Category Archives: crime news

crime news, legal news

‘No one is above the law’

Merrick Garland has proven to be a man of his word, which some might suggest is a rare thing to behold in this contemporary world of public service.

The U.S. attorney general has told us time and again — and then some more — that “no one is above the law.” By “no one,” he means what precisely he said. No … one!

Not even a former president of the United States.

It is with that I want to salute the AG for signing off on a matter that indicted Donald J. Trump on seven counts relating to his pilfering of classified documents from the White House.

Garland appointed special counsel Jack Smith to complete the probe into Trump’s taking of those documents. Smith and his team found a treasure trove of evidence, starting with the documents themselves and aided with public statements bellowed from the ex-POTUS himself.

Donald Trump in effect sealed his own fate with his careless blathering about what he said he was “entitled” to take. He was entitled to take nothing from the White House. He did anyway. He also lied to the FBI about what he had returned and lied continually about the significance of the documents he had in his possession.

The attorney general has held the former POTUS accountable for his actions, to which I would add … it is about damn time!

As for his being faithful to his pledge that “no one is above the law,” that is worthy of the highest praise I can muster.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, legal news, national news

‘No-name’ makes history

I would be willing to pay real American money to someone who could prove to me he or she knew who Jack Smith was when Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed him special counsel to examine the charges leveled against Donald J. Trump.

Well, this no-name “tough and dogged” federal prosecutor has made history in a major way by indicting Trump on seven counts related to the ex-POTUS’s squirreling away of classified documents at the end of his term in office.

Roll this around for just a moment. We now have the former commander in chief, the former head of the U.S. government’s executive branch being charged by that very branch of government on felony charges that could put the ex-POTUS in prison for the rest of his miserable life.

The Justice Department’s charges are serious, man. I have no idea what it all means to the political calculus in play as Trump campaigns for the presidency in 2024. The legality, though, is as clear as it gets.

And for crying out loud, spare me the “politicization” argument that is going to come from the MAGA crowd. Trump is going to make this a political case. He is going to accuse DOJ of “election interference.” Imagine, too, the hideously rich irony of Trump claiming election interference … given that he is the King of Election Interference!

Jack Smith has done precisely what Merrick Garland asked of him. He did it with professionalism, steely resolve and a commitment to the rule of law.

He now has become a household name. Who knew?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

Charges coming soon?

1 Comment

I no longer rely on my trick knee to give me clues on what might occur, so I am going to lean heavily on the media to project what might be about to happen.

The media are reporting that criminal charges are coming soon — as in perhaps this week — involving the former president of the United States and his squirreling of classified documents away as he left the White House in January 2021.

Oh, how I do hope the media are correct.

Special counsel Jack Smith met today with Donald Trump’s lawyers. The grand jury that has been impaneled to consider whether to indict the ex-POTUS is meeting this week. Trump’s legal team sought to make a last-minute appeal to Smith to not indict Trump. The grand jury is now looking at the mountain of evidence Smith has accumulated.

Is an indictment possible? I do believe that’s the case. It’s more than possible. It appears to be a cinch.

Let the process continue.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

Will the ex-POTUS implode?

As I watch the media cover the myriad investigations into Donald J. Trump, I am left to wonder this about the former president of the United States:

How is he going to react when — and I have no doubt that it will occur — the special counsel indicts him for felony crimes? Will he lose what is left of his mind? Will he say something we could deem as a direct physical threat to the special counsel, Jack Smith? If he does, will the feds then decide on the spot to arrest him for issuing such a threat?

I am growing increasingly concerned about Trump’s behavior as news keeps leaking about the state of Smith’s probe. Trump is running for POTUS again, but as a candidate under federal — and state — investigations, he places himself in considerable jeopardy by shooting off his pie hole.

This guy not only cannot tell the truth. He also cannot control himself. He doesn’t heed lawyers’ advice to stop talking about these legal matters. On and on he goes, blathering lie after lie.

My goodness. He has admitted to others that he kept “classified documents,” despite denying he did the obvious.  Trump then offered a jaw-dropping response to a question as to whether he told anyone about the documents: “Not really,” he said.

Huh? What the … ?

He has given the special counsel the ammo he needs to unload on the former POTUS when the time comes to indict him.

Back to my question: What will he do the moment he hears that Smith has asked the grand jury to indict him?

This individual’s behavior suggests to me that we need to watch him ver-r-r-r-ry carefully.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

Believe in the system

James Comey has come out of a form of hiding by writing a book of fiction and today was on the air promoting that book.

