Fifty years ago … everything changed!

I cannot believe it’s been 50 years — to the day — that a group of burglars broke into an office building, got caught rifling through files and then in the course of an investigation became part of a history-making constitutional crisis.

The term “Watergate” became part of our vernacular. Who would have thought it in real time?

On June 17, 1972, the dipsh**s hired by the Republican National Committee thought they would steal some files belonging to the Democratic National Committee. It was reported initially as a burglary; the Washington Post put the story deep inside its next-day edition.

Then a couple of reporters — Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein — began hearing whispers about who was behind the burglary. They told their editors that the story smelled fishy. They sought to get to the truth.

Oh, brother, did they ever find it!

They trooped down many blind alleys. That’s what happens to the most intrepid reporters. Bernstein and Woodward were two of the best. They persisted and eventually uncovered a coverup that would bring down a president, who resigned because he had abused the power of his office to prevent the truth from getting out.

Watergate has become almost a synonym for political misdeeds. How often do we see the “gate” suffix attached to scandals? To my mind, Watergate stands alone.

Woodward and Bernstein personified the very best of investigative journalism. They sought to hold those in power accountable for the mischief they committed. They succeeded famously.

***

When the break-in occurred, I was a freshly scrubbed college student. I was newly married. I had just returned from a tour of duty in the Army. I wanted to be a journalist.

Woodward and Bernstein taught us in real time the value they bring to their craft. They made a difference. I was among thousands of other journalism students who also wanted to make a difference.

These men personified the best of a noble craft.

Fifty years is a lifetime. My own career surely didn’t produce the notoriety that showered Woodward and Bernstein. They spurred me to stay the course over many years in print journalism.

For that I am eternally grateful.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

So many ‘what ifs’

Games of “what if” at times fill my noggin with thoughts that require some analysis. My skull is filling up at this moment with a number of “what if” scenarios relating to the probe of the 1/6 insurrection.

What if Attorney General Merrick Garland decides to indict Donald J. Trump on seditious conspiracy charges? My hunch is that he would need to fast-track a trial in a hurry, to get it done prior to the start of the 2024 Republican Party presidential primary season.

What if the AG indicts Trump but doesn’t have full confidence that he can obtain a conviction? Garland would be tempting fate beyond all reasonable measure if that’s the case.

What if the AG decides, “I cannot bring an indictment forward”? He then becomes, in the words of a dear friend, “The Neville Chamberlain of the insurrection.” Chamberlain was the British prime minister who stood by and allowed Adolf Hitler in 1938 to annex the Sudetenland and then Czechoslovakia on the eve of World War II. Garland might be tarred for life if he doesn’t hold Trump accountable for what I believe he did on 1/6.

What if U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney loses her GOP primary election in Wyoming? The courageous congresswoman who voted to impeach Trump becomes a lame duck. Then she dons the brass knuckles as she fires up her rhetoric.

Finally, what if Donald John Trump gets convicted of seditious conspiracy?

He’s done as a political force … which would please me greatly.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

It was an ‘insurrection’

I do not intend to pussyfoot around politically correct terminology when I refer to the events of 1/6.

Thus, when I talk about the attack on Capitol Hill that occurred that day, I will use the term I have used regularly since it occurred. It was an insurrection against the United States government.

I have needed little persuasion to come to that conclusion, but the televised hearings we have watched over the course of three days have sealed the deal for me.

Some media outlets are careful to avoid using that term. Some right-wing media organizations have issued bans on the use of the term. The pundits who work for those organizations point out — correctly, I acknowledge — that no formal charges of “insurrection” have been filed against multiple suspects already under indictment.

While that is technically true, I should add that some individuals have been accused of “seditious conspiracy,” which by my reckoning is virtually the same thing as insurrection.

Just as I have declared that the attack on our system of government was not a spontaneous “riot” that erupted because some “protesters” got carried away with their anger, I will insist on calling the assault that day an act of insurrection.

Think briefly for a moment. What kind of spontaneity would result in individuals carrying zip ties, firearms and assorted clubs and other weapons to Capitol Hill that day? They went there to overturn the Electoral College tabulation that resulted in Joe Biden being elected president of the United States.

