Tag Archives: insurrection

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.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

‘Insurrection’ growing many legs

The past may be taking the shape of a prologue to an unfolding saga that is far from reaching its conclusion.

Watergate began in June 1972 when some goons were caught breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters in D.C. One thing led to another, and another, and another.

We learned about a coverup and the enormous abuse of power that came from the Oval Office.

It ended with the resignation of President Nixon more than two years later.

Fast-forward to 2020. Donald Trump lost an election. He refused to concede to Joe Biden, who beat him. He stood before a crowd on the Ellipse and told them to “march on the Capitol.” They did and all hell broke loose.

They launched an attack on our democratic form of government, as Congress was meeting on that day to certify the results of the election.

Now we hear about text messages, emails, pleas from family members for Trump to intervene; he didn’t do a thing to stop the riot. We also hear that members of Congress, Trump’s fellow Republicans, were warned against committing violence. The House GOP leader said he would tell Trump to resign; he then denied saying such a thing, only to be shown as a liar.

The 1/6 insurrection is growing more legs, just as the burglary 50 years ago grew them. Indeed, the past may well be prologue.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Meadows is the new No. 1 culprit?

Mark Meadows may become — and pardon the reference — a marked man as the House select committee exploring the 1/6 insurrection zeroes in on those who were responsible for what transpired on that terrible day.

Meadows served as White House chief of staff at the end of Donald Trump’s term as POTUS. We are beginning to learn that Meadows well might have been involved up to his eyebrows in the planning of the riot that turned terribly violent.

There is one big problem, though, in trying to learn the whole truth about what happened. Meadows isn’t complying with House demands to testify. The select committee still needs to determine whether to levy a contempt of Congress charge against Meadows.

It needs to get real busy. Real fast.

We’re hearing now about text messages that Meadows sent and received involving some of Trump’s closest allies in Congress: the likes of Reps. Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Louie Gohmert.

Mark Meadows appears to the common denominator among all those GOP nut jobs.

We hear also that he expected violence to erupt on Capitol Hill before the riot actually occurred. What did he do about it? Not a damn thing! Apparently … 

The White House chief of staff is a high-powered job, even when the POTUS at the time is a certifiable control freak. It will be fascinating for me — and millions of others — to see whether this No. 1 Trumpkin is held to account for what many of us believe he did or didn’t do when the mob of traitors sought to subvert our democratic process.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

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!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

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.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

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!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

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:

“Like many public figures, Rep. Jackson is frequently talked about by people he does not know,” a Jackson spokesperson said in a statement. “He does not know nor has he ever spoken to the people in question. In fact, he stayed behind with Capitol Police to help defend the House Floor and was one of the last Members to be evacuated.”

“The liberal media’s attempt to drag him into a ‘story’ and make him part of something he has nothing to do with is yet another example of why millions of Americans are exhausted by the relentless, biased coverage of January 6th and its continued use as a political tool,” the spokesperson added.

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.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot, Donald Trump

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.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Trump woulda marched?

So … Donald J. Trump says he would have marched with his fellow insurrectionists on 1/6 but the Secret Service detail told him he couldn’t go, that it posed too great a security risk.

Hmm. Let me think about that. Nah. I don’t believe him.

Trump’s latest proclamation about that horrible day reminds me of the time he said in the wake of a school shooting that he would have stormed the building with guns blazing had he been given the chance to end the massacre.

Armchair heroes, of course, can say all kinds of things. The Donald is known to say, umm, all kinds of things in all kinds of contexts.

Let’s remember that when he had the chance to fight for his country during the Vietnam War, he found a doctor who would diagnose that he had “bone spurs” that, as luck would have it, kept him from serving.

He keeps insisting that he told the so-called “massive” crowd to mark “peacefully” and “patriotically.” Yes, he spoke those words. What is most bizarre, though, is trying to understand why The Donald didn’t call off the rioters when they became violent as they stormed Capitol Hill. He remained stone-cold silent during the riot that sought to subvert Congress’s constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Sigh …

The man cannot tell the truth. Not ever!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

International news, legal news

AG faces immense pressure

Merrick Garland has put a brave face on an investigation he is conducting into the activities of the 45th president of the United States. I get that the U.S. attorney general doesn’t want to give away his game plan, but I want to flesh out a couple of issues the AG is facing.

Garland is being pressured by congressional Democrats and some within the White House to hurry up his probe into what Donald Trump did and did not do during the 1/6 insurrection. He says he won’t buckle under the pressure. I hope he holds true to his pledge. However, is he able to withstand it?

Garland would set an astonishing precedent were he to seek to indict a former POTUS. It’s never happened in the history of this republic. Given the precedent-setting nature of such a proceeding, it seems only natural that the AG would want to ensure that he dots every “i” and crosses every “t” properly, that he leaves no doubt of the validity of an indictment, were he to seek it.

To be absolutely certain, indicting a former president would enrage the significant — but reportedly shrinking — base of voters who continue to cling to Donald Trump’s standing as the leading Republican in the nation.

AG Merrick Garland is every bit as human as anyone else. Thus, he feels the heat. Whether it will determine the course he follows remains one of the key questions of the moment. Indeed, Garland has pledged to “follow the law wherever it leads.” OK. I am on board with that.

The stakes of where this probe might take us all, though, requires that the attorney general get it right. Thus, the calls for a hurry-up job appear to be self-defeating … which could inflict possibly mortal wounds on our democratic process and the rule of law.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com