Category Archives: legal news

legal news

‘Protests’ … again? Good grief!

Let’s see how this will play out, given what happened the last time POTUS 45 called on his followers to “protest” an election result in which he lost.

The ex-POTUS appears to be headed for an indictment by a Manhattan, N.Y., grand jury on allegations that he misspent money to pay a porn star to be quiet about a tryst he said didn’t occur. Weird, eh?

Well, if an indictment is in this individual’s immediate future, we now can expect some “protests” from his MAGA followers. How might it end? Well, the 1/6 insurrection offers a glaring example of how “protests” such as what the ex-president is now calling for might end up. It will end badly.

The criminal justice system is doing its job. Pure and simple. There is no “rigging” of the system that is going to result in a former POTUS being indicted for criminal activity. The evidence is there. He directed his lawyer at the time to write a check to the porn star; the question is whether he violated the law in doing so.

I believe he did. But that’s just me.

As for the “protests,” the traitors who adhere to The Big Lie and who believe their hero did nothing wrong need to be very careful.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

‘No!’ to using public money for payout

Dade Phelan is putting his foot down as speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and my hope is that the Legislature follows his lead.

Phelan opposes any notion of the Legislature appropriating taxpayer money to pay Attorney General Ken Paxton’s settlement with several lawyers who filed a whistleblower complaint against the state’s AG.

Paxton and the lawyers reached a settlement that requires Paxton to pay $3 million without admitting any guilt or issuing any apology for the complaint they filed. He will avoid any accountability for this latest (alleged) transgression.

Phelan told KTVT Channel 11 news that spending public money is an inappropriate use of taxpayers’ funds. I happen to stand with the speaker on that one. How does Paxton come up with the money he will have to pay? I don’t know, nor do I give a damn.

The settlement does spare the state from having to pay for an expensive trial, so in a significant sense the agreement is a win for Texans. That doesn’t justify spending public money to pay off the attorney general’s penalty for firing the lawyers who acted out of conscience to expose what they believe is corruption within the attorney general’s office.

My personal preference would be for a state trial jury to convict Paxton of securities fraud, a charge for which a Collin County grand jury indicted him back in 2015. Paxton has been skating around any accountability for that allegation almost since the day he took office.

My plea at this moment? Stand firm, Speaker Phelan … and don’t let the Texas House approve any public money to pay this settlement.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Still waiting on AG

Merrick Garland has impressed me ever since I first heard of him as a man of high principle and of well … patience.

He once was selected to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, but saw his nomination derailed in 2016 by Senate Republicans who decided to play politics with President Obama’s constitutional authority to nominate justices to the highest court in the land.

Garland went back to the DC Circuit Court bench until he got tapped to become attorney general in Joe Biden’s presidential administration.

He now is overseeing — even from some distance — investigations into the goings-on of Donald J. Trump. He has handed off a key probe to a special counsel, Jack Smith, who appears to be closing the circle around Trump. Smith has subpoenaed former Vice President Mike Pence to testify under oath to a grand jury looking into Trump’s incitement of the 1/6 insurrection.

My sincere hope is that Pence complies, takes the oath and tells the truth. Will he do the right thing? He’s a man of deep faith, so I believe the Bible instructs him to follow the law.

Meanwhile, AG Garland is biding his time in collecting information that will help him determine whether to indict Trump for (alleged) crimes he committed while he was getting ready to depart the White House.

I once hoped for a quick end to this probe. I have changed my mind, which I am entitled to do. I believe it is critical for the AG to get it right. A mistake in evidence-gathering would spell disaster for the rule of law and for holding Trump accountable for the crimes I believe he committed.

Merrick Garland just doesn’t strike me as a gun-toting buckaroo. I will have faith that he will deliver the correct decision at the correct time and in the correct context.

The AG is just too damn smart to blow this gig.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Will the ex-VP do the right thing?

Former Vice President Mike Pence often is held up as a paragon of moral rectitude, of unflinching loyalty to doing the right thing.

Well, we are going to learn — probably quite soon — whether the real man is true to his reputation.

A special counsel appointed to examine Donald Trump’s involvement in the 1/6 insurrection has subpoenaed Pence to testify before a grand jury. Pence was “in the room” when Trump exploded at him for his refusal to do Trump’s bidding on 1/6, which was to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Pence said he couldn’t do it, that the law wouldn’t allow it; nor would the U.S. Constitution. He was only able to preside over a joint congressional session that had gathered that day to certify the Electoral College result that elected Joe Biden president of the United States. That wasn’t good enough for Trump and he berated the vice president to break the law and violate his constitutional oath.

