House wants Trump. Don’t count on it

October 13, 2022 37 Comments

Starting with the first time I covered the Jan. 6th hearings, I have consistently conceded the purpose of the hearings is to accumulate evidence for the purpose of indicting former President Donald J. Trump.

Mitch McConnell throws Trump under the bus

That is not the same as framing the former president. I wouldn’t have anything to do with that.

I also insist that Trump enjoys the same presumption of innocence as any other accused American. I know many of you don’t like that, but if you don’t believe in a just process, you are as bad as you believe the MAGA people to be.

As to the MAGA people, I believe most of them have not watched the hearings. They prefer to be ostriches, reminding me of a character in “The Wiz,” the Black version of “The Wizard of Oz,” who sings, “Don’t Bring Me No Bad News.”

On my scorecard, the committee has not connected the dots to demonstrate without question that Trump orchestrated the riot that engulfed Capitol Hill.

His critics say he said his supporters had to “fight” for their rights. Name a politician who hasn’t used the word “fight.” It is a chestnut and Trump used the word “peacefully” in asking his followers to “fight” for “rights.”

I am no Trump supporter. I oppose him and his warped view of American democracy. But I won’t let his warped view change my view of democracy, which demands fairness.

As usual, I am not quoting information coming from partisan members of the committee. I rely only on eyewitnesses and others testifying under oath.

While the committee has failed — so far — in my view to slap the handcuffs on Trump, it has settled the question of the 2020 election. Almost every member of Trump’s inner circle told him he lost fair and square, and that no amount of finagling around the edges would change the outcome. Attorney General Bill Barr told him that, in those words.

That he lost is beyond question. 

If you are an election denier, you are willfully dumb, just stupid. There’s no sugar coating it, and it explains why I oppose every candidate for office who can’t or won’t acknowledge the plain facts.

So that brings us to (probably) the last committee hearing on Thursday. It is said to be the last, but I am not convinced.

I am deeply disappointed we did not directly hear from the Secret Service and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who is complicit in most of Trump’s actions. 

The most dramatic moment Thursday was the committee’s decision to subpoena Trump to testify before the committee.

Spoiler: Trump is unlikely to comply. Under advice of attorney, of course.

The committee relied on a rehash of previously revealed information, or irrelevancies, such as footage of the riot. Irrelevant  because we know it happened, but showing it does not tie it to Trump.

There is no question that Trump took his own sweet time about calling for his supporters to abandon the Capitol — and maybe that is dereliction of duty. But footage of speaker Nancy Pelosi on the phone calling for help does nothing to advance the case against Trump. It is thrown in only for emotional reasons.

Another rehash, but dramatic, was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying only Trump could end the riot, but didn’t in a timely fashion. “He did not do his job.”

House GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told the president to call off the mob. Trump said these weren’t his people, as if they were an alien species instead of his adoring, mis-led acolytes.

McCarthy later said he told the president he bears some responsibility for what happened, and he said Trump agreed.

I am sure Trump would deny this.

I would love to hear from him. If he believes he did nothing wrong, he should come forward.

37 thoughts on “House wants Trump. Don’t count on it”

  1. I just wish the same intensity would be brought to the Hunter Biden question(s) as has been brought against the man that almost everyone seems to hate, DT. Ditto the Hillary Clinton question(s). If DT is found guilty, let the system do its job and come up with a fair punishment. But if the system is used as a political weapon, then justice is NOT blind, and we have cheapened — perhaps destroyed — our democracy,

    1. Your obsession with Hunter Biden and Hilary Clinton is a tell. First of all, Hunter is not, and never has been, an elected official. It’s obvious that he is being dragged into the limelight for the sole purpose of discredited the POTUS. But hey, go ahead and investigate him. I don’t give a flying phuck. Trouble is, you have a looooooong line of Republican miscreants to plow through first. And now Hillary. The woman testified for ELEVEN HOURS under oath, in public. She did not take the 5th once. And the Repubs held about TEN hearings on Beghazi and found zip, zilch, nada. I guess you must have slept through all that. Might wanna wake the flock up.

      1. holy crime stoppers batman1
        how many times did we hear:
        1) I don’t remember
        2) I don’t know how to delete files
        3) not my job
        4) et al

      2. Hunter Biden acted in consort with his dad, whom I recall is an elected official. But hey, never let a fact get in the way of a feeling.

      3. You’re wasting your time with this bunch freeze. Logic and facts are not their strong suits.

        1. Look who’s talking. The leader of the “whack-pack.” The epitome of pomposity, arrogance, and utter ignorance. The quintessential false intellect. Your strong suits, IMO.

