Category Archives: crime news

crime news

Hunter Biden indicted … so?

What do we make of the three indictments handed down against Hunter Biden, son of the president of the United States?

Do they affect the president’s job directly? No. Do they draw Daddy Biden into Hunter’s web? No.

The indictments come from a grand jury in Delaware operating under the advice of a federal prosecutor appointed by Donald J. Trump. The indictments concern Hunter Biden’s illegal possession of a firearm and the alleged lie he told to obtain the weapon.

Hunter Biden was in the throes of a drug addiction. Federal law prohibits a drug addict from owning a firearm. Hunter Biden filled out a questionnaire that asked him if he had a drug problem. He said “no.” That was the wrong answer.

Yes, this is an embarrassment for the president. I have zero doubt that the MAGA spin machine is going to crank out all sorts of circumstances juxtaposing the president with the illegal conduct of his grown son.  It’s unfair, to be sure … but certainly not unexpected.

Make no mistake about this likely outcome, which is the 2024 presidential campaign just got a good bit murkier.

crime news

Conspiracists are salivating

When in the world are the conspiracy theorists among us going to stop fishing for a quarry that they cannot ever catch?

Or … put another way: When will they stop looking for a second gunman who took part in President Kennedy’s murder nearly 60 years ago in downtown Dallas?

A new book by a former Secret Service agent now proclaims to have evidence of a “magic bullet” that he found in the president’s limousine. Sigh …

Paul Mathis was on duty that day in Dallas and has written an account of what happened.

As the Dallas Morning News said in an editorial published this morning: The investigation that led to the much-criticized Warren Report speculated that the bullet in question passed through Kennedy’s neck, then pierced Texas Gov. John Connally’s back, exited his chest, and also wounded his wrist and thigh. The theory was partly informed by the fact that the bullet was found on a stretcher that may have been the one holding Connally at Parkland Memorial Hospital later that day. The theory held that the bullet came to rest in Connally’s body or clothing after its miraculous journey, and fell out as he was being treated on the stretcher.

I do not believe in conspiracies. Especially not anything related to this dark and horrible incident. I have long believed that Lee Harvey Oswald was capable — given his military training — of firing three bullets from a rifle while sitting on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository building on Nov. 22, 1963. I also believe he was capable of hitting the president with a fatal rifle shot.

What’s more, I also know that bullets do strange and unexplainable things once they pass through human tissue.

Whatever. These conspiracy theories will live long past all of us who are alive today. As the Morning News noted in its editorial: But in 60 years, no tantalizing detail has managed to provide reliable evidence of a conspiracy or a second gunman. None likely ever will.

crime news, legal news, national news

FBI says ‘no insurrection’? Hmm …

I have been schooled by a critic of this blog who tells me the FBI can find no evidence of an “organized plot” to overturn the 2020 presidential election result.

This, for instance, comes from the Daily Beast: Over 570 alleged rioters have been arrested since the storming of the U.S. Capitol in January—but the FBI has reportedly found little evidence that the riot was an organized plot to overturn Donald Trump’s election defeat.

All righty. I will accept that. I must have been looking the other way when the FBI made that determination. I never have declared myself to be all-knowing all the time.

But … what does any of that do to the case leveled against Donald Trump? In my mind? Not much.

The grand jury that examined the 1/6 assault on our government did not cite “insurrection” as a specific charge against Trump. It speaks to obstruction of justice and other assorted crimes allegedly attributable to the ex-POTUS.

I am going to stand with the findings — as I have understood them — of special counsel Jack Smith’s team that Trump impeded efforts to quell the violence that day.

Again, from the Daily Beast: Reuters reports that the FBI has so far found scant evidence to suggest that the riot was centrally coordinated by far-right groups, the former president himself, or his close allies. 

OK, then. However, no one can deny the attack occurred. Nor can anyone deny that Trump delivered a speech that morning on the Ellipse that stirred a lot of individuals up. Many of them were video- and audio-recorded saying they were acting at Trump’s behest, which he delivered to them on the Ellipse. Is that a “centrally coordinated” event? Not in the strict sense of the terminology.

However, he could have stopped it. He could have issued a statement urging the mob to go home. He could have taken to Twitter to issue that call. He didn’t do anything of the sort. He watched it unfold from the White House.

And did nothing!

