Category Archives: legal news

crime news, legal news

All this legal trouble makes me dizzy

Allow me this admission … which is that I am having a bit of difficulty keeping straight all the legal battles awaiting the immediate past president of the United States.

He has three indictments sitting in front of him: two from the federal government he once pledged to protect and another from a New York district attorney.

A fourth indictment from the Fulton County (Ga.) DA appears imminent. They all appear to be serious to the max. If he gets convicted on all the charges, Donald J. Trump could spend the rest of his life in prison. Given his advanced age, it well might be that even a partial conviction could imprison Trump for the duration.

What is most astonishing as I watch this drama unfold is witnessing how Trump no longer is in control of his own future; control rests with three judges who are presiding over the various trials awaiting the former POTUS.

One of them, U.S. District Judge Tanya  Chutkan is the most interesting. She is an immigrant from Jamaica appointed to the federal bench by President Obama. Thus, she presents a challenge to Trump; she hails from a “sh**hole country,” as Trump once said and she owes her lifetime job to a man Trump despises. Trump is likely to anger her beyond all measure before this case gets resolved.

Special counsel Jack Smith wants the indictment he obtained regarding the 1/6 assault on our government to be tried quickly. Judge Chutkan holds the key to that matter.

Well, I am sitting out here in the peanut gallery watching and waiting with a good bit of anticipation on what could happen to the most unfit man ever elected to the presidency. I’ll just have to keep my mind clear to stay caught up with what appears to be a whirl of activity for the rest of the current year and into the next one.

I will have to hold on with both hands.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

‘Alternative facts’: greatest nonsense ever uttered?

Kellyanne Conway, the one-time Donald Trump political strategist and White House senior adviser, will go down in history as the author of arguably the greatest nonsensical statement ever uttered.

I mention this because her former sugar daddy is using that statement as a mantra to defend himself against 78 counts of alleged misdeeds that have been filed against him by multiple grand juries.

Conway once infamously told NBC News “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd that falsehoods muttered by her boss were “alternative facts.” Todd was astonished, answering that anything that is not factually based is a “falsehood.”

Conway stood her slippery ground.

Here we are in the present day and “alternative facts” are coming forth in Trump’s defense against allegations that he sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election by hiring fake electors to cast votes for him in states that went for Joe Biden.

Alternative facts do not exist. They are a figment of a political operative’s phony glossary of verbiage. You have facts and you have non-facts … which are lies if the teller of non-facts knows that he or she is saying is false.

In this new age that now accepts lying as normal, alternative facts have become something of an accepted version of what passes for the truth. It is an amazing thing to witness for those of us who used to deal with reporting and commenting on facts.

I did that for nearly 37 years. I knew a lie when I heard it. Never did I consider them to be an alternative to facts. I guess I’m just old school in that regard.

It’s a new day, indeed. I am going to continue to hammer away at falsehoods when I hear them. I will call them what they likely are: lies told those who know what they are saying is false.

I suppose I ought to thank Kellyanne Conway for providing us with such a graphic and descriptive model for the art form that lying has taken in this bizarre time.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Is a deal possible?

What you are about to read from this blogger isn’t an original thought; it comes from a former Republican governor and one-time GOP presidential candidate.

That said, I want to reveal what he expressed.

Former Ohio Gov. John Kasich has tossed out a possibility that — upon some reflection — isn’t nearly as goofy as some observers might suggest it is. Kasich was careful to stipulate that he isn’t “predicting” this would happen, but believes it remains a distinct possibility.

It is that Trump’s lawyers, who must defend him against multiple indictments on multiple fronts, might want to cut a deal with federal special counsel Jack Smith. Kasich suggests that Trump’s lawyers well might determine that Trump cannot win the classified documents case or the 1/6 insurrection matter.

What does he do? Well, Kasich said it might be that Trump’s legal team could suggest he cuts a deal with prosecutors that would include a guilty plea and his dropping out of the 2024 race for president.