I want to discuss briefly, though, something that the former FBI director told an MSNBC interviewer about the lengthy, complicated and elaborate examination of allegations leveled against Donald J. Trump.

Comey said today that he believes in the system that is seeking the truth behind the insurrection of 1/6 and on the issue of those classified documents that Trump took with him to Florida when he left office.

The 1/6 insurrection might — or might not — result in a criminal indictment against Trump, according to Comey, who then added that he would accept a “no indictment” decision. Why? Because it’s his belief in the system.

I happen to agree with Comey’s belief in the system that is at work. I have stated already on this blog that if special counsel Jack Smith’s team cannot produce enough evidence to indict Trump on the insurrection — and it is a complicated case, to be sure — then we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that the ex-POTUS won’t be charged.

Now, to be clear, that doesn’t in any way suggest that Trump will walk away from the classified documents probe. Comey said today what others have been saying for some time, that the documents case is the stronger one that Smith is finishing.

We also have the Fulton County, Ga., probe into election interference and the indictment already delivered by the Manhattan, N.Y., grand jury involving the hush money payment to an adult film performer who says she and Trump had a fling in 2006, but that Trump paid her 130 grand to keep quiet … about an event he denies ever occurred! Go figure.

I am not going to join the conspiracy chorus that suggests only an indictment would satisfy them. Do I think Trump should be prosecuted for the insurrection I believe he instigated? Yes!

However, the probe is being handled by seasoned, experienced and hard-bitten pros. It’s their call exclusively. Therefore, I will place my trust in them to come to a just conclusion … even if I disagree with their findings.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

Recuse yourself, Sen. Paxton

2 Comments

Of the 31 individuals serving in the Texas Senate, the hottest seat in the place happens to be the one occupied by the spouse of a man about to stand trial for an array of alleged criminal acts.

Sen. Angela Paxton, a McKinney Republican, is married to Attorney General Ken Paxton, whom the House impeached Saturday in a stunningly overwhelming vote of 121-25.

AG Paxton has been accused of bribery, securities fraud, doing political favors for friends, malfeasance, obstruction of justice … and even a charge related to an alleged extramarital affair!

Angela Paxton ought to recuse herself from any vote she would be asked to cast on determining whether her husband stays in office.

My reasoning is a bit complicated, but I’ll try to explain.

Two-thirds of Texas senators need to vote to convict the AG. Republicans occupy 19 seats; Democrats sit in 12 of them. Paxton’s recusal gives the GOP an 18-12 majority, meaning that just eight Republicans need to cast votes to convict Paxton for him to be shown the door and thus, be barred from ever holding another public office.

Here’s where it gets mighty complicated. Ken Paxton is, in effect, a criminal defendant. How does he go home to his wife every day and not talk about how his day is going? How does he avoid talking about the case presented by the House impeachment managers? How does he, thus, avoid talking to a potential juror who will decide his political fate?

That would be, um, jury tampering … yes?

My thought? It’s too big a temptation to avoid. Therefore, Sen. Paxton needs to pull herself out of the jury pool and let her colleagues make this decision.

We witnessed a stunning bit of theater this weekend in Austin. Republicans in the Legislature have led the charge to bring impeachment proceedings forward. The House’s shattering vote to impeach the attorney general gives me reason to believe the Senate is capable of following suit.

Sen. Paxton’s recusal would lower the Senate bar just a bit, but it would be enough to give AG Paxton reason to sweat bullets.

The old Chinese proverb has never been truer … that we truly are “living in interesting times.”

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

Check these out

Holy smokes, man! I have not a single to add to the link I am going to send along on this blog post.

It contains all 20 articles of impeachment being considered in the Texas House of Representatives against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Take your time, if you have it, and read these counts carefully.

They will, um, blow … your … mind.

Here are the 20 articles of impeachment filed against Ken Paxton | The Texas Tribune

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

Reckoning arrives for Texas GOP

A moment of profound reckoning has just fallen out of the sky and landed squarely in the laps of Texas’s Republican legislators as they now must deal with whether to impeach a member of their party who happens to be the state’s attorney general.

Ken Paxton has been recommended for impeachment by the House General Investigations Committee, which has three Republicans and two Democrats serving. The panel voted unanimously to recommend that Paxton be impeached on allegations of egregious misconduct within his office.

This is, to borrow a phrase, a “big … deal.” You know?

Paxton has been operating under suspicious cloud cover ever since he took office in 2015. A Collin County grand jury indicted him for securities fraud that year. Then some whistleblowing lawyers in the AG’s office quit, citing allegations of bribery and mishandling of cases involving political donors.

