Tag Archives: insurrection

A trial for the ages?

Let’s not pussyfoot around the obvious, which is that any of the four trials awaiting Donald J. Trump can be categorized as the “most significant legal proceeding in U.S. history.”

Every one of them will make history. They will become trials for the ages. They likely will be included in the first line of the obituary written for the individual who will stand trial.

Donald J. Trump is the first former president of the United States to be indicted for allegedly committing felony crimes against the government he swore an oath to defend and protect.

He is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. My sense, though, is that state and federal prosecutors have done their jobs well enough to secure convictions perhaps on all the charges leveled against Trump. How many of them are there? Ninety-one!

Did any of us ever imagine seeing a former POTUS stand trial for seeking to overturn an election and obstructing the peaceful transfer of power after he lost that election? I damn sure never imagined it.

The trials that have been set constitute the most meaningful court proceedings this country ever has witnessed. We cannot possibly overstate what they will mean to the future of our democratic republic.

Trump mug … for the ages

The critiques of Donald Trump’s mug shot taken at the Fulton County, Ga., sheriff’s office make me laugh.

Some folks suggest he rehearsed the pose he would strike. Others say it reflects a frightened criminal defendant. Still more believe Trump’s puss will energize his base and that his support will grow among the American voting public.

I happen to believe that Donald Trump’s support level has topped out. His base remains loyal, but only because it comprises the moronic MAGA dumbasses who have bought into the cult of personality he has cultivated.

I don’t know about how he came up with the pose we all have seen. Nor do I really care. I do know that the mug shot played on virtually every newspaper’s front page (what’s left of them) around the world today. That’s likely to Trump’s desire, given his penchant for publicity. Trump seems to ascribe to the notion that “there is no such thing as bad publicity.”

Whatever …

The mug shot will stand for the ages as the defining moment in Donald Trump’s political career. It likely will remind him every single day of his miserable life about the horrendous day he endured, having to fly to Georgia, then wait in a dank jail building, get the picture taken, have his fingerprints recorded and then he returned to his New Jersey resort.

He made history when he had the picture taken, being the first U.S. president or former POTUS to have been arrested and arraigned on a criminal indictment.

Nice goin’ … Donald.

Mug shot makes history

The photo on the left has made history of a nature the subject of the picture likely never imagined it would make.

It is a mug shot taken of Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States, who today was arrested and then released from the custody of the Fulton County, Ga., sheriff’s office.

He is charged with crimes against the federal government.

I encourage you to look long and carefully at this picture. It made history the moment it was snapped. Trump is the first president of the U.S.A. ever charged with a felony.

It now likely becomes the foremost image of the 45th POTUS.

So … very … sad.

Mug shot, fingerprints …

As I write these words, Donald J. Trump is being booked at the Fulton County, Ga., jail on charges that he sought to overturn a duly constituted federal election in 2020.

He will deliver his fingerprints, will get his picture taken, will post bail and then will go to wherever he intends to go.

It sounds all so very routine. Except that it isn’t. The defendant in this matter is a former president of the United States of America who allegedly sought to steal an election from the guy who defeated him, Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Trump will be treated just like every other criminal defendant who’s been processed in this fashion. Which brings me to the beauty of our criminal justice process.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has declared many times that “no one is above the law.” He also has implied that no one should be treated more harshly than others. Donald Trump is getting precisely the treatment he deserves from Georgia officials who are running the show with this latest set of indictments against the ex-president.

I happen to be OK with the way this is being played out.

Let’s remember, too, that Donald Trump always has sought to portray himself of being charge of all he sees, does and touches.

Not … this … time!

What is remarkable — to my way of looking at it — is that the individual in charge of the proceedings happens to be a Black woman. Given the ex-POTUS’s open disdain for Black people and for women, it is remarkable that District Attorney Fani Willis would be the one to dictate the terms of what the former president is having to endure.

The irony is remarkable. Don’t you think?

So it will go as Donald Trump surrenders to the authorities on a charge of racketeering. His face is likely to be plastered on every newspaper on Earth the next morning, not because what he went through is so extraordinary, but because of who he is and what he has been charged with doing to the very government he once took an oath to “defend and protect.”

Let the due process continue.

Is Trump disqualified?

Can it possibly be true that Donald J. Trump’s conduct on 1/6 — his provoking the assault on our government and his giving “aid and comfort” to those who mounted the attack — has disqualified him from seeking the presidency?

