Tag Archives: insurrection

DC riot

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.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

SCOTUS needs ethics rules

The United States Supreme Court has existed since the founding of the Republic and it has functioned — more or less seamlessly — without needing a policy that lays down ethics requirements for the individuals who interpret the constitutionality of our federal laws.

It damn sure needs one. Justice Clarence Thomas clear and unequivocal conflict of interest involving his participation in decisions involving the 1/6 insurrection have demonstrated the need for the high court to set forth ethics boundaries that justices should never cross.

The Supreme Court is the only federal judicial panel that doesn’t have an ethics policy on the books.

Thomas’s wife, Virginia, is a right-wing political activist who reportedly lobbied the White House chief of staff to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Mrs. Thomas believes the election was “stolen” from Donald J. Trump and has made no effort to conceal her belief in the nut-job conspiracies that continue to thrash around over The Big Lie.

Justice Thomas, meanwhile, has continued to hear cases involving The Big Lie, refusing to recuse himself from any discussion, deliberation and decision-making involving 1/6.

The SCOTUS has no rule prohibiting the justice — the longest-serving member of the court — from taking part. Good grief, man! Is there no clearer demonstration of Justice Thomas’s bias on this matter? The court voted 8 to 1 to require The Donald to turn his presidential papers over to the 1/6 House committee; Justice Thomas cast the only vote in dissent.

Justice Thomas simply needs to resign. Short of a resignation, he needs to recuse himself from anything to do with the insurrection.

And the court should establish a hard-and-fast policy regarding ethical conduct. It can start by demanding that no justice can participate in decisions on cases involving their spouse!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Let the AG do his job

Congressional Democrats are grumbling about the pace that Attorney General Merrick Garland is setting as he considers whether to indict The Donald for alleged crimes committed during the transfer of power from the Trump administration to the Biden administration.

And whether The Donald committed crimes by, oh, inciting the insurrection and blocking efforts to allow the winner of the 2020 presidential election to take power as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution … the document that The Donald has never read, nor understands.

I believe we ought to let the AG do his job at the pace he determines is fitting for what he intends to accomplish.

Garland has pledged — and I believe he is an honorable man — to follow the law wherever it leads him. If he has enough to prosecute the former POTUS, he is going to do it. He won’t be swayed, he said, by political favor or by public opinion.

The grumbling among Democrats is intended, I believe, to push Garland to speed the process along.

Give it a rest, eh? The attorney general is a seasoned, experienced and fair-minded legal pro. Do I want there to be enough to prosecute Donald J. Trump? Absolutely, I do.

It’s not my call. Nor is it anyone else’s call.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Recusal or resignation?

Oh, how I wish U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would just leave the nation’s highest court and let others on the panel with a semblance of ethics and an understanding of the law make these critical decisions.

He likely won’t, given that he is defiant in the extreme to concerns about whether he is guilty of grievous conflicts of interest. That leaves recusal. Justice Clarence Thomas needs to declare right now — at this very minute — that he will not take part in any deliberation or decision involving the 1/6 insurrection.

Thomas’s wife, Ginni, is a right-wing political activist who reportedly lobbied the White House to do whatever it could to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which Donald Trump lost to Joseph Biden. Justice Thomas has failed to recuse himself. He has failed to recognize the obvious conflict of interest in his participation in anything to do with the 1/6 insurrection, which involved his wife in a direct manner.

Justice Thomas already has revealed his bias by casting the lone vote to allow The Donald to block sending presidential papers to the 1/6 House committee.

I cannot think of a more obvious conflict of interest than what we are witnessing in real time with Justice and Mrs. Thomas.

If he won’t quit the court, then for God’s sake he needs to recuse himself from any deliberation involving the insurrection. Or … Chief Justice John Roberts needs to tell him, “Clarence, we have a serious problem … ” and then suggest to him that he recuse himself.

The Supreme Court is the only federal court that lacks a code of ethics. It is a self-policing body.

I still want Clarence Thomas to resign from the nation’s highest court. If he won’t, then by all means — if you “love the law” as you say you do — then just stay the hell away from these decisions involving the insurrection.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

How about impeachment?

Now that I am on the record calling for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign, let’s look briefly at another option available to those of us who value judicial integrity: impeachment.

I fear impeaching the justice would produce the same result as the two impeachments of Donald Trump: He would escape conviction by a U.S. Senate that lacks sufficient Republican belief in doing the right thing.

A brief review: Thomas’s wife, Ginni, is a political activist who allegedly sent numerous text messages to the White House chief of staff urging him to overturn the 2020 presidential election result that elected Joe Biden. Trump has fought against Biden’s free, fair and legal election by fomenting The Big Lie about phony “widespread voter fraud.” Ginni Thomas in league with Trump, who lost a Supreme Court vote on whether he could claim “executive privilege” by denying the House committee looking into the 1/6 insurrection access to his presidential documents. The court voted 8-1 against Trump; the lone dissent came from Clarence Thomas.

Do you get where I’m going here?

If he won’t quit, then perhaps the House could impeach him and bring a torrent of publicity on how Thomas’s lack of integrity has compromised the SCOTUS. The Senate won’t convict him, but the bad pub might be sufficient for Thomas to call it quits and perhaps spare the court on which he is now its senior member additional embarrassment and shame.

Hey, it’s just a thought.

I still believe Justice Thomas needs to resign.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

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’.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

 

national news

Conflict of interest? Hmm?

Good, ever-lovin’ grief. What in the world does one make of this acknowledgement from the wife of a sitting associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, that she attended a Donald Trump rally on 1/6 before rally attendees decided to storm Capitol Hill in that insane insurrection against the federal government?