He’s already pleaded not guilty to all the federal indictments, and to the New York indictment over the hush money payment he made to the adult film star. He’s likely to plead not guilty to an indictment that everyone on Earth believes is coming from the Fulton County, Ga., district attorney on another case involving election tampering.

However, criminal defendants have changed their pleas before. The alternative might be serious prison time if he’s convicted, say, of obstruction in the case involving the 1/6 assault on our government.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a one-time U.S. attorney, said recently that prosecutors would rather refuse to bring a case than bring one they cannot win. Jack Smith, therefore, well might have the goods on Trump to all but guarantee a conviction.

It makes me go “hmmm.” Is there an alternative, therefore, to prison for the former president? Looks like it to me.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Smith ‘fan club’ forms

First things first: I must stipulate that I am not a member of any Jack Smith Fan Club, nor do I intend to join one or form one in my North Texas neighborhood.

That all said, I now shall declare that Jack Smith’s standing among those of us looking for accountability and justice in the conduct of a former POTUS has shot into the stratosphere.

The meme that showed up on my social media feed suggests that there might have been a chance that special counsel Jack Smith might “fear” Donald Trump. Not … a … chance!

The good news about Smith, though, is that he isn’t going to seek affirmation for doing his job. Attorney General Merrick Garland selected Smith to lead this investigation because the AG didn’t want to become entangled in a case involving the current POTUS, Joe Biden, and the man he defeated in the 2020 election.

Smith has done his duty with zero leaks, with little fanfare and with a maximum degree of professionalism. Yet those aspects of the job he has done has elevated the special counsel to hero status. Go figure.

The former president has managed to get Republicans in Congress to knuckle under to his threats. Not so with Jack Smith, who in reality has no more cause to stand firm against Trump than the sycophants who kowtow to Trump within the GOP House caucus.

Yes, I get that House GOP members face the prospect of losing their seats in primary elections. But they take oaths to defend the Constitution, not to march in lockstep behind a cult leader.

Jack Smith took a similar oath when he took on the role of special counsel. His loyalty to his oath, therefore, has given him an exalted status only because he is doing the job he signed on to do.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, legal news

Strike three … Trump!

Now we know what we have suspected all along, which is that special counsel Jack Smith has indicted Donald Trump on four counts of conspiracy to mount a coup to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

To think that Trump has bellowed since losing to President Biden that the election was “rigged,” that it is illegitimate.

Smith made monumental political history today. Is this reason to cheer? To high-five each other? To applaud the legal team that has assembled these incredibly detailed charges against a former president?

No. It is a time for serious reflection and for hoping the criminal justice system works its will.

I am not cheering tonight. I am trying to digest what has come forth.

Smith’s indictment reportedly is detailed. It is meticulous. It is historic in a way that many of us are having difficulty measuring. Trump is the first former POTUS ever indicted by the Justice Department. The indictment handed down today by a grand jury alleges that the former POTUS sought to overturn a free and fair election.

What in the name of democracy is up with that?

Jack Smith made it clear once again today that Trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence, but said he intends to press for a “speedy trial.”

Trump continues to tell us he did nothing wrong on Jan. 6, 2021. If so, then let this individual mount his defense and seek to persuade a jury that he should be acquitted. Does an innocent man seek to delay the proceeding? No, yet Trump is almost certain to obstruct the progress of this prosecution.

What now? The nation is about to enter a historic chapter in its long and glorious story. Donald Trump stands indicted on allegations that he sought to overturn an election he lost. It was a fair and legal determination by American voters … and one of the counts of the latest indictment alleges that Trump sought to deny voters that sacred right.

This is no time to cheer and slap the backs of our friends and political allies. It is a time to take seriously what a duly constituted grand jury has determined, that a one-time president of the United States committed a criminal act against the very government he took an oath to “defend and protect.”

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Clock ticks on Trump

The clock continues to tick on Donald J. Trump, giving me some reason to hope that justice is finally — finally! — going to catch up with this twice-impeached, twice-indicted politician.

