Category Archives: DC riot

Public hearings to commence

Mark it down on your calendar — or perhaps log it into your smart phone: June 9 is when the House select committee investigating the 1/6 insurrection takes its hearings onto the public floor.

Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson vows a complete hearing before the whole world when he calls witnesses to testify on what they knew on that hideous day. He will make them tell the truth about when they knew it and whether the POTUS at the time, Donald Trump, is culpable in the effort to overturn our cherished democratic process with the aim of keeping Trump in power.

I don’t know about you, but I intend to watch as much of it as I can. I understand there will be roughly five days of public testimony.

I am going to look forward to hearing the Trumpkins defend the activities of their hero. Defend his inaction. His refusal to stop the attack on our law enforcement personnel guarding the Capitol Building.

Moreover, I am going to hope my stomach is strong enough to digest all the lies we are about to hear.

Ladies and gentlemen, pass the popcorn, because we are about to watch a political drama play out.

Did she violate her oath? Yep!

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says this in Section 3 of that amendment; it provides a vivid explanation of who can serve in Congress.

It states: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

A member of Congress, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican, is being challenged by those who believe she engaged in an insurrection on 1/6. That she helped incite the crowd to storm the Capitol Building that day.

If she is found culpable, her congressional career could end.

OK, recognizing my own bias, I believe she did what she is accused of doing and that she should be denied the chance to seek re-election from the 14th Congressional District of Georgia.

The QAnon-believing, Stop the Steal, Big Lie believer has been nothing but a pain in ass since she took her seat in Congress in early 2021.

But … let’s allow this evidentiary hearing process to play out.

Will House GOP boss deny saying what we heard?

Politicians are known to be among humankind’s slipperiest subspecies, correct? That said, I am intrigued with how U.S. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy is going to slither his way out of what the whole country has heard him say about Donald Trump’s conduct during the 1/6 insurrection.

Hmm. How does this go?

Two New York Times reporters have stated that McCarthy said he would call Trump shortly after the 1/6 riot and urge him to resign from the presidency. McCarthy said the House would impeach him for inciting the riot and that the Senate very well could convict him.

OK so far?

Then McCarthy denied saying what was reported. His office issued a statement declaring the reporting to be false.

But wait! Then came the recording. We hear McCarthy’s voice telling Rep. Liz Cheney that he would urge Trump to quit. That was him on the recording, right? I know McCarthy’s voice when I hear it and it damn sure sounded just like him.

Where does this go? Good grief! I have no clue, other than it exposes McCarthy to be the lily-livered coward many of us have believed him to be. He excoriated Trump shortly after the insurrection, then flew to Florida after The Donald left office and had his picture taken with him hanging out in Trump’s glitzy resort/home.

McCarthy has his sights set on becoming the next speaker of the House, presuming the Republicans take control of the body after the midterm election. Therein might lie the biggest takeaway from this tumultuous development.

Do American voters really want a sniveling coward leading the House of Representatives? Is this what lies in store for the country once we count those ballots?

God help us!

If this isn’t ‘criminal’ …

A good friend of mine posted this little item that I feel compelled to share on this blog … with a brief comment.

I would change one word: “Impeachable” could become “criminal” as it relates to what Donald J. Trump (allegedly) did on 1/6 while the traitorous mob of insurrectionists was assaulting the Capitol Building and seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

You remember that, right? Joe Biden won. Donald Trump lost. Except that Trump declared war on our democratic system of government and sought to block the certification of the 2020 election result.

Mitch McConnell was stirred with righteous anger at Trump’s conduct on 1/6. Then he voted against convicting Trump after he had been impeached for the second time by the House of Representatives.

Those days are gone. We now are facing possible criminal referrals from the House select committee that is examining the why and wherefore regarding the 1/6 insurrection.

If I were King of the World, I would recommend that the select panel recommend a Justice Department indictment of The Donald. But … that’s for others to decide.

The aggravating aspect of McConnell’s once-righteous rage at Trump is that he continues to suck up to the former POTUS, saying that if Trump is the GOP presidential nominee in 2024 (a thought that makes me wretch) that he would “support” his bid for the presidency.

So, there you have it. The Senate GOP leader who once thought the then-president committed an impeachable offense is now fit to serve yet again as the nation’s head of state.

