Jan 6 committee charges against Trump weak

 This comes from an interview with Andrew McCarthy on the Caly and Busk radio show:

...

MCCARTHY: Well, I think the charges are really weak, Buck. The headline, I guess, that I would highlight to encapsulate this is they want to recommend that Trump violated a law that prevents people — or makes it a crime to incite an insurrection or to assist an insurrection or to aid and abet it, etc. And they say they’ve developed evidence of that. And, you know, first of all, they have not… Despite what they promised they were going to be able to prove, they have not proved there was an actionable criminal nexus between Donald Trump and the violence. More to the point, besides the fact that they haven’t proved it, the Justice Department has prosecuted over 800 people for various crimes arising out of the Capitol riot.

In two years of looking at this closely with a lot more resources to investigate it than the congressional committee has, they haven’t indicted a single person for the federal crime of insurrection. So, one wonders, how could Trump have aided and abetted something the Justice Department has looked at and hasn’t charged anybody with? But the other thing is, they’ve indicted a number of cases involving violence, like assaults on police officers and damage to the Capitol. There was a seditious conspiracy case in which some people got convicted. In none of those cases has the Justice Department suggested or cited Donald Trump for being an unindicted coconspirator.

And in fact, the Justice Department took the position that Trump was not the driving force of this. He was basically the pretext that people who were looking to commit violence anyway used as a rationalization for doing it. And the Justice Department has aggressively fought efforts by these defendants to shift blame to Trump. So, it’s pretty clear that they’ve decided… This doesn’t take Trump out of the woods. They’ve decided he wasn’t involved in the violence. That doesn’t mean that he may not have committed the crime of obstructing Congress. But it’s a harder proof if you don’t have the violence. So, my only point is, how is the committee referring a crime to the Justice Department — the theory of which has to be that Trump is, like, the driving force of the violence — when it’s become very clear over two years that that’s the opposite of what the Justice Department thinks happened?
...

What this is really about is that Democrats and a few anti-Trump Republicans want to rig the next election so that Trump can't be a nominee and they think they can do that by charging him with a crime that would bar his run.  I see this as an attempt to thwart democracy.  The voters are perfectly capable of decision whether Trump should be a nominee and if he is whether he should be elected President.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains

James Robbins: ... Bin Laden suggests that President Bush should allow Zarqawi’s body to be returned to his family in Jordan, but this is a matter that is up to the Jordanian government, which so far has not shown much interest in facilitating a homecoming. Bin Laden mocks King Abdullah II, calling him a Coalition minion, and asking “w hat scares you about Abu Musab after he’s dead? You know that his funeral, if allowed to happen, would be a huge funeral showing the extent of sympathy with the mujahedin.” A large crowd would definitely turn out, though most people would be on hand to demonstrate their anger and disgust. Last November’s hotel bombings in Amman , masterminded by Zarqawi, are still fresh in people’s memory, and mentioning them to Jordanians has the same visceral impact as memory of the 9/11 attacks does here. Jordan has adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards those who choose to mourn the country’s least favorite son, and four opposition members of parliament who paid con
Read more