Category Archives: DC riot

Manslaughter charge for Trump? What the … ?

Five people died in the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, an event that Donald J. Trump could have stopped with a single verbal order to his maniacal followers that day.

He didn’t say a word. He let the attack on our government continue. The event turned bloody. Now comes this tidbit from a former U.S. attorney, Barbara McQuade, who says Trump could face manslaughter charges for his role in provoking the assault and for his abject failure to stop it.

Wow, man!

Is that for real? McQuade believes the 1/6 House select committee has compiled enough evidence to refer to Justice Department legal eagles a criminal referral seeking a manslaughter indictment.

McQuade wrote this in making the case: Under federal law, involuntary manslaughter occurs when a person commits an act on federal property without due care that it might produce death. To establish a criminal case of manslaughter against Trump, prosecutors would need to prove each of the elements of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt: an act, committed without due care, that caused death.

First, did Trump commit an act that could constitute the actus reus for manslaughter? His statements at the Ellipse in which he urged the crowd to march to the Capitol could be an act that constitutes this element. Recent evidence that this was not a “metaphorical” statement, but rather a coordinated plan, would make the statement even more egregious because it would mean that Trump had time to reflect on the potential deadly consequences of his actions.

Oh, boy. I don’t know that the committee needs to go that far. It seems to me it has enough evidence to seek plenty of criminal indictments that stop short of accusing Trump of manslaughter.

Still, the idea does make one ponder what might be coming down the road.

Trump gets subpoena … good!

Donald John Trump has been formally summoned to appear before the 1/6 House select committee examining the insurrection that Trump incited.

Except that Trump keeps insisting he did not do a damn thing wrong. That his challenge of the 2020 presidential election result is valid and that he has proof of “widespread voter fraud.”

But, wait! He hasn’t presented a shred of evidence to back his specious contention of non-existent widespread fraud.

We now are going to see whether this individual believes in the rule of law. Will he appear before the panel? Will he tell House members the “whole truth?” Will he dispel any notion that his fiery speech on the Ellipse on 1/6 intended to result in the frontal assault on the government?

Excuse me while I laugh my ass off!

This individual who pretends to stand for toughness, truth and the American Way is likely to cower behind the Fifth Amendment constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. That’s his right. It also suggests to me that he is guilty as hell … just as he said of those associated with criminal activity involving his political foes.

‘Gross dereliction of duty’?

Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham have redefined “gross dereliction of duty,” attaching a partisan label to conduct that should defy partisanship.

The two U.S. Republican senators have sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, accusing him of “gross dereliction of duty,” and suggesting he might be impeached on those grounds if the GOP takes control of Congress after the midterm election. They suggest the “illegal immigrant” crisis has become too much to bear.

Hmm. Interesting, yes? Mayorkas has presided over a Cabinet office that has taken charge of arresting and detaining more migrants than ever. I agree that the situation on our southern border needs immediate repair and reform, but impeach Mayorkas? He’s doing his job.

Ted Cruz says DHS chief could be impeached over rise in migrant crossings | The Texas Tribune

As for the redefinition of “gross dereliction of duty,” I want to remind Cruz and Graham that the immediate past president committed a “gross dereliction” of the duty he assumed when he took office in January 2017. The dereliction of duty occurred during the 1/6 assault on our government, when Donald J. Trump did not a damn thing to prevent the attack.

Cruz and Graham gave Trump a pass.

Dereliction of duty? There you have it. Indeed, I could argue that the senators, too, are guilty of dereliction of duty by refusing to make Trump accountable for inciting the insurrection against the government he took an oath to protect.

Are they pro-cop or not?

Thomas Webster has just become the latest symbol of the hypocrisy we hear coming from the mouths of politicians and their supporters who purport to be “pro law enforcement.”

Webster has just received a 10-year prison sentence for his participation in the 1/6 assault on our government, on the attack on Capitol Hill.

Webster happens to be a former New York police officer who was convicted of assaulting a Capitol Police officer during that heinous attack. A judge sentenced the ex-cop to the longest sentence yet coming from the myriad trials emanating from the 1/6 assault.

But where are the statements of support for Webster’s sentence from those on the right, those who — until the Age of Trump — were known to be pro-law enforcement, pro-police, pro-lock ’em up and toss the key.

These days we hear them condemning the cops, the FBI, the intelligence community.

The world has been upside-down. It’s making me dizzy.

How does Pence remain silent?

Many things have been known to escape my occasionally meager skills at understanding certain matters, such as …

How in the world does former Vice President Mike Pence remain so silent when the whole world now knows that Donald J. Trump didn’t give a damn whether he got hanged by the mob of traitors who stormed the Capitol on 1/6?

Testimony has been revealed that on the day of the insurrection, with mobsters carrying signs that said “Hang Mike Pence!” the then-POTUS didn’t lift a finger to quell the violence. Nor did he call the VP to determine whether he was safe. Nor did he salute the VP for doing his constitutional duty.

Oh, no! All that Trump said that day about the vice president was that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage” to overturn the 2020 presidential election and that “Pence let me down.”

What a piece of sh**!

But the ex-VPOTUS won’t condemn in unambiguous language what many of the rest of us find repugnant beyond belief. That the president was derelict in his duty that day. That he violated his sacred oath of office. That he has never expressed a single public word of remorse over what happened on 1/6.

Pence has been at the center of this investigation. Yet he remains curiously silent about the behavior on that horrifying day of the man who incited the whole thing with The Big Lie.

Go figure.