      4. Obsession? One mention and it’s an obsession? Joe Biden, whom I believe to be an elected official, was in cahoots with his son Hunter to make a fortune from the Chinese. But heck, wrong ox to gore. Nothing to see here…move along.

  2. HAPPY THURSDAY !!!
    pallie,
    Not bad. You do try to walk the straight and narrow. Facts should always override personnel feelings and for the most part, ‘you don good’. Of course, that would leave the ‘I hate the Orange Man” club with nothing to do.
    I lost track as to how many witch ( which ) hunts there have been. Have we reached the BILLION DOLLAR mark yet ? Sorry to say, the republicans will do the same. After all, it’s our money that they would be throwing away. Not theirs.
    The far left will never admit how much Trump has done for our country. They won’t waste anytime calling me out, either.
    Following politics as I do, I can’t think of anyone else that I would want to see in the White House, other than the former President, Donald Trump. Before everybody goes nuts, think about this. The United States and the world is in a sh*&t hole. Close the borders. Lift the oil blockages . Who better to bail us out? Executive orders would fly faster than the ones that joey wrote, sinking our economy. Establish law and order and start by cleaning out the swamp. It is being proven – almost on a daily basis – how corrupt Washington D.C. really is and has been for years, if not decades.
    Trump, in his no nonsense ways, would bring putin to his knees. China and NoKo would fall back in line. The middle east would forget about terrorism and nukes. This time Congress and the Senate would support our President. This time, Trump wont take ang B.S. from the swamp. Heads – lots of heads will roll.
    Best of all, we WILL BE, the UNITED STATES of AMERICA !
    Tony

      1. Hope that you have thick skin. They’re getting ready to say silly things. f went after Vince with gusto. Question. Is it gusto when it comes out of their butts ?

      1. Almost forgot. I am a long time reader of National Review (started by Wm.F. Buckley, a real conservative, not like the Trump 🤡posse). Even a stalwart publication like it is anti-Trump. Even they realize he is unfit for office. When you’re against democracy like Trump (& you), you can’t lead a democratic gov’t.

    3. Yeah, Trump loves dictator scum like his pal Putin, Jong Un, and Xi. All Trump has done was give the 1% a trillion-dollar tax break. BTW, the “Mango Mussolini” is not a real Republican; Lincoln, Eisenhower & Reagan were. Clarke you are stupid, ignorant, uneducated and extremely bigoted and hateful. Just another lemming drinking Jim Jones’ orange kool-ade. It’s blind fools like you who are the biggest threat to democracy and individual rights.

      1. HAPPY MONDAY !!!
        Keith,
        Glad to see that you woke from hibernation. Now, when your brain catches up to your body, maybe you’ll be able to have an intelligent conversation with all of the characters in your fairy tale.
        moe, larry & currline have given up on trying to reason with us infidels. You are nominated to talk up to us and use your not so classy language,
        Not likely, but consider this. Whether you like it or not, Donald Trump is an educated man who has a great business mind. He got where he is by being good at what he does. Trump found out what most politicians have known for decades. You CAN’T mix business with politics. Two completely different worlds. Trump the business man is used to giving direction, then orders and having them followed, just as a General in the Army. Trump the President found out that following orders in the swamp does not happen. There’s the little fact that Washington D.C. is very corrupt and if you intend to make a difference ( HA ! ) then you better learn how to play swampball. Seldom does a dimocrat congressman/woman challenge queen pelosi. schumer does not carry the same strength but he does wield a big hammer. Trump found that out the hard way. He also learned that the republican party is very divided and seldom pulls together. You may remember Paul Ryan, Republican Speaker of the house. If he didn’t like you or your proposed bill, it did not come anywhere near a vote. Ryan sank Trump his first two years as President. pelosi took over and nailed the coffin shut. Almost everything that Trump achieved was done done by Executive Order.
        Aside from politics and butt kissing, Trump did none of that. As we all know. In the media and in Trump’s speeches and tweets, Trump would tell you – in no uncertain words – exactly what he felt and where he stood. This is why the leaders of the free and not so free world backed off and waited for President Trump’s term to expire.
        That’s all truth without being foul. What else can I bore you and people like you with that will make your blood boil?
        Tony

    1. Paul, I read Reich’s piece and it was spot on. I have to disagree strongly with Stu on this one. What dots would convince him of TFG’s criminal complicity in trying to over throw the election? Short of him actually admitting it.