Special counsel Jack Smith wants Pence to tell him under oath what we all know happened that fateful and hideous day.

Will the ex-VP declare some bogus form of executive privilege — which he is not entitled to do — or will he answer the summons to talk to the investigators and tell them the whole truth?

From my seat in the North Texas peanut gallery, it looks for all the world as if Jack Smith is getting ready to do something really significant in this probe. He just needs one of the key players in this drama to come clean on what he knew and when he knew it.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

SCOTUS needs ethics rules

Leadership by example is the best kind of leadership I can find among those in position to assume positions that enable them to call the cadence for others to follow.

Why, then, doesn’t the nation’s highest court have a code of ethics and a strong enforcement policy in case the men and women who serve on that court mess up?

The U.S. Supreme Court is being drawn into the proverbial crosshairs of those who believe the highest court in the nation is failing itself and the judicial system by not leading by example.

Justices on the court have engaged in some mighty nasty side hustles of late. My favorite, of course, is Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni, being involved in the MAGA movement to overturn the 2020 presidential election. It coincides with Justice Thomas being the only member of the nine-justice court to demand that Donald Trump turn over his White House records to the Justice Department during its probe into the 1/6 insurrection.

Coincidence? I think not!

However, there is nothing on the books at the Supreme Court building that enables anyone to take any action against Justice Thomas. There must be some law enacted that compels the court to establish a code of ethics and then ensures that the court punishes its members when they violate that code.

I recently interviewed a candidate for the Farmersville City Council here in Collin County. I asked him to describe his leadership ability. He said he leads “by example,” that he “wouldn’t ask someone to do something I wouldn’t do myself.”

That kind of creed ought to apply to the Supreme Court. It decides on others’ ethics issues all the time. If they break the rules and their case ends up in front of the nine justices, then the court has the power to decide whether a defendant broke the ethics rules.

Furthermore, lower federal and state courts have ethics rules they demand that judges follow. When is it ever OK for the court that oversees those lower courts’ adherence to the rules to be free of following rules of its own?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Now he takes the Fifth?

Hey, let’s flash back to around the time of the 2016 presidential campaign, the one that Donald J. Trump won in the strangest political fluke in U.S. history.

Someone asked him about a political foe who was “taking the Fifth Amendment” to avoid self-incrimination. Trump’s response was that “anyone who takes the Fifth must be guilty of a crime.”

Well … maybe so, maybe not. Donald Trump’s point, though, wasn’t that far off.

Fast-forward to a year ago. We now have seen video evidence of Donald Trump testifying before a New York state grand jury on a financial case that was under investigation. What did the former president do? He took the Fifth! Not once, or twice or even dozens of times. He hid behind the Fifth Amendment’s protection more than 400 times while being questioned about his company’s financial dealings.

Why bring this up? Because the pathological liar wants to be POTUS again. At least that’s what he says. He is facing a potential indictment for crimes he might have committed against the government of the United States.

Donald Trump is entitled to invoke the protection afforded all citizens under the U.S. Constitution. I don’t question the legitimacy of his Fifth Amendment assertion. I just wonder — out loud — whether he is as “guilty of a crime” as he accused others who have invoked the same privilege.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

We’re waiting on AG … patiently

A nation’s patience appears to be running a bit thin as it awaits some key decisions by its chief law enforcement officer … the attorney general of the United States.

AG Merrick Garland is a meticulous man and I am glad to have someone as thoughtful and as deliberate as Garland on the job at the Justice Department.

Am I among those who want Garland to act sooner rather than later? Not really. In truth, my mind and my interests are drawn to more personal matters these days, as my wife struggles with a serious medical condition.

However, were I free to think more frequently about Garland’s probe into the activities of Donald J. Trump my belief would be to let the man proceed at his own pace and at his discretion.

He already has appointed two special counsels to probe Trump’s pilfering of classified documents to his glitzy joint in Florida as well as the classified documents found in President Biden’s home in Delaware. I’ve declared already that I do not consider the incidents to be equal; the Trump matter is much more egregious than what I believe the president allowed to occur.