That is the view of two highly esteemed legal experts. One of them is a conservative, the other is a liberal. They are, respectively, former U.S. District Judge Michael Luttig and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe.

The have written an op-ed in which they declare that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution means that Trump is hereby disqualified from seeking the presidency. Period … full stop!

Luttig said that when the amendment was ratified in 1868 — shortly after the Civil War — it made no qualifier to declaring someone ineligible if they knowingly engaged in an insurrection or rebellion. The amendment’s intent was to prevent another war within the United States.

Indeed, at least two congressional leaders — House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell — are on record declaring that Trump was responsible for the attack on the government that sought to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. Oh, did I mention that Trump lost that election to Joe Biden?

They have been joined, interestingly, by a host of conservative legal scholars who contend that Trump, indeed, should be barred from the presidential ballot because of what he said that day on the Ellipse. He challenged the crowd to take control of the electoral process and stop the certification of what he contends to this day as a “stolen” election.

Two conservative law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, wrote in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, according to CBS News:

In writing about Trump’s speech from the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, to his supporters who then overran the Capitol, Baude and Paulsen said Trump delivered a “general and specific message” that the election was stolen, calling on the crowd to take immediate action to block the transfer of power before falling silent for hours as the insurrection progressed.

“Trump’s deliberate inaction renders his January 6 speech much more incriminating in hindsight, because it makes it even less plausible (if it was ever plausible) that the crowd’s reaction was all a big mistake or misunderstanding,” they write.

Oh … my … goodness!

When those upon whom you depend for legal support turn on you in this fashion, it seems to me that it’s time to call it quits.

Televise the trials!

Donald John Trump is not your every-day criminal defendant, given that for four years he occupied the presidency of the United States.

Therefore, it is imperative that the federal judiciary do something far out of the ordinary. It needs to televise the federal trials that will determine whether Donald Trump is guilty of the crimes for which he is being charged.

Trump has four trials pending. Two of them are in state courts. New York and Georgia grand juries have indicted him for committing crimes against the nation he once took an oath to protect.

I want to focus on the two federal indictments. One of them came from a grand jury in Florida; that’s the classified documents case in which Trump pilfered documents from the White House and stashed ’em in his glitzy estate. The other came from a D.C. grand jury; that is the matter involving the 1/6 assault on our government.

You see, this is critical inasmuch as Trump was once elected to the presidency. He took an oath to protect the government against all enemies. Then he shunned that oath when the 2020 election didn’t turn out the way he wanted; he lost that contest to Joe Biden.

Americans who were governed by this fraud have a right to witness how these trials play out. Will they produce sideshows, melodrama and game-playing? Yes, they might … but that isn’t necessarily pre-ordained.

I recall meeting with Tom Phillips, who in the 1990s was chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court. The OJ Simpson trial was underway and Phillips said that the judge in that trial, California Superior Court Judge Lance Ito, had plenty of authority to rein in the lawyers. He could have set time limits on the presentations. He could have demanded decorum and dignity in the courtroom.

Phillips said trial judges have immense power to run these trials in orderly and concise fashions.

It’s that knowledge that gives me hope that if the federal judiciary turns on the TV cameras in the courtroom that they will expose the public to a ringside view of how one of our three branches of government does the job prescribed in the US Constitution.

What the 14th omits …

As I read — and re-read — Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, I am struck by the absence of a single, simple qualifier that our founders left out of that clause.

It refers to the commission of an “insurrection or rebellion” by someone who might want to return to public office after having pledged to protect the government against such actions.

It states that “No person” shall be a senator, U.S. representative, president or vice president if they violate that oath. Period.

It says nothing about whether that person must be convicted in a court of law to disqualify him from office.

I bring this up because of constitutional scholar chatter that’s making the rounds about whether Donald Trump is qualified to seek the presidency in 2024. Some argue that of course he should be tried in court and have that decision delivered by a jury. Others argue that the Constitution is silent on that issue, therefore, he is disqualified just by an allegation of such an act.

I don’t consider myself to be a constitutional absolutist. I have tended to interpret the founders’ intent a bit more liberally. It is tempting, though, to apply “original intent” to my reading of the 14th Amendment, meaning that if the founders didn’t declare a qualification that it doesn’t exist.