  4. President Trump at the time January 6, 2020 did not ensure that that the “ laws of the US were faithfully executed.” He had a three hour window to take action by making a public address telling his supporters to leave the capital. The President could of declared an emergency and directed the national guard to immediately quell the disturbance. He did nothing for three hours. By not taking action for 3 hours was his inaction a dereliction of duty and a violation of his presidential oath. Remember, this event resulted in several several injuries and a death. My hope is the Republican Party can move on with other leaders. Our country needs to move on to brighter future without Biden or Trump.

  5. Hey Stu, one of my comments is not showing up. I tried re-posting but got a message that it had already been posted. I didn’t say anything mean. Too long maybe?

      1. Didn’t work. Must be too long.
        Trying it in pieces:
        Part I:
        Hi Stu. Just another clarification here. While I agree that the committee has not shown that Trump orchestrated the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol, it is not true that they have not shown a crime. The key fact, for which there is now strong evidence, is that Trump knew that he had in fact lost the election and that there had been no massive fraud that would change the election results. Given that as fact, it seems pretty clear he and “team crazy”(or at least those who were aware that Trump lost the election) were guilty of “conspiracy to defraud the United States.” (If he participated in or orchestrated the Jan 6 attack, he would be guilty of “seditious conspiracy” not conspiracy to defraud the US, or plausibly both, with the latter perhaps being a “lesser included offense.”)

        Generally, to show a conspiracy, the government has to show an agreement to obtain an unlawful objective. Trump’s objective was clearly unlawful: staying in office past his constitutional term despite being duly defeated in the election. The Supreme Court, way back in 1910 (and ever since), said “To conspire to defraud the United States … means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.” [This particular quote is from Hammerschmidt v. U.S., 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924)]. More specifically, the government has to prove four things: (1) the defendant entered into an agreement (2) to obstruct a lawful function of the Government (3) by deceitful or dishonest means and (4) at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

      2. Part II:
        Pretty clearly, Trump and numerous people agreed to try to obstruct the transfer of power (“lawful function of government”) by lying and committed numerous “overt acts” in furtherance of the agreement. In conspiracy law, the criminal act is the agreement itself. Therefore, you only need one “overt act” in furtherance of the agreement and that need not even be illegal in itself. Nor does the conspiracy have to be successful. Trump and his team privately and publicly pressured Pence to reject the States’ votes, called Georgia officials to find him votes, pressured other state officials to “decertify” the election, pressured members of Congress to vote against certification, fired the Georgia DA for failing to “find” any election fraud, and set up the “alternate elector” scheme. Even the rally, without the riot, was an overt act in furtherance of the agreement to interfere with and obstruct a government function.

        On the other hand (isn’t this why people hate lawyers?), I don’t think a conviction, or even that he will be indicted is a slam-dunk, despite the fact that all the necessary dots have been connected.

        First of all, Trump will insist that he did, in fact believe the election was stolen through massive voter fraud. That is the basis of his defamation suit against CNN for saying he was lying. He doesn’t claim his vote fraud claims were true, just that he thought they were true (and therefore calling him a liar was defamatory), which is quite a climb-down, but is necessitated by the fact that he has no evidence to back up a claim that fraud actually occurred. You’ve got to wonder what, besides his own testimony–which would waive his right to remain silent–he is going to rely on to prove that he believed in the fraud, given the Jan 6 Committee witnesses from inside his administration, and the fact that other potential witnesses who could support his story have already invoked the 5th Amendment on the subject matter, making it unlikely that they will risk prosecution to support him. And if they do, it waives any executive privilege, and with respect to his attorneys like Giuliani, Eastman etc., any attorney-client privilege. Still, in the criminal context, the argument will be made and he only needs to convince one juror to make the DOJ start over.

        Second, there will be a first amendment argument made that this was just a political lie, like “there are WMD’s in Iraq” or “if you like your insurance, you can keep it” and that such lies cannot be prosecuted. Of course the difference is that those lies were just to obtain public support for a policy, not to hinder or obstruct a government function. That is, neither going to war with Iraq, nor passing the ACA were “unlawful objectives” that people are prohibited from agreeing to seek–unlike agreeing to attempt to overturn a legitimate election. Still, to the extent a judge allows the argument to made (it might be excluded as irrelevant), it has some jury appeal.

