't be talking about those the Heir doesn't think.  They're too obsessed over Joe Biden not making it in the primaries, and how he's supposedly is the only one who can beat Trump in "swing" states.  That kind of talk the Heir feels is water under the bridge, but beyond that there's a billion ways in which the Heir can point out how the Insurgent Network is barking up the wrong tree, but those he feels inclined to leave till my writing another update on this shares base to boot.

It's only a matter of time with Harvey Weinstein, one way or the other.  And in the spirit of Bachelor Pragmatism, if Weinstein walks in the New York trial, the Heir looks forward to nailing the guy in the LA trial.  If Weinstein gets nailed in New York, the Heir wants to gloat about how such a conviction is a further deexoneration of Trump, and convicted forever, again and again and again.  Contrary to what the Insurgent Network tries to say, the Heir believes the same will happen to Trump.  Trump *will* go to jail, even if he's 90 and in very very poor health by the time that happens.  He shouldn't *not* go to jail just because he'll be old and sick.  The precedent the Heir sees for that is when they put that Nazi guard on trial 15 years ago who himself was 90 plus, and they had to wheel him into court while the trial was going on.  It was the only person left alive from the Nazi era to answer to war crimes, and if they can do it there for certain offenses, the Heir believes we should do the same here for certain offenses.  The Heir thinks that thing with Weinstein on the walker is just BS.  The Heir's pretty sure that if Weinstein gets acquitted in New York, he'll toss his walker in front of the press cameras and dance and gloat like ha ha in your face to all his survivors, I never *did* have back problems!  Oh wait, I have *another* trial?  Can I have my walker back to talk about how I'm too injured to endure yet another trial?  That's pretty much what Manafort did with that thing with the wheelchair, since the Heir's observed that after he was convicted, he was walking normally when escorted to the vehicle that would send him to jail.

"There are no statutes of limitations or deadlines or time frames when it comes to purging our culture of personal corruption.  However long it takes is as long as you need to do it with."

The Heir gets to do some followup on this whole election thing.  I the Mentor guess we kind of lousily phrased what we previously said, though that's because it took a while for certain thoughts to become more cohesive and concrete.  It's still clear to the Heir that the progressives want the Resistance to believe that the election is some sort of Court Of Public Opinion trial on Trump, but elections have generally never been about a referendum on a candidate's moral or just/legal state.  Fun Loving Chief was paraphrased to have said, "It's the economy, stupid," so that's the prism through which the Heir's looking at the election.  It's going to be more about whether Trump ever took adequate action on the prices of prescription drugs, and less about how he's a criminal who models very badly for our young people.  It also kind of hearkens back to yet another paraphrase attributed to Benjamin Franklin: You can't make a popular appeal to general values and concepts as much as an appeal to self-interest.  Whether we like it or not, that's the way it is, so the Heir's thinking it's not appropriate for the Insurgent News Network to portray the election as a trial on Trump.  But he's seeing video titles such as "The only that will stop Trump is us," which he sees as misleading because it's a Rorschach test.  Everyone will see into the title what they'll subjectively see, and it's the Insurgent Network disingenuously expecting the Resistance to somehow turn the election into a trial on Trump through this Rorschach test.  (For one thing, it allows the Insurgent Network to make hay out of election gossip, e.g., Bloomberg and Bernie).  As a result, the Heir asks the Resistance to Resist this temptation, and focus more on outstanding criminal charges and civil suits Trump will face *after* office.  Now here's the thing.  It seems likely that Trump will lose, which will have the effect of moving up those actual reckonings till less than a year from now.  But the Heir also asks the Resistance to have a Plan B in place in case that doesn't happen, and there are any number of strategies to consider that the Heir wants to think more about before proposing what he thinks may be the best courses of action.  It would be awesome to him if up until the election the Insurgent Network has intrepid legals like Maya Wiley and Chuck Rosenberg among others to explain the details of the possibilities so the Heir knows what he's getting into before getting me the Mentor to cite such ideas here on the shares base.

