Category Archives: legal news

Hillary is right about Trump

Say whatever you want about Hillary Rodham Clinton, who grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory in the 2016 presidential election … but she is correct in asserting that the man who defeated her then is a criminal.

Donald Trump, said 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Clinton, has committed an act of “seditious conspiracy” against the federal government. She is convinced of the evidence that has been gathered and she wants him prosecuted.

So do I and so do millions of other Americans.

Clinton told CBS News what many of us already know, that she was unhappy that she collected 3 million more votes than Trump but lost the Electoral College vote, which is the count that matters in electing presidents.

“Did I consider for a nanosecond” an effort to overturn the results of that election? Clinton asked. “No!” she answered with stunning emphasis.

Clinton lost the 2016 election in one of the most bizarre political flukes in U.S. history. Trump pilfered states that by all rights should have ended up in Clinton’s column. She lost them and I, for one, am not going to dispute that Trump was elected president in 2016. Thus, he benefited from a peaceful power transition that he denied the man to whom he lost four years later.

And in denying that peaceful transition to an opponent, Joe Biden, who defeated him decisively, Trump committed a criminal act of “seditious conspiracy.”

The record is now chock full of evidence presented to a select House committee. Just think: this is just one of at least three probes into criminal activity involving the twice-impeached former president of the United States of America.

The beat, as they say, just goes on.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Lame-duck courage: overrated

One would think that a politician who declares his or her intention to walk away from a public office would be infused with all manner of courage to say things about which he or she would normally remain quiet.

It is not so.

How do I know that? Because I know many politicians in this era of hyper-division who have announced their intention to bow out of the public arena but who don’t go public with how they really feel about other pols and public policy issues.

Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley over the weekend, for instance, said out loud that he would vote for Democratic lieutenant governor candidate Mike Collier over incumbent Republican Dan Patrick. Big deal? Yeah, it is. Whitley is a stellar, stalwart mainstream Republican politician who told WFAA-TV that he won’t back arguably the state’s most power GOP politician.

Why does Whitley stand out? Why aren’t there many more politicians willing to say what Whitley said. It doesn’t take a whole lot of courage for a lame-duck pol to speak from his or her gut when they no longer face a political campaign.

Yet, for reasons that escape me too few of them step up and speak their minds.

Might it be that they don’t want to face their next-door neighbor who would challenge their intelligence? Or the guy in the grocery story who would recognize them? Or perhaps the husband and wife who sit next to them in the house of worship on Sunday?

What does take courage is for a politician who continues to run for re-election to challenge the party’s leadership. I give you Rep. Liz Cheney, the Wyoming Republican who has condemned Donald Trump in the strongest terms possible … only to lose huge in the recent GOP primary in her state.

We’re seeing a large number of Congress members retiring this year. However, we are seeing a surprisingly limited number of them speaking from their gut about the future of their party … or the nation.

That frustrates me.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Is she a ‘Trump judge’?

Donald J. Trump’s past blathering about “Obama judges” and “Clinton judges” ruling against him in various legal battles gives me pause as I try to weigh the legal significance of a federal judge who has ruled in the ex-president’s favor in his fight with the FBI over those classified documents he squirreled away at his Florida estate.

Legal and constitutional scholars have been quick to condemn Trump’s assertion that those decisions with which he disagrees are the result of the political leanings of the judges who delivered them. They have said that judges take solemn oaths to be faithful to the Constitution and that’s what they have done in issuing their rulings.

Now we have a Trump-appointed federal judge — Aileen Cannon — deciding that it’s OK to appoint a special master to pore through the documents seized by the FBI in its search for possible criminal evidence.

The Justice Department argued against the appointment of such a special master. It well could appeal the decision by Judge Cannon.

But I am left to ponder something. If the ex-POTUS is going to rant and rail against judges who happen to occupy their seat on the bench because they are appointed by political rivals of his, is it OK for others to do the same thing when a Trump-appointed judge issues a key ruling in the former president’s favor?