        Third, in conjunction with the above, Trump could mount an “advice of counsel” defense, based on the legal strategy mapped out by his attorneys. Again, the problem with this is the attorney-client privilege waiver–and the attorneys would have to testify about their own conduct, endangering their licenses (though some are already gone). As we already know from the Jan 6 committee docs and testimony, Eastman acknowledged that the Mike Pence strategy was illegal, that is, if it was ever tested it would lose 9-0 in the Supreme Court. Maybe more relevant, Trump, Eastman and other co-conspirators could be tried together, or before or after Trump, and most would likely clam up to save themselves.

        And, as everyone knows, Trump would shout “witch-hunt” and the likely 2023 GOP Congress will try to impeach Merrick Garland for whatever, and do whatever they can to sink a prosecution.

        I do not think there will be an indictment of Trump any time soon, even though the evidence is there. Garland, despite his GOP detractors is cautious and professional. (Meanwhile, the Dems are criticizing him for being too timid on investigating Trump.) He could have fired/ended Durham’s tenure as a special prosecutor on the Russia investigation, but he hasn’t. He could have raided Mar-a-lago months earlier or leaked that there was an investigation. The FBI has been investigating Hunter Biden (Garland could have shut it down, but didn’t) and an indictment may be forthcoming. (The supposed evidence that Joe was somehow involved is laughable, and even more tenuous than the claims of election fraud). He could have ended the DOJ’s defense of Trump in the defamation suit against him–he didn’t. On this last one, avid anti-Trumpers were absolutely livid. And don’t forget, Obama nominated Garland for the Supreme Court because the guy was so middle-of-the-road he was boring, uncontroversial, respected by all, and would be no firebrand that the GOP senate would be scared of. The strategy did not work, of course.

        1. Part III:
          If Trump is indicted, my prediction is that it will be after those around him are indicted first–especially those who knew better, like the attorneys, Eastman, Chesbro, or Clark who are already fighting to hold onto their law licenses. It seems to me the goods are there for a conspiracy to defraud the US. But, if Garland thinks, or at least want to delay things until he knows one way or the other, that there is evidence that would tie Trump more closely to the actual attack, then I think he will hold off until then. In any event, I would not expect any indictment for at least another year, much to the disappointment of my Dem friends. Of course, I could be totally wrong. Still, I’d bet you’ll see an indictment for the classified docs before one for the attempted fraudulent obstruction of the transfer of power–though, again, of an attorney, because they signed/wrote an affidavit saying that after a thorough search, all docs marked classified had been returned. Oops. Parents, don’t let your kid grow up to become an attorney for Trump.

          Lastly, Stu (goll-darnit) is right that at least the political project of showing an obvious crime and link to the Jan 6 violence is not quite there. This creates what you might call a political difficulty of enforcing the law. Everybody knows that inciting or organizing a riot or insurrection is a crime. “Conspiracy to defraud the US” is esoteric and unfamiliar at best. It took me forever to even explain it. So, another slow-down is the political environment where the absence of an “obvious” crime, will render the DOJ very cautious.

          1. HAPPY MONDAY !!!
            Tom,
            You really are a lawyer to be that long winded.
            As you know ( as well as a few people ), that there is a big difference in one who studied the constitution and one who specializes in workers comp. I am certain that they are NOT interchangeable.
            It appears to me that over the past few years, the dims have been going to the Ivy League law schools and grabbing the brightest students. These same students are reviewing the constitution and finding the very questionable language that wins you the cases presented to SCOTUS. Too bad the republicans didn’t put their collective
            brains together and take the high road in these battles for control of our country.
            Tony

          2. Hi Anthony. You are right about specializations. Me, I don’t know from Worker’s Comp. My work primarily involves representing whistleblowers exposing fraud on the government. It’s civil not criminal law, but I’ve spent some time working with the DOJ and the FBI–it’s my job to try the convince the government to to pursue criminal or civil litigation to get a whistleblower award for my client. So, I have a sort of a seat of the pants feeling about the things the DOJ looks at in cases involving fraud on the United States, and how they/FBI operate, much like a salesman might know what products a regular customer might buy and what they think about in deciding a purchase. So my long-winded (sorry) post was thinking about the case as I would for a client: “yes, you’ve got a case, but that’s just the beginning. There are all kinds of considerations, legal and nonlegal that the DOJ is going to look at, but most of all, nothing is going to happen over night.” As I said, I may very well be wrong.

    2. Anthony can’t refute anything you just stated, and while long, this is exactly my reasoning that he should never be allowed to run again. Will they convict him? Doubtful….but let’s not act like there is plenty of evidence. That in itself , along with his clear lunacy, makes him unfit to run again. My advice to Trumpers is to back a guy that supports his issues (some even I do) but is also not an insane narcissist.

Comments are closed.