"Resistance, don't put all your law-and-justice eggs into the one basket that is the election.  Keep focusing on the legal nuts and bolts of an actual justice on Trump."

The Heir almost completely forgot that Harvey Weinstein also has a trial coming up in Los Angeles, though he's not sure when that's going to be.  He's hoping it's not going to be October or November, but he's pretty sure it's not going to be the next week after his trial ends in New York.  If Weinstein walks in New York, he's probably not going to walk in LA.  The Heir read that article on the NBC site that details the differences between the two cases.  Apparently, the fact that Weinstein never previously met the women he's accused of assaulting in LA or talked to them afterwards may count against him, because he can't claim to a jury the encounters were consensual like he possibly could in NY.  Sure it's dumb where common sense is concerned, but that's apparently how the mechanics of this kind of trial work.  But the Heir hopes the LA trial comes sooner than later, so a conviction there can count against Trump's claims of exoneration in a society now waking up to the importances of accountability and principle.

So even though the Heir completely undid Trump's "exoneration," he still proceeds with silent rage and restlessness, and dissatisfaction with the system.  And why?  Well, where does he begin?  One thing is with the Harvey Weinstein trial whose defense attorneys are predicting an acquittal from the court steps.  This the Heir sees as a call to arms on this particular front for justice for the people, because if Weinstein does get acquitted, the Heir thinks Letitia James needs to appoint a commission or a task force to find out what went wrong, particularly if even more women come out after the acquittal to state that Weinstein assaulted them too.  The current survivors should seriously consider legal action against the court system that would also help bring irregularities to light.  Also how the trial was covered in the media, which further denigrates any reputation the media has left as the so-called "fourth estate."  The Heir angrily paces around the Swank Lounge when his tablet shows the Weinstein trial designated as "entertainment" news or solely as local news.  It's accusations against Weinstein that effectively launched the MeToo movement, so that deserves more serious national coverage.  The Heir has general plans in mind post-acquittal, because there's a growing need for justice for the people rather than just for jerkasses like Trump or Weinstein.

This is the week's anniversary of Trump claiming he's exonerated and "acquitted forever", and in response to Nancy Pelosi tearing up his State of the union address, he tore up his own articles of impeachment.  The Heir in response to that response wants to tear up Trump's "exoneration."  It'll be a piece of paper with the phrase Trump Exoneration at the top, and with a word salad of his exoneration press conference, his tweets and rally bites from when Ukrainegate got started through to his rally in NH.  And then the Heir will tear it with Tear Up Trump.  The Heir in his own fantasy press conference before he does the tear up to thunderous applause would proclaim that it was not a real acquittal because it was not a real trial, because you didn't hear witnesses or evidence.  Instead, he proclaims as a hung jury, better known as the Trump Hung Jury.


Here's yet another way in which we're none-of-the-above skeptics here in the Bachelor.  We will not go along with the progressive movement's efforts to turn the election into a Political Armageddon in which they'll want to claim that if the election fails then somehow we can never hold Trump to account even after he leaves office.  Their apparent contention would be that the election results would somehow make both criminal and civil trials impossible, despite the fact that those legal eagles the Heir sees on the Insurgent Network would dismiss that out of hand, and should do so.  That's why we in the Bachelor are separating our participation from our pursuit of justice.  There's a good chance that a Donkey For The People nominee will defeat Trump, which will have the effect of moving up potential trial dates after he leaves office, but we don't think that's any reason why the Resistance should put all their justice eggs in one basket, solely because the progressives seem for them to want to do so.  The Heir was there in 2004 when that was the progressive strategy, and look how that turned out.

"I proclaim that it was not a real acquittal, because it was not a real trial, because you did not have witnesses or evidence approved for review.  So instead it's a Trump Hung Jury.  And with that, I will now tear up the Trump Exoneration."