Some things just defy logic.

Why protect this guy?

Questions abound from reports that 1/6 insurrectionists sought to “protect” a U.S. congressman, a Republican who hails (now!) from the Texas Panhandle.

Recently released text messages reveal that Oath Keepers — the yahoos who helped lead the 1/6 riot on Capitol Hill — sought to shelter Rep. Ronny Jackson of Amarillo from being harmed by the rioters who stormed the Capitol at the urging of the then-POTUS.

Let us not forget that this same mob of traitorous rioters was shouting “Hang Mike Pence!” in a direct threat to the vice president, who was presiding at that moment over a congressional certification of the results that saw Joe Biden defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

Gosh, do you think any of the Oath Keepers were among those seeking to kill the vice president, while at the same time were seeking to protect a member of Congress, a guy who had been in office about three days at the time of the riot?

We need some answers … as in right now!

Rioters sought to ‘protect’ Rep. Jackson? Well …

What in the name of insurrection do we make of this news? It turns out that the Oath Keepers, the right-wing radicals who took part in the 1/6 insurrection, sought to shield a Texas congressman from harm.

Why? Because he was on their side in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. He voted in favor of efforts to resist certifying Joe Biden’s election as president.

The congressman in question is Ronny Jackson, an Amarillo Republican who represents the congressional district I called home for 23 years.

There’s a bit to unpack here. I’ll give it a shot.

Jackson has been adamant in contending the 2020 election was “stolen” from The Donald, who he once treated as White House physician; Jackson also served as WH doc for President Obama.

Jackson’s office said he doesn’t know anyone in the Oath Keepers group. The Texas Tribune reports:

C’mon! This isn’t a “liberal media” conspiracy! It presents a host of questions that need a congressman’s full disclosure about who or what he knows and when does he know who or what.

Here’s a bit more from the Tribune: The Oath Keepers claim to represent tens of thousands of present and former law enforcement officials and military veterans under the pretense of defending the U.S. Constitution. The group is, in effect, one of the largest far-right, anti-government groups that peddles in baseless conspiracy theories.

Oath Keepers involved in Jan. 6 wanted to protect U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson | The Texas Tribune

Does a member of Congress — such as Ronny Jackson — want to be affiliated with a group of radicals such as the Oath Keepers? This individual, Jackson, has said that those who rioted and “broke windows” on the Capitol Building must be “held accountable.” That’s not enough.

He needs to condemn the Oath Keepers in language everyone understands. My hunch is that such a condemnation won’t come from Ronny Jackson’s mouth.

Cheney: We have enough

Let it never be said that Liz Cheney lacks backbone or courage, particularly in light of her service on a House of Representatives committee assigned to find the motives and the cause of the 1/6 insurrection.

The Wyoming Republican this weekend declared for all the world to hear that the select panel has more than enough evidence to issue a criminal indictment referral to the Justice Department implicating the 45th president of the United States on felony charges.

She disputed reports of friction among committee members. Cheney told media outlets over the weekend that the committee has gathered enough evidence to issue a report to Attorney General Merrick Garland that suggests Donald Trump committed at least two felonies while seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election result.

Now comes the question: Will the committee make the referral? I believe it will. I also believe it will do so relatively soon.

The corollary question, though, is this: Will the AG act speedily to deciding whether to indict the former POTUS? I don’t know the answer to that one. Nor do I believe he should be hasty.

Garland has made it abundantly clear that he will “follow the law” wherever it leads. I believe he is an honorable man who won’t be pressured, bullied or coerced into making a partisan political decision.

However, today I want to reserve my salute to Liz Cheney, one of two Republicans on the select committee, who is standing on her own belief that no one — not even the POTUS — is above the law. Moreover, she has said repeatedly that she took an oath to be faithful to the Constitution and not to an individual.

That is the essence of public service.

Get off the AG’s back!

Allow me this additional demand of congressional Democrats and even some within the White House who are getting — allegedly! — annoyed with the pace of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s examination of the 1/6 insurrection and whether he intends to file charges against the former president of the United States of America.

Let the man do his job!

Democrats in Congress are reportedly peeved that Garland isn’t moving quickly enough. They want to see The Donald brought before the Bar of Justice for inciting the 1/6 insurrection and for doing nothing to stop it when it was occurring on Capitol Hill. Hey, so do I want to see the former A**hole in Chief brought to account for his action and inaction.