I believe we have a serious breach of ethics steeped in conflict of interest.

The admission comes from Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas. Mrs. Thomas stood in the crowd on the Ellipse that day prior to The Donald’s speech. She said she left because she got cold. Then all hell broke loose.

Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, says she went to January 6 rally before Capitol assault – CBS News

Thomas’s political activism is well-known. She is a far-right believer in causes. She is an ardent political supporter of The Donald.

She also is married to one of the nine justices who voted 8-1 to disallow The Donald’s claim of executive privilege in an effort to keep him from releasing documents to the House committee examining the 1/6 riot; the document release was ordered by the National Archives.

Who cast the dissenting vote? None other than Justice Thomas?

I am putting together 2 plus 2 and I keep coming with up 4. Which is my way of saying that Ginni Thomas’s involvement with the 1/6 mob must have something to do with the way her husband came down on a key judicial decision.

This dot-connection stinks. It wreaks.

If I were speaker of the House of Representatives, I likely would be considering articles of impeachment against Justice Thomas. Not that they would result in his being removed from the nation’s highest court.

Too many Republican members of Congress have lost their spine.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

How can this riot stand?

No doubt about this: I will go to my grave never understanding how in the name of sanity can anyone justify what happened on 1/6, how anyone can possibly view the riotous mob of traitors as a demonstration of “legitimate political discourse.”

The mob stormed Capitol Hill on the urging of a president of the United States who had lost re-election, who then exhorted his fanatic followers to “take back” the government and to “fight like hell” if they felt the need to rough up whoever stood in their way.

So, the rioters did what they were encouraged to do.

Every time I watch video of that hideous demonstration of sedition, I get angry all over again. The traitors threatened to “hang Mike Pence!” per the signs they were carrying. Have you seen the pictures of the noose? Lovely, yes? Pence, the vice president on that day, was performing his constitutional duty by leading the certification of the Electoral College tally that elected Joe Biden as president. Biden’s predecessor would have none of it. Hence, he incited the rioters.

And yet, there remains to this very moment congressional Republicans — who fled for their lives in the face of the rioters on 1/6 — who deny what they witnessed in real time. They cast votes against impeaching the POTUS who fired up the mob. Some of them have said the mob was acting like any “tourist” group strolling through the Capitol Building.

You … bet. I don’t think any group of tourists would have sh** on the floor of the Capitol Building, or smashed through windows, or yelled profanities at police officers seeking to protect the House members and senators who were the traitors’ targets.

There needs to be some justice delivered for what happened on 1/6. We’re starting to get some trial results. A Wylie, Texas, man has been convicted of five felony counts related to his role in the riot. There will be many more trials and deals struck along the way.

The president who caused it all? His day is coming, too. He needs to be held to account for the insurrection he incited. I do not want to check out of his world knowing that he has slithered his way clear once again.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

local news, national news

Riot fills me with rage

Without fail, whenever I watch video or hear audio from the 1/6 insurrection, my blood boils, my pulse quickens, my face gets a bit flushed, I get angry as hell at the perpetrators of that event.

Every time. Every … single … time.

So, when Wylie, Texas, resident Guy Reffitt got convicted this week of five felony charges stemming from his role in the treasonous act against our government, I got angry all over again. The news media showed me what that crowd of terrorists was doing.

My anger only worsens when I hear sh** fly out of the mouth of those who defend nimrods like Reffitt. His wife is one of them. She said the Justice Department is trying merely to make an example of her husband. What utter crap!

Guy Reffitt made an example of himself. The moron didn’t need DOJ’s help in that regard. He recorded his own participation in the riot. We have audio and visual proof of the things he said and did on that horrendous day.

And then for Republican members of Congress to suggest that they were engaged in “legitimate political discourse” offends me beyond any measure. They are causing the founding fathers to spin in their graves. The First Amendment, I hasten to note, mentions “the right of the people peaceably to assemble … ”

Was there anything “peaceable” about that riot? Nope. It was a violent act of treason.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news, national news

One down, more to go

Guy Reffitt is likely heading to prison, possibly for decades, for his role in the 1/6 insurrection. The native of Texas and resident of Wylie — a town just across Lake Lavon where my wife and I reside — sealed his own fate with his stupidity.

It took a jury three hours to return a five-count guilty verdict against Reffitt, who was ratted out by his 19-year-old son. What was the nimrod doing? He “lit the fire” that ignited inside the Capitol Building on 1/6 and then actually recorded his own fiery rhetoric on social media.

The Hill reported: A jury found the Texas native guilty of attempting to obstruct the certification of the 2020 presidential election, transporting guns from Texas to D.C., bringing a firearm into restricted grounds of the Capitol, interfering with Capitol Police and threatening his son and daughter upon returning from the riot.

It was that compelling evidence that persuaded the jury to ramrod a guilty verdict against the guy who belongs to some nimrod group called the Texas Three Percenters. He went to Washington on 1/6 carrying firearms, such as rifles and handguns. What was he going to do with all that firepower? He was going to storm the Capitol Building and drag politicians out by their hair, or so he said, and do … something to them.

Hey, it’s all recorded for the entire world to hear.

What a dipsh**.

The federal government has arrested more than 700 people in connection with the insurrection. Reffitt is the first of them to be convicted. He will face sentencing on June 8. He could get 60 years in prison.

Whether it’s the max or something less, my strong hope is that he gets put away for a long time.

Then let’s get on with prosecuting the rest of the traitors.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com