Special counsel Jack Smith reportedly has advised Trump’s legal eagles that yet another set of indictments is coming. These will deal with the insurrection that I believe the ex-POTUS incited on 1/6.

Then a trial will commence. My hope is that the D.C. federal judge who will preside over this trial won’t waste time, will set a relatively prompt trial date and that a jury will convict Trump of doing what I believe we all witnessed on that horrible day.

Just as a reminder: The Constitution stipulates in clear and precise language that anyone who commits an insurrection shall not be eligible to seek public office.

My plea, therefore, to the special counsel? Time’s a wastin’, Jack Smith. Let’s get busy.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Judge hits ‘stand-up double’ with trial ruling

OK, it wasn’t a home run or even a triple, but the judge who is presiding over the classified documents pilfering by Donald J. Trump has issued a ruling that is giving me a glimmer of hope that we can get a trial without bias.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, nominated by Donald J. Trump to the federal bench in the final weeks of his term as POTUS, has set a May 20 trial date in Fort Pierce, Fla., on the indictment alleging that Trump broke the law by squirreling away classified documents in his Florida mansion.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team of federal prosecutor’s wanted to stage the trial in December; Trump’s team wanted an indefinite delay. Cannon split the difference — more or less — by setting the May date. Frankly, it appears to favor Smith’s side of the argument.

The New York trial in which Trump was indicted for the hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels will have concluded. Trump might get convicted of violating state law in spending campaign money keep Daniels quiet about a tryst she says occurred, but which Trump denies … go figure on that one!

The Republican Party presidential primary season will be all but over when Cannon commences the documents trial. Trump remains the favorite for the GOP nomination.

If it concludes prior to the start of the GOP convention, and Trump is convicted of federal felonies (which many observers believe is a probability), then delegates get to decide whether they want to nominate a convicted felon for POTUS.

The ex-POTUS’s legal difficulties are mounting seemingly by the hour, which makes me wonder — and I am serious about this — whether he’ll be able to continue to mount a political campaign while seeking to keep his sorry backside out of prison.

I get that Cannon should have recused herself from this trial, given her conflict of interest in being nominated by the criminal defendant in this case. She hasn’t. She likely won’t.

So, we are left then to hope she does right by the judicial system she serves. It looks to me as if setting the trial date is a step toward correctness.

Johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news, local news, State news

Next up: Paxton trial

The Texas Senate has adjourned for the time being, until it convenes in early September to take up another matter that has nothing to do with legislating.

It has everything to do with good government and whether Texas deserves an attorney general who isn’t always under investigation for this or that alleged criminal activity.

The trial of impeached Republican AG Ken Paxton will commence Sept. 5. The House impeached Paxton in a decisive, bipartisan vote. This week, the legal team leading the prosecution gained an important Republican member, former Texas Supreme Court Justice Harriet O’Neill.

O’Neill, who returned to private law practice in 2010, calls the charges against Paxton “clear, compelling and decisive,” and she is looking forward to joining the legal team prosecuting the attorney general.

The multiple articles of impeachment cover a wide range of allegations, including bribery, abuse of office, obstruction of justice. The notion that O’Neill has joined the team isn’t lost on those involved with the impeachment.

According to the Texas Tribune: State Rep. Andrew Murr, R-Junction, who leads the House General Investigating Committee and the Board of Impeachment Managers, called O’Neill a “respected, conservative jurist.”

“As a longtime judge and elected official, she understands the gravity of this matter and its importance to the state of Texas,” Murr said in a statement.

Harriet O’Neill, retired Republican justice, joins team impeaching Paxton | The Texas Tribune

Indeed. She is far from alone in honoring the pending trial’s “importance to the state.” If he’s convicted, Paxton’s disturbing tenure as the state’s chief law enforcer comes to a halt. He’s been under state indictment almost since Day One on a charge of securities fraud. A team of whistleblowers alleged criminal activity.

Texans deserve far better than what they are getting from the state’s top legal eagle.

