Tag Archives: insurrection

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

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