Tag Archives: 1/6 committee

All eyes on DOJ, but wait …

Millions of Americans — such as me — are fixated at the moment on the U.S. Department of Justice seizure of those “highly classified” documents from Donald J. Trump’s glitzy home in Florida.

I keep hearing an endless string of legal analyses that suggest an indictment of someone — perhaps the ex-president — is inevitable.

Let’s be clear, though, about something that is getting buried under all the rhetoric about the DOJ probe: It is just one of several investigations underway concerning the criminal behavior many of us believe occurred during the entirety of Trump’s single term as POTUS.

What’s brewing? Let’s see:

  • A Fulton County (Ga.) grand jury is looking into whether Trump tampered with election results by demanding that the Georgia secretary of state “find” enough votes to turn the election result there from pro-Joe Biden to pro-Trump.
  • The New York attorney general is examining whether the Trump Organization falsified its assets to (a) obtain favorable loans or (b) avoid paying debts it owes.
  • The House 1/6 select committee is probing whether Trump committed an act of sedition against the U.S. government by inciting the attack on the Capitol and then was derelict in his duty as POTUS by refusing to call off the attack once it commenced, resulting in injury and death to police officers and at least one attacker.

That’s several full plates, don’t you think?

Of all those probes, the one that needs to be finished soon is the congressional investigation. The midterm election well could result in Republicans taking control of the House and we all know what’ll happen then: the GOP leadership will shut it all down and will pretend there is nothing to see.

There happens to be plenty to see and do, which makes the House panel’s work all the more urgent.

It’s almost enough to make me wonder how in the name of sanity does the former president or those closest to him avoid being charged with some criminal act. I cannot assess which of the potential charges are forthcoming, or which of them will emerge as the most serious.

I do have this nagging gut grumble that’s telling me that when the legal eagles finish their work, we’re about to see history made in a way that will make the 45th POTUS a mighty unhappy man.

Shall we all just stay tuned?


No privilege to invoke

Peter Navarro is the latest Donald Trump adviser to face a subpoena by the 1/6 House select committee, which has summoned him to testify before the panel that is searching for the truth behind what happened when the traitorous mob stormed Capitol Hill.

Navarro served as a trade adviser to Trump. He is now trying to invoke “executive privilege” in resisting the committee’s order for him to talk about what he knew about what happened in the White House while the mob was rioting.

Hmm. OK. He has no right under the law to invoke any privilege. There’s that.

Nor does Donald Trump have any right to invoke such privilege. Why? Because he is no longer the president. Joe Biden, the man who beat him in the 2020 election, has declared categorically that he will not allow any executive privilege for his predecessor. There’s that, too.

I’ll restate once more: The committee is legally constituted. It has the authority to order people to testify. The speaker of the House selected the bipartisan panel and gave the committee its assignment: get the truth behind the riot and seek solutions to prevent it from recurring.

Peter Navarro is an economist who provided Trump with advice on trade policy. He has been called a “lousy economist,” but that’s really beside the point. The real point is that he is close to Trump. He knows a lot of what happened on that terrible day. Navarro has been ordered to testify. He faces criminal indictment by the Justice Department if he refuses.

if this guy has a lick of sense — and that’s debatable, to be sure — he will sit before the select committee, take the oath to tell the truth and then … tell the truth.


The plot thickens

As if the plot wasn’t thick enough when Donald John Trump incited the traitorous mob to storm the Capitol Building on 1/6, seeking to stop the certification of a free and fair presidential election.

Oh, no. Now it’s getting even more serious than that.

Now we hear reports that Donald Trump was actively involved in plotting to seize voting machines in states that Joe Biden won in 2020. And do what with them? Manipulate them to reverse the outcome? To “find votes” that had been cast for the other guy and turn them into votes for his own need?

Oh, and then come Trump’s own words at that rally down yonder in Conroe over the weekend where he actually admitted to seeking to “overturn” the election result.

How much more of this do we need to start issuing felony criminal indictments against the former — and I hope never again — president of the United States of America?

I know the judicial process needs to play out. Fulton County (Ga.) District Attorney Fani Willis is going to seat a special grand jury to examine whether Trump broke state election law by demanding that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger “find” 11,780 votes that Trump could tack onto his own total in a state that Joe Biden won in 2020. Where I come from, that sounds all the world like coercion. Is it a criminal act? DA Willis will tell us in due course.

Trump keeps presenting all these serious danger signals that suggest if given the chance, he would do all over again what he tried to do at the very of his term as president. Now comes reporting that he tried to a whole lot more than has been reported already, that he sought to in effect seize control of the ballot-counting process. Arrrgghhh!

What in the name of democracy is it going to take for this country to put this clown down for the count? Do not put words in my mouth here. I am talking only about removing this imbecile from our public conscience. The system, whether it’s Congress or the courts, needs to expedite the search for findings that will answer all the questions that we have regarding the insurrection of 1/6.

If it means rounding up the one-time Insurrectionist in Chief, then so be it. Get it done! Quickly!


Conflict of interest … anyone?

What am I missing here? Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenting vote on the high court that decided the National Archives must release hundreds of pages from Donald Trump’s files to the House select committee investigating the 1/6 insurrection.

Hmm. I thought about that dissent. I wasn’t surprised, given Justice Thomas’s rigid right-wing credentials.

Oh, but wait! Then came this bit of news. Ginni Thomas, the wife of the justice, is an ardent political activist who rails constantly against the 2020 presidential election. She is known to be a fervent supporter of the disgraced, twice-impeached former president. She just recently launched into a scathing attack on the 1/6 committee, challenging its legitimacy and its authority to look where it is looking.

So, then comes the decision from the highest court in the land. All the other justices, conservatives and liberals — including the three people nominated by Donald Trump — voted to require the documents to end up in the committee’s files.

Justice Thomas was the lone dissent. Is there a conflict of interest that the justice is ignoring?