We now are hearing mounting evidence that Donald Trump conspired with his senior aides to block Biden from becoming POTUS. I want the Justice Department to hold anyone accountable for what they did on that day … and by “anyone,” that includes the man who masqueraded as president for four years before being shown the door.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

1/6 was no ‘riot’

I have just made a command decision on how I intend to use this blog. So … here goes.

From this moment forward, I am not going to refer to the 1/6 assault on Capitol Hill as a “riot.” I am now convinced beyond any sort of reasonable doubt that the events of that terrible day were orchestrated and planned in advance.

Thus, the term “riot,” which suggests a spontaneous eruption of violence, is no longer the term of art I shall use to describe what occurred.

I’ll use other nouns to describe the attack on our democracy. Assault and attack come immediately to mind.

Long ago, I determined the Capitol Hill assault was an insurrection against the democratic process. I made that determination even though no one has been charged formally — not yet anyway — with committing an insurrection. But it was … an insurrection.

To refer to that event as a “riot” demeans it. It reduces its significance to something less than what the assailants wanted to accomplish. They threatened to kill Vice President Pence and House Speaker Pelosi. Donald Trump said a day or two before the event that it will be “wild.” He knew what was coming!

It was a planned event! Therefore, I am going to forgo terminology that — to my mind — lessens the importance of what happened that day on Capitol Hill.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Let’s hear from Pence!

After the testimony concluded today in the House select committee’s televised hearing, some of the after-action commentary posed a fascinating question.

Why haven’t we heard a word from former Vice President Mike Pence about what went down on 1/6? 

So, here’s a corollary question: Can the committee ask for the VP to testify to set the record straight on what he heard, what was said, what he did and what Donald Trump pressured him to do on that day?

Today’s testimony focused on the VP’s role on the day of the insurrection. It was to perform a ceremonial duty in counting the Electoral College ballots cast in the 2020 presidential election. The traitorous mob sought to end that process by storming Capitol Hill on 1/6.

Donald Trump pressured Pence to “show courage” by throwing out the votes cast for Joe Biden and insert phony votes cast for Trump. The vice president resisted. He told Trump that was a non-starter.

So … why not hear from the vice president directly? Why not summon the VP to Capitol Hill to tell the committee what it needs to hear about the measures Trump took to pressure Pence to break the law and violate the U.S. Constitution?

Pence already has said out loud that “no man” can change the votes of the people, that there’s nothing “more un-American” than seeking to override will of the voters.

The former vice president has a political future to consider. Testifying before the committee and condemning the former Imbecile in Chief would rile the GOP base that Pence would need were he to run for president in 2024.

Then again, Pence and Trump have returned to the non-relationship they had prior to Pence running as VP on the ticket led by Trump in 2016.

My wish? Issue a summons to the former vice president, set him down in front of the House select committee and get to testify — under oath — to what went down on 1/6.

A lot of people already have put words in Pence’s mouth already. We need to hear from the man himself.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Criminality: it’s everywhere!

One of the takeaways I am getting from the televised hearings of the 1/6 House select committee on the insurrection is one that I didn’t quite expect.

It’s the presence of criminality in the hearts and minds of many principals involved with the Donald Trump administration during that horrible time in our nation’s history.

You might recall when Trump was running for president how he said anyone who sought to proclaim Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was certainly guilty of a crime. Then several of his key aides did that very thing when they answered summons to testify before the House select committee.

Now we hear during the televised hearings that many other Trumpkins sought presidential pardons in the immediate aftermath of the 1/6 insurrection that sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Trump granted some pardons. Not all of ’em got the mercy extended from the POTUS as he was preparing to exit the White House.

Still, it is worth pondering: Why would anyone ask for a full pardon from the president if he or she didn’t have a fear of being prosecuted for criminal acts? 

It looks as though there was a whole lot of criminality going on in the White House during the insurrection. I feel confident the legal eagles at the Justice Department are paying careful attention.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Have you heard enough?