Am I a bit wiser now about the FBI’s view of what happened? Sure I am. I also remain convinced that Donald Trump needs to be held accountable for his role in what transpired on that horrible day.

crime news, legal news

Ex-POTUS faces legal steamroller

My ego is in check, meaning that I am willing to acknowledge I am wrong far more frequently than I am right.

There. I’ve laid down my predicate for being able to boast just a little on something I said a while ago … which is that Donald Trump’s legal difficulties well might overwhelm his continuing campaign to become president once again.

Trump is facing the real prospect of being declared ineligible to run for president based on a clause in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that no one who engages in an insurrection or gives “aid and comfort” to those who do is ineligible to seek public office.

Legal scholars on all sides are coming to the same conclusion: The amendment is clear, that Trump did seek to overthrow the government and he damn sure gave aid and comfort to the job that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

The amendment makes no stipulation that says an insurrectionist must be convicted of a crime, only that the he or she participated in the act.

Boy howdy! Trump damn sure did participate.

The 14th Amendment was enacted just after the Civil War. Its aim was to prevent states from seceding and declaring war against the government.

To be clear, this matter is far from settled. There have been lawsuits filed and myriad court battles loom. This matter could up in the laps of the U.S. Supreme Court. I won’t pretend to predict how the SCOTUS would rule on this case. Its members include three Trump nominated justices, along with three other conservatives.

One final note. The calls for disqualification are coming from conservative lawyers and assorted legal scholars along with progressives. Maybe the right-wingers out here among the masses can beat some sense into the skulls of the six conservatives on the nation’s highest court.

Donald Trump, to be abundantly clear, is now engaged in the fight of his life.  I don’t know what y’all might think, but from my North Texas perch, he is looking more and more like a goner.

crime news

Impeach POTUS? For what?

I am still scratching my noggin over Republican efforts to launch an impeachment inquiry against President Biden.

My curiosity comes from this simple question: What are the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the president allegedly committed?

My quick answer: There aren’t any. My more complicated examination: The GOP is paying Democrats back for impeaching their guy, Donald Trump, twice for crimes he clearly committed while sitting in the office of the presidency.

Republicans want their retribution — if I can borrow that term from Trumps’ own glossary.

Trump infamously got Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the phone and asked him for a political favor in exchange for weaponry to use against a possible Russian invasion. Trump wanted Zelenskyy to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. The Constitution forbids such a thing. So, the House impeached Trump,

Then came the 1/6 assault on our government by the traitorous mob that acted at the behest of Trump. The House impeached him a second time.

You know how those impeachments turned out.

So now the House is pondering an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. It is looking for something, anything, to hang on Joe Biden.

Oh, is this where I mention that the president is seeking re-election in 2024? Is there any correlation between that and this phony impeachment inquiry? Looks like it to me.

One of the GOP zealots happens to be the Republican who represents the Third Congressional District in North Texas, Keith Self. He told a Farmersville gathering this week that he wants an inquiry but didn’t specify the charges that should be examined.

An impeachment inquiry against a president who has spent his entire professional life in public service looks like an exercise in revenge. This is what we get when we send zealous ideologues — rather than dedicated public servants — to Congress.

crime news

Baffled beyond belief

Let me be abundantly clear about the state of play in the upcoming 2024 presidential election campaign.

I cannot understand and never will accept how it is that a former POTUS, twice impeached while he was in office who now stands indicted on allegations that he committed 91 felony crimes remains the favorite among those who subscribe to a major political party.

And that they are poised to nominate him to run for the office he lost in the previous election even if he is convicted of any of the felonies. 

I need someone to explain to me how a voting public can be so ignorant and blind to the reality posed by the consequences of a potential conviction. The man could face a sentence of effectively serving the rest of his life in prison.

Still, he might be nominated by the Republican Party to run for the presidency … yet again!

What the hell is wrong with this picture?

Donald Trump remains the top candidate for the GOP presidential nomination. He won’t show up for presidential debates to face his gaggle of GOP primary foes. His legal team is seeking to stall the start of four criminal trials in which Trump is a criminal defendant.

He said if he’s elected to the presidency, that he will be “the retribution” of those who believe he has been done wrong. He would pardon himself and the 1/6 traitors who sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election by launching the assault on our Capitol Building.

Some of Trump’s primary foes say his conduct was abhorrent and wrong … but they’d still support him if he’s the nominee.

Good grief!

I stand behind my belief he won’t be nominated. He might not even be eligible to run for office, given the Constitution’s stipulation that anyone who commits an insurrection or gives “aid and comfort’ to those who do is disqualified.

