Tag Archives: insurrection

DOJ getting serious? Well …

The U.S. Justice Department has asked the 1/6 House select committee for transcripts. Lots of transcripts. They are taken from testimony collected by the panel in the search for the truth behind the insurrection and the riot that sought to undercut a free, fair and legal presidential election.

I can hear the progressives jumping for joy even from out here in Flyover Country. Fine. Let ’em jump.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has said time and again that he wouldn’t be bullied, coerced, pushed and prodded into acting prematurely in his search for the truth behind what Donald Trump knew on 1/6 and what he did or didn’t do to stop the rioters.

I am taking the AG at his word, which I consider to be quite honorable.

He also has pledged to follow the law “wherever it leads.” That means if he finds enough to recommend an indictment of the former POTUS, then that’s what he’ll do.

Let’s first try to get our arms around what Garland is trying to do. He is trying to gather information to help him determine what to do with it all. If there’s enough to indict Donald Trump, he’ll proceed. If there isn’t enough to do so, well, he’ll proceed down that particular path.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party keeps yapping that Garland is moving too slowly. I wish they would keep their traps shut and let the man take care of business in the way that will guarantee a thorough outcome.

I trust the attorney general implicitly to conduct his investigation with due diligence and professionalism. That he is seeking transcripts from the 1/6 committee tells me the AG might be getting closer to making a key decision on the future of the 45th president of the United States.

My hope is that the future forestalls any effort for the ex-POTUS to seek public office ever again. Then again, I am not the individual in charge of making that call. I’ll leave it that matter to Attorney General Merrick Garland.


SCOTUS loses ‘trust’?

Think of the irony of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggesting that the nation’s highest court has lost “trust” because someone leaked a draft document that hints that the court is poised to overturn a landmark ruling that legalized abortion in this country.

Justice Thomas spoke to a judicial conference in Dallas. “When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it,” he said.


Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court changed by leak of draft abortion opinion (msn.com)

Excuse me for laughing out loud. The court also lost trust when one of its members, Justice Thomas, chose to take part in a ruling involving Donald Trump’s role in the 1/6 insurrection. Ginni Thomas, wife of the justice, is an avid Trumpkin and took part at the start of the demonstration that turned into an assault on our democracy on 1/6.

I believe Thomas should resign from the court. He won’t do the right thing. The next right thing would be to recuse himself from any court matter related to the former POTUS’s effort to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election. He won’t do that, either.

Oh, no. Instead, he is going to pontificate about the court losing the trust of the people because someone decided to leak a draft opinion that sets up a monumental battle between pro-abortion rights Americans and those who would make it a crime for a woman to decide to terminate a pregnancy.

Trust? Clarence Thomas has no moral standing to talk about whether the Supreme Court has lost it. Whatever loss it has suffered is due largely because of the associate justice himself.


Rule of law faces test

My fellow Americans, we are going to witness whether the “rule of law” means anything to members of Congress who have been summoned to appear before the House select committee examining the 1/6 insurrection.

The committee has subpoenaed five Republican congressman who were key allies to Donald J. Trump. The committee had asked them to appear voluntarily; they declined.

So, here come the lawful orders. House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy, along with GOP Reps. Scott Perry, Jim Jordan, Mo Brooks and Andy Biggs all have been ordered to appear before the committee.

So, which is it? Are these dedicated Trumpkins going to comply with the rule of law, which they have at one time or another during their congressional careers said they honor? Or are they going to take one for their cult leader, The Donald?

The rule of law is as straightforward as it gets. A legally constituted congressional committee has issued a lawful order for five House members to talk to its members. Failure to comply with a lawful order should result in criminal punishment. Indeed, such a consequence anyone in the military who refuses to obey a lawful order. Your commanding officer tells you to do something, and you refuse? It’s off to the stockade where you would await adjudication of your offense.

I don’t know whether any or all of them will refuse to comply with the subpoena. Whoever says “no” to the House committee should face the potential consequence. The rule of law should stand in this instance as it should stand in all cases.

Let us never forget that each of these individuals swore an oath to keep faith with the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is on the side of the committee that has acted lawfully.

We well might learn whether these congressmen were sincere when they said they would uphold the Constitution and whether their stated fealty to almighty God was real or false.


Esper steps up … but why did he wait?

I would be willing to give former Defense Secretary Mark Esper unvarnished praise for calling out Donald J. Trump for the weirdness he fomented during his single term in office as POTUS.

Except that he is a bit late with the revelations he has laid out there for us.

He is trying to hype a memoir he has written. I get that and I have no problem with a fellow trying to make a buck; hey, it’s the American Way.

Esper now says he cannot back Trump if the former Imbecile in Chief decides to run for POTUS again. That’s fine, too.

He could have saved some lives, though, had he blown the whistle, forced Trump to fire him and then sounded the alarm as the nation approached 1/6 and the hideous aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.

Oh well. I suspect we are far from hearing the last of former Trumpkins who have tales to tell.


Jackson must go!

Believe this or disbelieve it; it matters not one bit to me what you choose to believe, but I will say off the top that I truly dislike writing about Rep. Ronny Jackson, the Amarillo Republican who’s now in the news for reasons that have nothing to do with the service he is supposed to provide for the congressional district I called home for 23 years.

The House of Representatives select committee that’s examining the 1/6 insurrection will ask Jackson to appear before the panel. It seems he has information relevant to the committee’s search for the truth behind the insurrection, the riot and the effort to subvert our democratic process.

It astonishes me beyond belief that a freshman congressman representing a district out yonder in the Texas Panhandle can make so much news. This one does. He shows up on right-wing media broadcasts to spew his venom about President Biden and to say the 2020 election was stolen from Biden’s predecessor.

The former White House physician and former Navy admiral also is quick to suggest that the president should take a mental acuity test. Has he examined the commander in chief? No. He hasn’t laid a stethoscope on him.

This Twitter troll keeps defaming anyone who isn’t (a) a Republican or (b) Donald J. Trump. The man is a disgrace to the office he inherited.

I don’t know whether Jackson will agree to appear voluntarily. The guy just angers me beyond measure with his constant Twitter harangues and his quest to make an ass of himself.

The 1/6 panel wants to know what information Jackson might have had for the Oath Keepers to want to “protect” him from the traitorous mob that stormed the Capitol.

If he doesn’t comply with the “request” to testify, my hope is that the committee orders him to do so, then finds him in contempt of Congress if he digs in against it.

The guy shouldn’t command so much of my attention, but given that I care about the people he represents in Congress, I feel compelled to call this individual out for masquerading as someone who gives a damn about the 13th Congressional District.

He doesn’t.


Stand tall, rookie congressman!

Ronny Jackson had been a Republican member of Congress for all of about three, maybe four, days when the 1/6 insurrection erupted on Capitol Hill.

It appears that the brand new congressman from the Texas Panhandle has some information about that hideous event that the House select committee examining the riot wants to hear. So, the panel has asked Jackson to appear, along with Congressmen Mo Brooks of Alabama and Andy Biggs of Arizona to give the panel information it says it needs.

Ah yes, Rep. Jackson also was fingered in a report that the Oath Keepers, one of the right-wing crazy groups involved in the insurrection, reportedly said it wanted to “protect” Jackson from harm, as he had valuable information that the Oath Keepers wanted to preserve.

Good grief. It stuns me to my core that Texas Panhandle voters chose this clown to represent them in Congress. He has proven to be nothing more — and I mean nothing more — than a MAGA sycophant for the 45th POTUS.

Oh, the hits just keep coming.


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.


‘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.


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.


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!