Just askin’, man.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Trump gets special master … what’s next?

Do not look for me or listen for my voice among those who might be inclined to complain about a federal judge’s decision to grant Donald Trump’s request for a special master to investigate the FBI seizure of records from Trump’s posh Florida estate.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is a Trump appointee and today she ruled that a special master can be selected to examine claims of lawyer-client privilege as Trump seeks to block the probe into why he took classified documents from the White House to his glitzy estate in south Florida.

I am going to presume that Cannon is following the law as she sees fit. She ruled that the investigation by Congress and the Justice Department will continue and that she doesn’t see any overly long delay coming up as the courts look for a special master.

I do have one worry, which is that Cannon might bend to the idiocy being pitched that Trump is entitled to “executive privilege,” even though many other judges have ruled that as a former POTUS … he does not! Trump is declaring that he does enjoy that privilege, despite the fact that he left office in January 2021 and that, as one judge noted in an earlier ruling that “we only have one president at a time.” Trump ain’t it.

But, as The Hill reported: Prosecutors also said Trump could not claim executive privilege as a former president against the current executive branch, but Cannon said the DOJ’s position “arguably overstates the law.”

Judge grants Trump’s request to appoint special master to review Mar-a-Lago documents | The Hill

I am going to offer a word of hope that we can get this special master issue settled, get someone appointed, have that individual make rulings in a timely manner and that we can get to the bottom of the “probable cause” for criminality that resulted in the FBI search classified documents.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, to my way of thinking, has the goods to indict Trump on several counts. The question now becomes, will he get the chance to exercise his own constitutional authority?

The special master ploy mustn’t get in the AG’s way.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

FBI acted properly

I am going to seek to put to rest a lie that Donald J. Trump keeps repeating as it involves the FBI search for classified/top secret documents that the ex-president squirreled away illegally in his Florida home.

All set? Here goes.

Trump keeps saying that the FBI “raided” his home. It was no “raid.” The FBI worked with a federal judge to obtain a search warrant based on what it believes is “probable cause” that a crime took place. The feds sought the documents that Trump spirited out of the White House in violation of the Presidential Records Act that stipulates that official documents need to go to the National Archives.

When the FBI found the documents, the agents — in full view of Trump’s lawyers — spread them on the floor for picture-taking purposes. The ex-POTUS’s newest lie is that the feds spread the documents out to illustrate that Trump was so damn careless he would just toss ’em on the floor for the whole world to see.

No! The FBI was following standard operating evidence-gathering procedure. Trump never says the FBI picked the documents up and put them where agents found them: in the boxes that Trump’s team took from the White House to Florida.

As is always the case with this clown, the crowd that hears these lies cheers on the liar who spreads them, filling him with even more hubris to repeat them.

Disgraceful.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Ginni Thomas: dangerous conspirator

Ginni Thomas just keeps distinguishing herself in ways that ought to bring shame not just to her but to her husband … who happens to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thanks to some intrepid reporting from the Washington Post, we now hear that Ginni Thomas urged Wisconsin Republicans to do all they could to overturn the results of that state’s 2020 presidential election. She wanted them to flip the results from Joe Biden’s column to Donald Trump.

Why is this important? Because … hubby Clarence Thomas continues to rule on cases involving that election, rather than (a) recuse himself from anything having to do with that event or (b) just resigning from the high court altogether, which is my preferred outcome.

It is an utterly disgraceful display of conflict of interest for Justice Thomas to continue ruling on these matters while his wife continues to roil the faithful with idiotic assertions that the election was stolen from Donald Trump.

This matter is so far from being over.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Do they really mean ‘civil war’?

What in the name of certifiable insanity is happening along the rightward fringe of political discourse, with individuals and groups yammering about the prospects of “civil war” if certain events don’t go the way they want them to go?