How in the world, though, have we come to the point where this is even a discussion topic?

crime news, legal news, local news

Paxton trial about to begin … bring it!

A source I have developed at a major Texas university told me this week — off the record — about what he thinks might happen when Ken Paxton stands trial in the Texas Senate for high crimes and misdemeanors he allegedly committed while serving as Texas attorney general.

My source said it’s a tough call, “but right now I’d say he gets acquitted.” He said the Senate’s partisan makeup, with 18 Republicans and 12 Democrats, likely could save Paxton from being kicked out of office if he is convicted of any of the crimes alleged against him.

“But that could change” once the trial begins,” my friend said.

The Texas House impeached Paxton in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote; many House Republicans joined their Democratic colleagues in impeaching Paxton based on the unanimous recommendation of the House committee tasked with examining the myriad complaints against Paxton.

The panel ruled that Paxton took a bribe from a key campaign ally and abused the power of his office to conceal an extramarital affair.

The Senate trial begins Tuesday. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Senate and the trial, imposed a sweeping gag order on senators, a decision I happen to endorse. The bar is set high for conviction, as the Senate needs a two-thirds vote to toss Paxton out of office.

The impeachment managers have brought in some heavy hitters to serve as legal counsel for the prosecution. Paxton’s legal team has asked that all but one of the 30-plus counts in the impeachment articles be dismissed.

I am one Texan who wants the AG tossed out, if only to rid the state of the constant embarrassment this clown brings to the law enforcement office he oversees.

Are there enough Republicans in the Senate who will join their Democratic colleagues in making the same decision, that they are fed up with the conduct of an attorney general who brings shame to the high office he occupies?

Let us hope so.

crime news, legal news

GOP governor puts brakes on anti-DA bandwagon

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a dedicated Republican to be sure, has intervened in fine fashion against an effort by fellow Georgia Republicans to clip the wings of a district attorney who has engineered an indictment against Donald J. Trump.

Fulton County DA Fani Willis has become public enemy No. 1 in the eyes of Georgia Republicans who want her booted out of office. They are acting on a law that gives the state legislature the power to strike back against a prosecutor who is doing her job.

Not so fast, said Gov. Kemp, who today put the kibosh in any notion that the state constitution allows such punitive action against an elected district attorney.

Georgia’s General Assembly GOP caucus said it believes Willis has politicized the judicial process by indicting Trump on charges that he sought to defraud the federal government in an effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

What utter horsesh**!

Kemp said he will not allow the legislature to act on this specious notion. He said Willis has followed the law and the state constitution. Therefore, her decision to ask the grand jury to indict Trump will stand.

And the trial will proceed.

crime news, Donald Trump, legal news

Trump won’t testify … ever!

All this chatter I keep hearing from TV news talking heads about the possibility of Donald Trump testifying in any of the criminal trials awaiting him makes me want to laugh out loud.

Let’s settle the issue once and for all: Donald Trump will not testify in any of these trials. Why not? Because he cannot tell the truth. Thus, he becomes a candidate for perjury.

Trump cannot tell the truth about his involvement with the Jan. 6 assault on our government. He cannot speak truthfully about how he squirreled away those classified documents from the White House. He cannot speak truthfully about the co-defendants who also have been indicted.

Imagine him putting his hand on a holy book and swearing to tell the “truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

It won’t happen. No judge worth a damn is going to summon Trump to court and demand that he tell the truth.

Donald Trump cannot comply with a judge’s order.

crime news, legal news

A trial for the ages?

Let’s not pussyfoot around the obvious, which is that any of the four trials awaiting Donald J. Trump can be categorized as the “most significant legal proceeding in U.S. history.”

Every one of them will make history. They will become trials for the ages. They likely will be included in the first line of the obituary written for the individual who will stand trial.

Donald J. Trump is the first former president of the United States to be indicted for allegedly committing felony crimes against the government he swore an oath to defend and protect.

He is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. My sense, though, is that state and federal prosecutors have done their jobs well enough to secure convictions perhaps on all the charges leveled against Trump. How many of them are there? Ninety-one!

Did any of us ever imagine seeing a former POTUS stand trial for seeking to overturn an election and obstructing the peaceful transfer of power after he lost that election? I damn sure never imagined it.

The trials that have been set constitute the most meaningful court proceedings this country ever has witnessed. We cannot possibly overstate what they will mean to the future of our democratic republic.