The hurdle for conviction is high. Texas needs two-thirds of senators to vote to convict the AG. I am going to hope we can get past the Paxton Era and move ahead with an attorney general who isn’t stained and sullied by scandal and corruption.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, legal news

Prosecutor vs. Perpetrator

Watching the drama building as the prosecutor pursues the perpetrator, I cannot help but be struck by the profound differences in  the way these men act in public.

Let’s look first at the prosecutor. His name is Jack Smith, appointed special counsel to investigate alleged crimes committed by the perp.

Smith has been studied, measured, professional, discreet, reticent. He has been faithful to his pledge to grant the perp in this case the presumption of innocence to which he is entitled. Yet he has compiled an astonishing array of evidence that the perpetrator knew he lost an election in 2020 but tried to overturn the results. He also has assembled a mountain of evidence that the perp took highly classified documents to his home in Florida and kept them in highly unsecured locations.

The perpetrator is Donald John Trump, the former president of the United States.

Trump has been, well, shrill, venal, vile, deceitful, defamatory, profane, highly vocal in his objection to the investigation that has taken place. He ignores lawyers’ advice to keep his trap shut. He continues to denigrate the prosecutor’s reputation, asserting that Smith has it in for him. He’s also chosen to hurl epithets at Smith’s wife who, as near as I can tell, has nothing at all to do with the probe underway.

Even if I didn’t already believe that the perpetrator is guilty of the crimes for which he has been indicted, I would be rooting for the prosecutor. Why? Because I believe strongly in the criminal justice system for which the prosecutor is working. I believe in the rule of law.

The prosecutor is facing a form of competition, as has been reported, from local district attorneys who are conducting their own probes into the perp’s post-2020 election behavior. They, too, might file indictments alleging criminal activity involving the search for votes that didn’t exist and for attempts to coerce and bully state election officials to overturn an election.

Do we hear the prosecutor telling the local DA’s to back off? That they should let the feds have first crack? The prosecutor is a seasoned pro with many years of experience under his belt. Granted, the perp in this instance happens to be the first of his kind ever held under investigation … given that he is a former POTUS, for crying out loud!

But my money clearly is on the prosecutor to deliver the goods in due course.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

14th Amendment stands out

It appears that of all the 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment has emerged as the most discussed, most cited, most argued and arguably the most important of them all.

I’ve been following a host of legal and political battles for a long time. Just lately, though, it seems that the 14th Amendment keeps surfacing from the legal mumbo-jumbo that at times accompanies these discussions.

Let’s ponder a few notions, shall we?

Section 1 makes two important distinctions. One is that anyone born in the United States is granted citizenship upon birth. A Republican presidential candidate, Ron DeSantis, wants to remove that stipulation from the law. Section 1 also says all citizens are entitled to “equal protection under the law.” This clause has come into play in decisions — to cite one example — regarding gay marriage.

Section 3 declares that anyone who participates in sedition or an insurrection shall be denied the opportunity to seek public office at any level in this country. Hmm. Does that one sound familiar? It should. If Donald J. Trump is indicted for allegedly fomenting the insurrection of 1/6 and then is convicted in a trial, he cannot serve in any public office … ever!

Section 4 declares that the nation’s good faith and credit shouldn’t be messed with, giving the lie to the notion by the MAGA morons who sought to deny efforts to increase the nation’s debt ceiling. Failure to honor our debts would have plunged us into economic catastrophe.

All of this is my way of wondering: Do the MAGA cultists know a damn thing about the Constitution, the oaths of office they take to honor and protect it or the penalties they face if they fail to honor their oath?

I must remind them that they take that oath while placing their hand on a holy book. Thus, the oath is sacred, given the religious tenets to which the politicians claim to follow.

The framers didn’t craft the perfect government framework. It’s pretty damn inclusive and those wise men managed to cram many key provisions into a single amendment to the Constitution.

Moreover, if the MAGA nitwits had half a brain, they would understand that “constitutional absolutism” means they follow the document to the letter … or else.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com