Tag: January 6 Committee

One of These Days. . .

By Stephen Macaulay

As winter is aborning for many of us, the phrase “getting ahead of your skis” comes to mind, not as regards schussing down the east face of Jupiter Peak, but politics.

Funny thing, though.

People mainly left of center have been doing this for the past couple years, seasons notwithstanding. Snow, no snow. Off they go.

They are consistently ahead of what actually happens. It is seemingly always “This time!”

And reality is otherwise.

My colleague over on the left column concludes his piece on the convictions of the Oath Keepers for their planning of and participation in the U.S. Capitol attack on January 6 with, “Coming soon ‘The United States Versus Donald J. Trump.’”

To be sure, to see that there has actually been judicial action taken against people who are loosely associated with Trump can be encouraging to those who see Trump as a self-absorbed transactional actor who is only concerned with personal benefit and self-aggrandizement.

Make no mistake: the man has done nothing but exhibit the behavior of a parasite on the body politic. 

Does anyone imagine that he is a politician in the context of someone who espouses a codified political philosophy?

If he was so committed to making America great again, why did he exhibit behavior, behind closed doors (per the January 6 Committee) as well as on a stage at the Ellipse (on January 6), that would have taken the notion of peaceful transition of office, which has existed since Thomas Jefferson won over John Adams, and put it out in the trash like the course guide for Trump University?

No, it is always about him.

The recording of his conversation with Brad Raffensperger. The way-late “Go home. We love you” message. The Mar-a-Lago collection of documents.

These are but some of the most-recent instances when seemingly clever talking heads — many of them with law degrees not from an on-line university — claim ad nauseum on MSNBC, “Coming soon ‘The United States Versus Donald J. Trump.’” 

And it doesn’t happen.

Possibly it will happen.

But isn’t it disconcerting that the self-proclaimed “stable genius” really may be one and that all of those people who have been predicting his downfall are in need of skiing lessons?

_____________________________________

Trump's Still in Charge

(WED 11/30/22)

GOP Leader ‘Condemnations’ – “I don’t think anybody should be spending any time with Nick Fuentes,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told reporters. “He has no place in the Republican Party.”

But Wait: “[H]e came out four times and condemned him, and didn’t know who he was,” McCarthy said, according to Rolling Stone.

So … If GOP leadership truly was about to leave ex-President Trump behind, as appeared to be the case following the November 8 midterms, this would have been McCarthy’s chance to lead the way.

Perhaps McConnell Then?: Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) said this about the Trump-Fuentes-Ye Mar-a-Lago dinner, at his weekly Capitol Hill news conference Tuesday (per Axios); “There is no room in the Republican Party for antisemitism or white supremacy.” Pressed on whether McConnell would support Trump if he becomes the 2024 GOP presidential nominee: “Let me just say again, there is simply no room in the Republican Party for antisemitism or white supremacy. This would apply to all the leaders of the party who will be seeking offices.”

Sigh. 

Trump Replies: McConnell “is a loser for our nation.”

--TL

_____
COMMENTS: editors@thehustings.news

How the West Was Won — And How It May Be Lost

By Stephen Macaulay

“Courage is being scared to death… and saddling up anyway.” ~ John Wayne

One of the movie genres that was once popular and almost definitive of America and what it means to be an American was the Western. Invariably there were narratives wherein there were groups of bad guys who (a) considerably outnumbered the good guys and (b) wanted something that wasn’t right, whether it was to bust one of their convicted brethren out of jail before he’d get strung up or who wanted to seize the land of a law-abiding farmer for their cattle.

And the good guys — with a certain amount of cajoling from, say, John Wayne — would invariably do the right thing and, with requisite sacrifice, stand up to the bad guys.

Now we are in a situation where there is question whether the Department of Justice should, assuming it has a case, stand up to Donald Trump and indict him for whatever crimes they may have assessed.

From Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) to Donald Trump himself there have been not-so-veiled cautions or threats that some sort of violence could occur were that to happen.

What would John Wayne do? Turn lily-livered? Or saddle up and do what it takes, even if it meant having his blood spilled?

Law or lawlessness?

(Strangely, if you think about it Trump has more to him of the railroad magnate who, in those movies, paid off a group of black-hatted hacks to clear out the real folk, or of the smarmy suited gambler who would lie and cheat at every opportunity . . . and hide whenever the hard stuff began.)

Remember, during a campaign speech in Iowa in 2016 then-candidate Trump said: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?”

In other words, he could flout the law and it wouldn’t have any effect on him.

But it isn’t about Donald Trump.

The man clearly doesn’t live in the same reality that most Americans do. There is a fraction of Americans who live in his warped world, or who at least find solace in the ostensible case that he is a victim just like they are, but how the alleged billionaire has anything in common with those who work on farms and in factories remains a mystery.

As Liz Cheney pointed out in her opening remarks yesterday, Donald Trump knew that he had lost the election. One could argue that he knew he had lost the election prior to it actually being held — which explains why he so early on began talking about how it would be “rigged.” Were he to be so supreme and superior, it would have been a blowout — in his favor.

When the landgrabber in a Western wanted to take someone’s farm, there was often a phony deed involved. A crooked lawyer would take it to a widow — her husband having been shot by one of the bad guys earlier in the story — and try to force her to sign it.

It isn’t real. Isn’t bona-fide. But when you’re a bad guy such niceties as truth don’t matter.

The January 6th Committee showed in Technicolor that Trump lied. Repeatedly. Lied knowing full well that he had lost the election. Lied in order to rile up the crowds who you could imagine taking torches to the sheriff’s office to get some miscreant out of jail. . . but in this case keeping some miscreant from going into jail.

The question is whether Merrick Garland is going to hitch up his britches, and do the right thing. The hard thing, but the right thing if he determines the law was broken.

Could there be violence? Certainly.

But is this a nation of laws?

Seems like that was one of the things we learned from those Westerns when the brave man stood up to seemingly insurmountable odds.

Does Donald Trump get to ride roughshod over the law?

_____
COMMENTS: editors@thehustings.news