Here is the section in its entirety. You be the judge:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I do hope we can let the courts decide this matter quickly. My preference is for Trump to be convicted and then barred from public office for the rest of his miserable life.

This doesn’t happen every day

Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought we could conduct a presidential election in which one of the major-party candidates is under criminal indictment.

What’s more, never would I have imagined that the four-times indicted, twice-impeached former POTUS would actually — in the gullible “minds” of followers — be considered a viable candidate to return to the office he once held and disgraced.

To say we live in the craziest era imaginable is to commit a gross (and grotesque) understatement.

Yet here we are.

The Republican Party’s presumed frontrunner for the 2024 presidential nomination may actually run for the White House while awaiting a sentence after being convicted of trying to overturn the previous election. The conviction might come early in 2024 if prosecutors are able to stave off Donald Trump’s expected efforts to delay the proceeding until after the election.

The feds have indicted Trump on two matters: inciting the 1/6 assault on our government and squirreling away classified documents after leaving the White House. State grand juries have indicted Trump on making an illegal payment to a porn star to keep her quiet about a tryst she said the two of them had and for working to interfere in the Georgia presidential election returns.

He stands accused of committing 91 crimes. Ninety-one of them!

Just think of how stupid the Republican Party faithful can be if they actually nominate this individual next summer.

OK. I have said all that but now I must stand behind my initial reaction to Trump’s latest presidential candidacy. I am going to remain hopeful that the GOP will come to what’s left of its senses and turn to someone else. I say that even though it is less than my initial belief that Trump in no way would ever be nominated. I am not as confident these days in the smarts of the GOP MAGA electorate.

Still, to see this unfit liar in position to lead the party down the path of destruction in 2024 is something I never imagined seeing.

Who knew?

All this legal trouble makes me dizzy

Allow me this admission … which is that I am having a bit of difficulty keeping straight all the legal battles awaiting the immediate past president of the United States.

He has three indictments sitting in front of him: two from the federal government he once pledged to protect and another from a New York district attorney.

A fourth indictment from the Fulton County (Ga.) DA appears imminent. They all appear to be serious to the max. If he gets convicted on all the charges, Donald J. Trump could spend the rest of his life in prison. Given his advanced age, it well might be that even a partial conviction could imprison Trump for the duration.

What is most astonishing as I watch this drama unfold is witnessing how Trump no longer is in control of his own future; control rests with three judges who are presiding over the various trials awaiting the former POTUS.

One of them, U.S. District Judge Tanya  Chutkan is the most interesting. She is an immigrant from Jamaica appointed to the federal bench by President Obama. Thus, she presents a challenge to Trump; she hails from a “sh**hole country,” as Trump once said and she owes her lifetime job to a man Trump despises. Trump is likely to anger her beyond all measure before this case gets resolved.

Special counsel Jack Smith wants the indictment he obtained regarding the 1/6 assault on our government to be tried quickly. Judge Chutkan holds the key to that matter.

Well, I am sitting out here in the peanut gallery watching and waiting with a good bit of anticipation on what could happen to the most unfit man ever elected to the presidency. I’ll just have to keep my mind clear to stay caught up with what appears to be a whirl of activity for the rest of the current year and into the next one.

I will have to hold on with both hands.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

‘Fake’ vs. ‘alternative’

Donald J. Trump’s defenders are playing a stupid game of semantics as they try to defend the thrice-indicted, twice-impeached former POTUS against charges that he sought to overthrow the government.

They now call the “fake” electors put forth by Trump and his minions “alternative” electors.

Memo to the MAGA morons: They aren’t “alternative” anything. They are fake electors trotted out to cast votes for Trump when he didn’t earn certain state’s electoral votes.

The fake elector scheme is a major part of special counsel Jack Smith’s latest round of indictments. The fake electors were gathered up with the hope that Vice President Mike Pence would somehow — despite the illegality of the effort — be able to declare that state that Joe Biden clearly won in 2020 would swing to Trump’s column. Pence said the Constitution gave no authority to do such a thing, but Trump ignored the then-VP’s insistence.

He insisted on the fake electors.

Thus, there was nothing “alternative” about them. The word games remind me a bit of those who refer to “gambling” as “gaming” as a way to soften the activity of those who like to gamble on winning big at, say, the poker or blackjack tables.

I’ll stick with “fake” over “alternative” as this discussion moves on

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com