The Card That Wasn’t Played
Was President Donald J. Trump responsible for inciting violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021?
The DOJ has deferred having a federal grand jury weigh in on that question until after the 2024 election.
Which means ‘never.’
The upshot is that Trump and company are like a witch and their cauldron, free to continue stirring their toxic mix of protection from the Biden coup, a criminal cabal centered around the purported shady dealings of Hunter Biden, and a runaway ‘woke’ liberal establishment.
Trump is free to campaign. an election tampering exoneration of sorts.
Is Brazil listening?
The 14th amendment will not be invoked. Trump’s name will appear on ballots in all 50 states, Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Pacific Islands.
He may be elected by a minority and hoisted aloft by another minority who control Electoral College outcomes.
Why this doomsday scenario? Because in the effort to appear apolitical and untainted by opposing positions both moral and cultural the DOJ has enabled a “counter dialog” of freedom of repression advocacy.
Neighborhoods are suffering; libraries are removing books from shelves.
Former Vice President Mike Pence comments on the indictments: Trump was ill-advised by a group of “crackpot” lawyers.
‘Rally-on’ Pence, noose-free, is quick to parlay the position of pity the poor former President surrounded by legal zombies.
Pity the only man who can right the steal.
Ready and eager, Pence grasps the political space to campaign afforded by a ‘spectral of indictments’ which in his moral compass amount to bad lawyering. Pence refused to certify and has refused to testify. He is reading from a campaign script written by his legal defense team. What exactly the former Vice President offers in leadership style and initiative is lost in a nod to a distant more familiar age, replete with white Christian church-going families who keep their girls at home under their loving watch.
We know whom Pence stands for: as Amy Davidson-Sorkin pointed out, ‘they own guns.’ (1)
Which brings us to another ‘smoking gun:’ January 6.
Late in the game, to corroborate Mark Meadows ‘privilege’ meanderings, the DOJ brought in Ivanka-Jared to try to identify and solidify Trump’s intent. ‘You were there… you know him… you are family.’
One could hear a moat bridge being raised. A chorus rose: the man believes his own lies…okay? His passion makes up for his lack of conviction. In other words, beneath the Fifth Avenue wannabe shooter lies an intense guy, more enthralled by his peeps than is good for him.
Enter the crazies.
Is that illegal?
Taking a page from the Oath Keepers’ convictions which stopped short of intent to violently overthrow the government, (2) the four indictments do more to focus the jury on the process of an attempted coup rather than the outcome, which the unwitting nation was spared.
No redemption here.
Didn’t Trump call the Capitol rioters off; ask them to go home? Didn’t he say they were ‘special’?
Does the threat of violence, the coup attempt in retrospect, reveal the passion of the political candidate, always running for office, never leading because staying in office is more important than being an officer?
It’s campaign season in America, 24/7 and the First Amendment is being rolled out as a cover for political violence. Trump may soon be under house arrest, but America will have to vote him out.
And vote “them” out.
August 4–5
1- “Guns, Trump, and the GOP,” The New Yorker, May 29
2- Comment: The individual Oath Keeper convictions of “seditious conspiracy” do not touch on ‘violent overthrow,’ presumably to avoid appeal. Some legal strategists propose that because the Shaw indictments begin with ‘conspiracy,’ and because Shaw is reserving the right to further prosecute the six unnamed “co-conspirators,” the country may see “seditious conspiracy” invoked in subsequent co-conspirator trials or in another pre-trial indictment. But for now, Shaw warily proceeds as if the Trump defense sees this as a loaded “gun” and would further bolster their demand for a trial delay. Call this another case of DOJ “appeal avoidance.”
ReplyForward