Garland, though, came to the DOJ after serving for many years on the federal bench. President Obama wanted Garland to take a seat on the Supreme Court, but Senate Republicans made sure that wouldn’t happen. His reputation as a jurist was that he was fair, dispassionate and — well — judicious.

He brings those traits to the Justice Department.

Garland also has declared that “no one is above the law” and has affirmed that statement merely by repeating what he has declared that “no one” can escape justice. By “no one,” I am going to presume he means that even former POTUSes are in the crosshairs.

Let us remember, too, that Garland has received a referral from the House 1/6 committee to pursue criminal indictments relating to the insurrection. He’s working on that matter, also with all deliberate speed. And … we have the Fulton County, Ga., district attorney, Fani Willis, who is examining whether to indict Trump on election tampering in the 2020 presidential election.

All of this requires patience, folks. I happen to possess plenty of it. How about you?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Trump’s not off the hook

Some political and legal experts suggest that President Biden’s embarrassment over the discovery of classified documents in his home might forestall any effort to prosecute Donald J. Trump for the same thing.

Hah! Make that a hah, hah!

Those who are suggesting Trump is in the clear had better check the record. The ex-POTUS is being investigated for a greater number of alleged misdeeds than just the document caper that involves his taking of classified documents from the White House as he was vacating the presidency.

Attorney General Merrick Garland well might forgo a criminal indictment on that case.

But wait! Trump also has the matter of inciting the 1/6 insurrection. He’s also facing a potential indictment in Fulton County, Ga., for pressuring election officials in Georgia to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The dude is still lost deep in the criminal justice woods.

As for whether Donald Trump can still stand trial for violating federal law by squirreling away classified documents, I believe that is a real possibility.

The man’s troubles are just beginning.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Does one ‘scandal’ affect the other?

Donald Trump’s classified document scandal is the real thing; a president leaves office and takes with him hundreds of pages of documents that do not belong to him.

Joe Biden’s classified document matter is different: he served as vice president, left that office, and squirreled away a few pages of classified documents.

Trump has challenged efforts to retrieve them; Biden has cooperated fully with the feds.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed two special counsels to examine these matters. Question of the day: Should one scandal affect the investigation of the other? My answer: No.

More specifically, special counsel Jack Smith’s work on the Trump matter should proceed with all deliberate speed. Robert Hur’s work on the Biden matter also should proceed.

One investigation must not affect the other one. More to the point is that Smith’s probe into the Trump scandal — which differs, in my mind, greatly from what is occurring with the Biden matter — must continue to its conclusion.

In my view, that conclusion should include an indictment of the ex-POTUS on allegations that he has obstructed justice and committed an illegal theft of government property.

But … that call belongs to AG Garland and his team of legal eagles. He vows to proceed with meticulous caution, which is all right with me. Garland has to get it right, understanding as I am sure he does the gravity of indicting a former POTUS and charging with enough criminal behavior to put him behind bars — if he’s convicted — for the rest of his sorry-ass life.

The Biden matter might complicate the probe into Trump’s scandal, but it must not derail it.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Let’s see who is ‘weaponizing’ justice

1 Comment

Republicans in Congress have adopted a goofy notion that Democrats — starting with President Biden — are “weaponizing” the Justice Department in an effort to bring down Donald J. Trump.

Well, let’s see how that plays out.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has named Robert Hur as special counsel in a probe into whether Biden broke the law when he held classified documents in a think tank and in his Wilmington, Del., garage. The documents come from his time as vice president.

Hur is a U.S. attorney endorsed by Trump. Hmm. Will the prosecutor follow the law, or will he back the Trump allies’ campaign to subvert and destroy Biden? If it’s the latter, then just who is “weaponizing” the Justice Department?

I believe Garland did the right thing by appointing a special counsel. He had no choice, given that he did the same thing when he appointed a special counsel to examine whether Trump broke the law when he took documents out of the White House and hid them in his Florida home.

One of many key differences in these cases lies in the principals’ response. Biden vows to “cooperate fully” with authorities; Trump has sought to block any effort to return the documents to the National Archives, where they belong, on the specious grounds that they are his property. That is pure crap!

Who is guilty of weaponization? It’s not AG Merrick Garland and President Joe Biden. If Robert Hur does his job dispassionately and without bias, then the whole weaponization mantra will be rendered moot.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com