However, I am going to stand with the AG on this one. He said he won’t be pressured by Congress or by the White House to finish his task before he is ready to declare it finished.

Garland is on record many times already declaring he won’t be pushed, prodded or pressured by political forces. I am OK with that.

His career as a judge prior to becoming attorney general was marked by steady-as-you-go deliberation. What is so wrong with that as he works diligently with his staff of legal eagles at the Justice Department to ensure that they have all their ducks lined up before making a public decision?

Let us not lose sight of what else is at stake. Indicting a former president on felony criminal charges would set an astonishing precedent. Don’t you think? The AG must get it right and getting it right makes it imperative he run every trap he can find before delivering the goods.

Conflict of interest?

Imagine for a moment a conversation that might have occurred in the home of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Virginia.

Justice Thomas: Hi, Ginni. How did your day go?

Ginni Thomas: Oh, fine, Clarence. I attended a Donald Trump rally today on the Ellipse. I left early before the crap hit the fan.

CT: Oh, really? What happened?

GT: The president told the crowd to “fight like hell” to “take back the government.” The crowd got excited and stormed the Capitol Building. It did all kinds of damage.

CT: Oh, yeah. I heard about that. I also heard something about the president seeking to claim he had “executive privilege,” and that it’s OK for him to do such a thing because, after all, he’s the president.

GT: You bet he does! Furthermore, I believe the privilege claim extends beyond the time he’s in office. I am sure you agree.

CT: Absolutely, I agree, honey. Anything you say is OK with me.

GT: Oh, and how would you vote if the issue were to come before the court? Would you stand with me … and with the president?

CT: Of course I would! No problem there.


Therein might lie a problem for Justice Thomas, who eventually did cast the lone vote upholding Donald Trump’s specious claim of executive privilege in his failed fight to prevent the National Archives from releasing his presidential papers to the 1/6 House committee that demanded them.

Do I know such a conversation took place in the Thomas home? Absolutely not! However, it doesn’t stretch anything beyond all reasonable doubt that something akin to that chat might have occurred.

And to think that Justice Thomas recently lamented that the Supreme Court is becoming “too political.” Yeah, no kiddin’.


Trump far from in the clear

Two top prosecutors from the Manhattan (N.Y.) district attorney’s office have quit, reportedly throwing a criminal investigation into Donald J. Trump into some state of disarray. The chatter suggests the new DA has choked on deciding whether to indict Donald for any sort of allegation associated with a longstanding criminal probe into his business dealings.

Does this mean Trump is home free? That he has nothing about which to worry? Oh, no. Far from it.

DA Alvin Bragg reportedly has balked on proceeding with indicting Donald. Two of his top legal eagles quit simultaneously, suggesting to many observers that there’s a major disagreement within the DA’s office on how to proceed.

But let’s hold on for a minute. This is one investigation. Do I want it to end now? No! As an ardent critic of Donald Trump, my preference would be for the DA who took over from a veteran prosecutor — Cyrus Vance Jr. — to follow the evidence and the law all the way to the end.

However, the New York attorney general, Letitia James, is still working on our own investigation into Trump’s alleged business chicanery. Let us also remember that the Trump Organization already is has been indicted on charges of tax fraud and other matters.

Oh, and then we have yet another criminal investigation down yonder in Fulton County, Ga., where DA Fani Willis is examining whether to prosecute Donald on a charge of interfering in a state election process. Donald did demand that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger “find” enough votes to swing the state from Joe Biden’s column to Donald Trump.

Finally, there’s the House select committee examining Trump’s role in inciting the insurrection on 1/6. We now hear of possible cooperation with the committee from key Donald Trump acolytes, such as Rudolph Giuliani and — get a load of this! — Ivanka Trump, the elder daughter of Donald. The Justice Department already has indicted one key Trump aide, Steve Bannon, on a charge of contempt of Congress for his refusal to comply with a congressional subpoena.

This is all my way of suggesting that the resignations of the DA’s office prosecutor might not be as big a deal as many are making of it. The quitters might have stalled the progress of that probe by virtue of their resignation. It isn’t the end of Donald Trump’s troubles. Not by a very long shot!