Then Paxton settled with the lawyers and was ordered to pay $3.3 million. Only he wants taxpayers to foot the bill. That drew immediate push back from House Speaker Dade Phelan, a Republican from Beaumont, who said Texas taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for Paxton’s settlement.

Then Paxton fired back, saying Phelan should resign, accusing the speaker of being drunk on the job.

The intraparty conflict has exploded into a full-blown firefight.

The task before the House GOP caucus is whether they want to join their 64 Democratic colleagues in impeaching the AG. As the Texas Tribune reports, the GOP caucus has been mostly silent about Paxton’s woes. Until now.

Even some of Paxton’s friends in the House and Senate now are taking a quieter approach to speaking out on this matter.

Republican-led effort to impeach Ken Paxton is a seismic political shift | The Texas Tribune

The ground is shaking and rattling under everyone’s feet in Austin these days. Ken Paxton, to my way of thinking, has shamed his office. No AG can function effectively as the state’s top law enforcer with the suspicion that has dogged Ken Paxton from the get-go.

We have a terrible mess on our hands and to my way of thinking, it is time for the House — and then the Senate — to do its job by impeaching the attorney general and then tossing him out of office with a conviction.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

Will he end up in cuffs and leg irons?

When I hear this chatter from a former president’s lawyers that the ex-POTUS could serve time in prison, my thoughts turn immediately to a friend I haven’t seen in more than two decades.

His name is Peter and he lives in Australia. He has been saying ever since the crap hit the fan on the former president that he truly envisions the sight of the former president being hauled away in handcuffs and leg irons.

That he committed such egregious crimes as president and as an immediate past president that the feds will have no choice but to indict him, put him on trial and then, if convicted, haul his overfed backside off to the slammer.

Peter and I communicate often, discussing the affairs of our respective governments. I concede openly that he is more dialed in to what’s happening here than I am with what is occurring in Canberra. Indeed, the stakes involving the former president would send shock waves worldwide if he is convicted of felonies.

For us, the notion of sending an ex-POTUS to prison is all but anathema. For those around the world, in other democratic nations, it’s happened already.

France has imprisoned a former president; so has Peru. Other leaders of less-free governments have faced criminal charges and have served time as well.

Such a thing would be unfathomable — in many Americans’ eyes — if the criminal defendant is a former president of the United States.

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a hard-nosed seasoned prosecutor to take over the twin probes involving Donald Trump’s role in the 1/6 assault on our government and the squirreling away of classified documents he took from the White House as he was preparing to leave office.

The smart money seems to suggest that the special counsel, Jack Smith, has wrapped up his documents investigation. He is going to indict the ex-president soon on serious federal charges that could — if he’s convicted — put the ex-POTUS behind bars possibly for the rest of his life. I mean, he is 76 years of age.

What’s more, none of this involves the state prosecutors’ investigations into his trying to overturn election results in Georgia and his indictment on charges that he misspent campaign funds to keep a porn star quiet about a fling she alleges the two of them had in 2006.

I hope my friend reads this blog. So, to him I want to say: It looks more possible than ever that your wish well could come true.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

See ya in the slammer, Stewart Rhodes

Stewart Rhodes, the North Texan who helped mastermind the 1/6 insurrection, is now going to get to spend 18 years in federal prison.

How many ways can I say I applaud the sentence that came from the federal judge?

Rhodes remains defiant, of course! He calls himself a “political prisoner” even though a jury convicted him of seditious conspiracy. Let us look at what sedition entails.

It is to “incite rebellion” against the government. Which is what occurred on 1/6. Rhodes, a one-time lawyer, is the founder of the Oath Keepers organization, a right-wing mob of goons who believe that Donald Trump should have remained president even though he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.

The Oath Keepers, led by Rhodes, sought to engineer a coup on 1/6. They failed.

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes gets 18 years for Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy – POLITICO

Eighteen years in the slammer is a long time. My fond hope is that Rhodes serves every damn bit of it. Rhodes is the latest 1/6 ringleader to be held accountable for his disgraceful behavior on that day.

I’ll leave it to the presiding judge to put a cap on this commentary: “You, sir, present an ongoing threat and a peril to this country, to the republic and to the very fabric of our democracy,” said U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who described Rhodes as a uniquely powerful threat to democracy on 1/6. “You are smart, you are compelling, and you are charismatic. Frankly, that is what makes you dangerous.”

Lock him up!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com