Pfffffffffffffffffffffffft 🌀

The Heir's done further thinking on how to continue to pursue justice against Trump, along with his superiors among big tech and Ed Snowden.  He's wondering whether it's time to revisit the presumption of innocence till proven guilty.  For 98% of the population it's still the right and valid approach.  It's those 2% who will exploit the concept, so that you don't have justice, but instead injustice.  That's why you have the Court Of Public Opinion, which if you went by the book with things like presumption of innocence and protection against double jeopardy, the Court Of Public Opinion would be considered a form of mob rule.  If this is a concern about democracy the progressives have, the Heir would appreciate it if they specifically said so.  But if you have a 2%-er play the system in such a way to get a get out of free jail card, and there are no options left in the system proper to pursue justice with, how can you possibly *not* go to the Court Of Public Opinion at that point?  Maybe that's what elections are about, but let's say the elections don't work as the progressives fear.  The Heir's wondering why you *shouldn't* take a guilty before proven innocent approach with a 2%-er who's gotten his get out of jail free card.  Maybe there's something in the Federalist Papers about it, but the Heir has yet to get his copy of the Papers back from Marco's grandmother.  Now Paul Manafort's in jail, Roger Stone the Heir thinks is awaiting sentencing, and Jeffrey Epstein is dead, so there aren't any immediate test cases in which the Heir can apply his don't-spare-the-rod-don't-spoil-the-child approach with.  Not even Trump yet until the election.  After that the Heir intends to have a plan B up his sleeve no matter what the progressives say or think or do about it.  He's feeling better already, but maybe this is the reason why the progressives went bat poop in 2006.  They may have felt they had no choice after 2004.

"Stay tuned."

So a lot to unpack with the "acquittal" and the progressives' apparent belief that this is the "end" of democracy.  Firstly, the Heir doesn't believe there was a real acquittal, because there wasn't a real trial to begin with.  He's not sure what the exact vanilla type-A bureaucratic term is, but it wasn't a trial if you didn't have witnesses or evidence.  He's one of the 75% who said you needed witnesses and evidence.  Secondly, this whole democracy thing, and how democracy is being "threatened."  The progressives apparently don't want to see it, but the Heir sees very nature of democracy as *being* threatened.  Here's what the Heir points out: When you had Camelot with JFK and stuff, why didn't the progressives denounce Camelot as a threat to democracy?  What?  Just because it was their guy?  Because Camelot is a form of royalization of the Presidency, and the Founders would have had a coronary if they knew there was going to be Camelot.  You had Benjamin Franklin as saying we have a democracy if we can keep it.  No-one ever has said "if we can keep it" after Benjamin Franklin died except to quote the guy.  And then there's eternal vigilance, which is an inherent acknowledgment that democracy is *always* threatened, no matter if it's Trump or Funny Named Skinny Kid or Impulsive, or the Heir's current beneficiary of support, Elizabeth Warren.  If we had a Warren Administration, the Heir still sees democracy as being threatened, no matter how much Warren is able to bring big tech to its knees and get them to eat their one-thing-should-replace-another forced obsolescence marketing talk.  And what else?  Oh yeah, and the Heir thinks Trump's reprise of "total exoneration" and "acquitted forever" is BS and Trump knows it's BS.  The Heir wants the activists to start using the hash tag #ImpeachedForeverAcquittedNever.  Come on, activists, get with the program!

"Remember what David McCollough said about the Jeffersons and the Madisons: that they never gave up.  Never did *they* say, oh it's the end of democracy.  No matter how they fell on their faces, they never gave up.  That's the lesson we got to keep taking out of history."

The Heir is wondering whether the app failure in Iowa is a result of that app's marketers convincing a naive election commission about forced obsolescence, that one thing has to replace another.  The marketers may have come in with a big bin that the commission had to dump all their clipboards and calculators into as a condition of taking ownership of the app, i.e., old fashioned tools they may have previously used to tally up election results.  That's what they did in Finland when those marketers came in with a big bin for analog radios as a selling point that digital radios had to replace analog ones, resulting in what the Heir sees as a now informationally blind country.  Now that self driving cars have revealed themselves a miserable failure in high accident rates, that and Iowa the Heir sees as a reason to abandon forced obsolescence as a life's philosophy for the human race.

"At the risk of sounding like an old fart: BTT, back to tradition."