Hey, libs: Pipe down and let AG do his job

To be sure, I have spent a lot of emotional capital chastising conservatives over a whole array of issues. Today, though, I want to take aim at the progressives among us who are growing impatient with the pace of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s potential probe into Donald Trump’s role in the 1/6 insurrection.

Summing it up, I want to say that progressives need to settle down and quit acting as if the world is going to explode if Garland doesn’t meet their deadline for a decision.

The AG is examining whether to prosecute a former president of the United States of America — for God’s sake — on charges that might include conspiracy to commit sedition. Think of the seriousness, here.

It’s never been done before.

Now, do I believe Trump committed crimes while refusing to stem the attack on the Capitol on 1/6? Yes! I do! However, I am just a chump layman out here in the peanut gallery. I use to say what I believe, which is my right as a red-blooded American citizen.

I will not have to pay the price, though, were I to seek a flawed indictment of a former POTUS.

Therefore, I am willing to give the attorney general all the room he needs to roam in search of evidence he believes will result in a conviction of unnamed, unspecified charges against Donald J. Trump.

Earth will not spin off its axis if Garland doesn’t meet the progressives’ deadline … whatever it is! He is a studious, careful, meticulous, learned lawyer. Let him do his job!

Hearings have changed my mind

No one has asked me my opinion on whether the 1/6 insurrection hearings conducted by the House select committee has changed my mind about what happened on that horrible day.

I am going to offer an opinion anyway.

Hell yes, I have changed my mind on the insurrection. After listening to several days’ worth of testimony, I am even more convinced than before that Donald J. Trump needs to be charged with any variety of federal crimes.

I thought he was guilty long ago. I still believe in Trump’s guilt. What has changed, though, has been the passion with which I believe this stuff about the former POTUS.

Does that count as a “changed mind?” If not, then it should. Therefore, I will conclude that my mind has changed about who is responsible for the insurrection.

I believed in Trump’s guilt when the hearings started. I believe in them even more as they grind on toward a conclusion.

What never will change in my mind is a demand for accountability and a prison sentence if the ex-president ever gets convicted.

Heads up, Liz Cheney

Liz Cheney no doubt watched with keen interest what happened to her Republican U.S. House colleague Tom Rice.

Rice got thumped badly in the GOP primary in South Carolina. Why would Cheney take such a keen interest in Rice’s defeat? Because the two of them were among 10 House Republicans to vote to impeach Donald J. Trump, who along with the cultists, has been on the warpath ever since.

Rice paid the price politically when he lost the South Carolina GOP primary this week. So, now comes the question: Is the same fate awaiting Cheney out yonder in Wyoming, where she faces a Trumpkin challenger for her House seat?

I hope that’s not the case, given that Cheney has emerged as the rare Republican voice of sanity, reason and fealty to the Constitution in the ongoing probe into the 1/6 insurrection … that Donald Trump incited with that fiery speech on the Ellipse just two weeks before he would hand the presidency over to the man who defeated him, Joseph R. Biden Jr.

From my perch in North Texas, I must acknowledge that it doesn’t look good for Rep. Cheney. Then again, Wyoming Republicans aren’t necessarily clones of their colleagues in South Carolina.

That is my most fervent hope.

House panel sets table nicely

Members of the House select committee examining the 1/6 insurrection and assault on the Capitol Building have set the table nicely for the rest of the televised hearings we’re going to watch.

Oh, and make no mistake: I will watch them all … if I can.

Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney — one of two Republicans serving on the panel — has set the stage for a possible recommendation of criminal indictments against Donald J. Trump. Chairman Bennie Thompson said as much, too, suggesting that the evidence the committee has seen to date present a planned, orchestrated plot conducted from within the Oval Office to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and keep Trump in power.

From my perch in the cheap seats, that is an illegal act. Trump broke the law. Attorney General Merrick Garland well might find he has no choice but to send this matter to a grand jury, which then could indict the 45th president of the United States on federal felony charges.

I guess a quick word of thanks is in order to Chairman Thompson for letting us see this investigation play out in our living rooms.

Not that I need convincing. I am learning a bit more about the Constitution and the protection it provides against the kind of lawlessness we witnessed unfolding in that attack on our democratic process.

Waiting now to see what AG will do

We are all going to know in due course — but it won’t occur within the next few days — what lurks inside the head and the heart of the U.S. attorney general, Merrick Garland.

The House select committee examining the insurrection that occurred on 1/6 is going to make a decision after it concludes its testimony-taking from witnesses who saw what happened in the White House on that hideous day.

Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney more or less let it be known what the panel is thinking, which is that Donald J. Trump was criminally liable for what he did to provoke the traitorous mob into attacking the Capitol Building. What Trump did that day, Cheney said, was “illegal” and “immoral.” The illegal part lies at the crux of what Garland is facing.

If the committee determines that the 45th POTUS committed an illegal act, then it falls onto Garland to decide whether the Justice Department should charge him with committing a felony.

It’s never been done before. Thus, AG Garland is facing an unprecedented quandary. Garland has declared he will follow the facts wherever they lead. If they lead his legal team into the Oval Office that day, well, that means an indictment is a cinch.

Garland strikes many of as a careful, thoughtful man, one who is not prone to embark on half-baked fishing expeditions just to make a political point.

You know what I want to see happen. In truth, though, the desires of the public should mean nothing to Garland as he ponders what he should do.

I just want to remind everyone about a fundamental truth that has been repeated publicly to the point of it becoming almost cliche. It is that “no one — not even the president of the United States — is above the law.”