Day Three of the House select 1/6 committee hearing has been — shall we say — illuminating … yes?

Its aim was to illustrate the pressure that Donald Trump poured onto Mike Pence to commit an illegal and unconstitutional act.

To his credit, the VP didn’t budge. He did what he was allowed to do under the Constitution, was to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. He had no legal authority to toss out those results, as Trump urged him to do. Vice President Pence acted solely within the law.

I have heard enough, therefore, to conclude that the Justice Department has enough evidence to proceed with a criminal indictment against the 45th president of the United States.

To be sure, it isn’t my call to make. That call belongs to Attorney General Merrick Garland. May the AG proceed with all deliberate discernment and reach the same conclusion that many of us out here have reached.

There will be more televised hearings to be conducted. I intend to listen to every hour I am able to consume.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Resign, Justice Thomas!

I shall say this as many times as it takes to get my message across: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas needs to resign from the nation’s highest court.

Why? Because his wife, Ginni Thomas, has committed egregious acts that compromise the justice’s ability to adjudicate matters fairly and impartially regarding The Big Lie fomented by Donald J. Trump.

Now we hear that Mrs. Thomas was in frequent email communication with Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, expressing her disgust with the 2020 presidential election result, the one that Trump lost to Joseph Biden.

Are we now going to believe that Ginni Thomas didn’t tell her husband, the justice, of her deepest feelings about the election? And are we now going to believe that Ginni Thomas’s views have no impact on Justice Thomas’s votes favoring Trump in his losing battles to stay in power?

Good grief! Justice Thomas needs to resign from the court. Immediately!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Keeping faith in our system

Worriers have expressed concern about whether our “fragile democracy” can withstand the assault that has been launched against it.

I will not join the worry warts among us. I am proclaiming my implicit faith in the strength of our democratic process and my belief that it will emerge from this crisis stronger than when it all began.

Donald Trump lost a presidential election in 2020 but his frontal assault on our democratic process has persisted. He has sought to undermine Americans’ faith in our electoral system by proclaiming that he lost only because of “widespread voter fraud.”

The judicial system has withstood those challenges by rejecting them in court.

I am not naive to ignore what might be lurking on the political horizon. Election deniers are winning primary races, positioning themselves to possibly take office at the end of the year. They are thought to be in position to set future electoral policy that could benefit Donald Trump and his minions at the ballot box.

I am going to rely on my belief — and I don’t think it’s misplaced — that voters are smarter than that. It falls on the rest of us to remind them repeatedly of the folly of doing something foolish.

Therein lies the strength of our democratic process. We still have that thing we call the “marketplace of ideas.” Thus, my generally optimistic nature demands that I place my faith that wisdom will win out … and that our collective good sense will preserve our cherished democratic process.

Let me remind you that we have survived world wars, a civil war and all manner of constitutional crises. The common denominator in all of those struggles: the U.S. Constitution. It will hold the nation together again.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Heads up, Liz Cheney

Liz Cheney no doubt watched with keen interest what happened to her Republican U.S. House colleague Tom Rice.

Rice got thumped badly in the GOP primary in South Carolina. Why would Cheney take such a keen interest in Rice’s defeat? Because the two of them were among 10 House Republicans to vote to impeach Donald J. Trump, who along with the cultists, has been on the warpath ever since.

Rice paid the price politically when he lost the South Carolina GOP primary this week. So, now comes the question: Is the same fate awaiting Cheney out yonder in Wyoming, where she faces a Trumpkin challenger for her House seat?

I hope that’s not the case, given that Cheney has emerged as the rare Republican voice of sanity, reason and fealty to the Constitution in the ongoing probe into the 1/6 insurrection … that Donald Trump incited with that fiery speech on the Ellipse just two weeks before he would hand the presidency over to the man who defeated him, Joseph R. Biden Jr.

From my perch in North Texas, I must acknowledge that it doesn’t look good for Rep. Cheney. Then again, Wyoming Republicans aren’t necessarily clones of their colleagues in South Carolina.

That is my most fervent hope.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience