Tag Archives: insurrection

Cheney standing tall

It’s getting harder by the day for me to dislike U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, the conservative Wyoming lawmaker who is distinguishing herself by being one of the few Republicans in Congress who is willing to speak the unvarnished truth about Donald J. Trump.

She calls him — in no particular order — an existential threat to our democracy, a danger to the nation, a pathological liar, someone who has “no business being anywhere near the White House.”

There’s some other stuff, too, but you get my drift.

I once despised Liz Cheney. I didn’t like it when she declared her candidacy for Wyoming’s only House seat; I said at the time that she was a carpetbagger who spent hardly any time in the state her dad, Dick Cheney, represented during his House tour.

She’s also a bit too right wing for my taste.

Then along comes The Donald, who torches the Constitution and all but disavows the sacred oath he took to defend it. Cheney said, “That’s enough.”

She has said time and again that the sacred oath must stand over any fealty to a politician. Cheney also said that her work on the House select committee examining the 1/6 insurrection fills her with pride in the duty she is performing in seeking the truth behind the attack that Trump incited.

Win or lose in her August GOP primary in Wyoming, Cheney said she will remain committed to the task before her. “The sun will come up the next morning,” she said, and she will keep pursuing her effort for the truth behind the attack.

Normally, a politician who vows to do his or her job isn’t worthy of extraordinary praise. The context of this time, though, makes it different. That context compels me to offer the highest praise I can to a politician who is showing exemplary courage.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Who’s the ‘gutless’ one?

Steve Bannon, the newly convicted felon who once served as a policy adviser to Donald J. Trump, today offered a truly laughable epithet at a key congressional committee.

Bannon came out of the federal courthouse today after being convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress and bellowed that the House select committee examining the 1/6 insurrection is “gutless” because its members wouldn’t testify in the trial.

The committee is “gutless”? Really … Steve?

What in the world how should we view your refusal to answer a congressional summons demanding you testify before the 1/6 committee? Bannon kept insisting he had nothing to hide, yet he decided to stiff the 1/6 committee by refusing to obey a lawfully ordered subpoena.

Now, for the convicted felon to lash out at a legally constituted congressional committee with a damnation he should wear himself is laughable … except that I am not laughing.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Breath is bated for AG

Given a lot of factors that are patently obvious — the first of which is that I am not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer — I am trying to prepare myself for a possible disappointment if Attorney General Merrick Garland decides to indict the immediate past president of the United States.

The disappointment might lie in that Garland will not indict Donald J. Trump on the most serious crime on the table: seditious conspiracy.

Instead, Garland might try to bust up whatever criminal proceeding he would seek into a group of smaller offenses.

I am absolutely sure that Garland recognizes the staggering precedent he could set if he indicts Trump for inciting the insurrection of 1/6. No need to explain what that means.

Garland appears to be a meticulous, deliberate and thorough lawyer, one who has a stellar record as a prosecutor, I should add. He won a conviction of the madman who blew up the Oklahoma City courthouse in April 1995.

It well might be that Garland cannot win a conviction on the whole array of charges that loom in front of Donald Trump. That will be his call to make exclusively. He will not need, nor should he accept, any recommendations from the peanut gallery, where many others and I occupy prime seats.

This might be my way of preparing for a possible disappointment. I have declared my intention to accept whatever the AG decides. I just hope I don’t hurt my jaw when I am finished gnashing my teeth.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Run, Josh, run!

You know, it’s almost not worth any time to comment on one of the pieces of evidence revealed Thursday night during the televised House 1/6 select committee hearing.

Aww, but what the heck …

There was that hilarious snippet of video showing U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., scurrying to a safe place to get away from the traitors who were attacking the U.S. Capitol. Why mention it?

Because this was the same Josh Hawley who egged the mob on with that hideous clenched-fist salute earlier that day.

What do we surmise from the young man’s display of bravado.

Was it all for show? Did he realize what the mob intended to do? Was he ordered to the safe place by the Capitol cops on duty and who were fighting for their own lives while protecting senators and House members?

Whatever. It all makes for a curious juxtaposition of a young hothead senator being revealed — quite possibly — as a cowardly hypocrite.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Trump did not ‘do nothing’ on 1/6

If you’ll pardon the double negative in the headline, I want to make a brief statement on the major takeaway I gleaned from last night’s televised public hearing on the 1/6 insurrection.

It is that the narrative on what happened while the attack on the U.S. Capitol was underway has changed in a small, but significant, manner.

We had been told that Trump “did nothing” for more than three hours to stop the traitors from attacking the government. Now we have heard that Trump made a conscious decision to do nothing. Therein lies the change in narrative.

Now we have come to understand that Trump’s inaction was planned prior to the event, which means that the POTUS was engaged actively in ensuring that he wouldn’t call out the National Guard, that he wouldn’t tell the attackers to cease their assault on our government and that he wanted them to capture Vice President Mike Pence and, well, do serious bodily harm to him.

There’s even better news — from my standpoint, at least. House select committee chairman Bennie Thompson announced that the televised hearings will resume in September.

That is all right with me.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Buckle up and wait for these results

There likely will be no clearer referendum on the health and status of today’s Republican Party than a primary vote set to take place next month in Wyoming.

U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, the state’s lone representative in the House, is running for re-election. She has been as staunch a conservative lawmaker as any in the House. She is fervently pro-life and pro-gun; she is anti-tax and has voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

But she’s being called a “dead woman walking” in the upcoming GOP primary because she is being challenged by a Trump cultist who has earned the endorsement of the twice-impeached former president.

Why worry about this election? Because Cheney has committed an unpardonable sin in the eyes of the cult cabal that follows Donald Trump. She has joined a select House committee seeking to know the truth behind the 1/6 insurrection and attack on the Capitol. She has said Trump is criminally liable for what occurred that day. She has been faithful to her oath, which she took to defend the Constitution.

That has earned her a spot on the Donald Trump sh** list of politicians who would dare to challenge him for, oh, breaking the law and doing something no other president in history has ever done … which is launch a coordinated attack on the peaceful transition of power after an election that he lost.

If the Wyoming primary voters oust Cheney, then I am certain it will signal the death of the Republican Party as we have known it. If Cheney fends off the challenger, which appears unlikely, then there might be hope that the GOP can cleanse itself of the soiling that Trump has brought to it.

I am pulling for Rep. Cheney. Not because I like her politics, but because the Republican Party needs someone in its ranks who will stand for the rule of law. It is fundamental to the success of this democratic experiment the nation’s founders left us.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Garland intrigue is building

Hey, what’s going on with U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who’s signed a memo declaring that any indictment of a president or former president running for the same office must be signed off by the AG himself?

Garland has revived a Donald Trump administration policy, which brings me to why this is significant now.

Donald Trump — the twice-impeached and defeated former POTUS — is dropping hints of running again in 2024. Think of the campaign slogan he could use.

Vote for me, ’cause it’ll keep me out of prison.

Trump well might be indicted for various felonies against the government connected to the 1/6 insurrection and attack on the Capitol as officials were counting 2020 election Electoral College ballots certifying Joe Biden the winner over … yep, Donald Trump.

Garland’s memo seems to suggest to some observers to signal a reluctance to indict Trump for anything prior to the midterm election this fall.

Trump might decide to run for POTUS prior to the midterm election.

Yeah, it’s going to muddy up a lot of things.

Personally, I do not believe he’ll be nominated. Also, I do believe that Garland will have enough to prosecute Trump for something, although I dare not predict what that would be.

This disgraceful excuse for a politician — Trump — is trying to work every angle he can to keep his sorry backside out of the slammer.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

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.

http://johnkanellis_92@hotmail.com

Cheney might lose … damn!

Never in a zillion years would I have imagined myself saying what I am about to say … which is that I fear that U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney is going to lose her fight to stay in Congress. 

I have seen some recent polling data that suggest that Cheney is going to lose by 20 percentage points to a challenger who’s been endorsed by Donald John Trump, the twice-impeached former POTUS who has declared Cheney — a fellow Republican — to be Public Enemy No. 1.

And why? Well, Cheney has determined that Trump is a lawless buffoon, a danger to democracy and an existential threat to the security of this nation. Why does she say that?

Because of the 1/6 insurrection that Trump incited.

Cheney is serving on the House select committee examining the insurrection and has been a stalwart, stellar champion for the rule of law. She has declared that one cannot be “loyal to Trump and be loyal to the Constitution.” She has chosen to honor her congressional oath, which pledges loyalty to the governing document.

For that she is likely to be punished by losing her GOP primary battle next month.

A lot of center-left, Democrat-leaning American patriots — such as yours truly — are sickened by the notion of Cheney losing to a Trumpkin.

Let me be clear once again. Liz Cheney is far too conservative a politician for my taste. However, she has earned my undying respect and admiration for standing up for the rule of law.

I will admit that her ferocious defense of the rule of law against Donald Trump’s cavalier notion that he stands above the law has all but wiped the slate clean as far as her previous record is concerned.

It’s not a lead-pipe cinch that she will lose the primary in Wyoming. However, it appears to be looking that way. And for that, the Republican primary voters in Wyoming should cower in shame.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Damned if he does … or doesn’t

Merrick Garland is facing a serious case of twin damnation as he ponders whether to seek a criminal indictment against Donald J. Trump in the matter pertaining to that insurrection that the former POTUS incited.

The attorney general is going to balance his commitment to the law with the obvious pressure he will feel from both ends of the great divide.

The House of Representatives select committee that is looking at the insurrection, its aftermath, its cause and its result is going to decide whether to refer criminal charges to the Justice Department.

What does the AG do?

He will face certain recrimination no matter what he decides.

If AG Garland decides to prosecute Trump on, say, conspiracy to commit sedition, he will face the wrath of the far right and the Trump cultists. They’ll wave the “witch hunt” banner and proclaim that the “far left Democrat Party” is out to get their guy.

If, however, he decides against charging Trump with a crime, he will face the wrath of others who believe the president should not be allowed to walk away … again! I mean, he did skate through two impeachment trials and it well might be that a third successful avoidance of accountability could be too much for some of us to handle.

Then again, the attorney general could indict Trump on a host of lesser charges, which I am sure would bring its share of teeth-gnashing as well.

This is sort of my way of saying that I would not want to be in Merrick Garland’s place at this moment in history.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com