There well could be multiple indictments coming from at least two states, and the U.S. Department of Justice over the conduct of the most recent former president of the United States. Donald Trump’s cult followers are vowing to take to the streets. They will exact revenge if their leader faces criminal prosecution.

Some of ’em have said they expect a civil war to erupt. What the … ?

Hey, we all know what happened when we had a Civil War in this country. Six hundred thousand Americans died on battlefields throughout much of the eastern United States. The war ended. President Lincoln vowed to bind the wounds that tore us apart … only to be assassinated.

Now some among us are predicting a return to that horrifying chapter in our national history. And why? Because the Justice Department is doing its job in accordance with federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

Oh, and then we have two states — Georgia and New York — looking as well into possible criminal behavior. They, too, are operating legally and ethically in the search for the truth.

Oh, my. These threats frighten the daylights out of me.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

The docs ain’t yours, Donald

Donald J. Trump had this annoying habit during his time as president of referring to the Cabinet, the official White House staff, even the Joint Chiefs of Staff as his own.

Recall how he would refer to “my attorney general,” or “my generals” or “my presidency.”

Now comes word that the former POTUS has referred to the classified documents he took from the White House as “my documents.” How they “belong to me.

Uhh, no, Donald. They belong to me and all other Americans. The president with no knowledge of the Constitutional or the limits it places on the presidency has seized those documents and claimed them for his own use. That’s what the evidence so far has been revealing.

To be fair, Trump isn’t the only POTUS to take such ownership of public figures, public documents and public offices. I have lost count of the number of presidents refer to “my presidency,” or “my vice president” or “my national security team.” I seek while writing on this blog to avoid ascribing ownership of the presidency to the individual who occupies the office.

That said, Trump’s claim of ownership of top-secret and other classified papers sends chills up my back.

Listen up, Attorney General Merrick Garland: The man has to pay for such hubris.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Praying for DACA recipients

I am going to say my prayers tonight. Yes, I think often of my family and pray for their good health and safety and for my friends, many of whom have suffered death in their family.

I also am going to pray for the survival of a humane and to my mind a  totally acceptable public policy. The Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals needs to stay on the books. Why? Because it grants U.S. residents who were brought here as children protection from being deported … even though they have done nothing wrong as de facto Americans.

The Texas Tribune reports: In 2018, Texas and other Republican-led states filed a lawsuit against the federal government arguing that the Obama administration overreached its power by creating an immigration program without Congress’ approval. The lawsuit has led to a yearslong legal battle.

DACA recipients prepare for possible end of program as court ruling looms | The Texas Tribune

DACA came into being as the result of an executive order issued by President Obama. It is meant to protect those who came here as children, some of whom were infants and toddlers. Many thousands of these children have grown into responsible adults; they have paid their taxes; many of them have achieved academic excellence.

What’s more, they did all of this in the only country they ever have known. Those who were brought here as children only did so because they were too young to act independently.

And now some of us want them deported? To a country they don’t know? It is inhumane to the max to punish these DACA recipients in this manner.

Therefore, I will pray that they can be allowed to stay in this country, allowed to seek citizenship or permanent legal resident status and be allowed to continue to contribute to the country where they came of age.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Are they pro-cop or not?

Thomas Webster has just become the latest symbol of the hypocrisy we hear coming from the mouths of politicians and their supporters who purport to be “pro law enforcement.”

Webster has just received a 10-year prison sentence for his participation in the 1/6 assault on our government, on the attack on Capitol Hill.

Webster happens to be a former New York police officer who was convicted of assaulting a Capitol Police officer during that heinous attack. A judge sentenced the ex-cop to the longest sentence yet coming from the myriad trials emanating from the 1/6 assault.

But where are the statements of support for Webster’s sentence from those on the right, those who — until the Age of Trump — were known to be pro-law enforcement, pro-police, pro-lock ’em up and toss the key.

These days we hear them condemning the cops, the FBI, the intelligence community.

The world has been upside-down. It’s making me dizzy.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com