Tag Archives: DOJ

national news

Damned if he does … or doesn’t

1 Comment

Merrick Garland is facing a serious case of twin damnation as he ponders whether to seek a criminal indictment against Donald J. Trump in the matter pertaining to that insurrection that the former POTUS incited.

The attorney general is going to balance his commitment to the law with the obvious pressure he will feel from both ends of the great divide.

The House of Representatives select committee that is looking at the insurrection, its aftermath, its cause and its result is going to decide whether to refer criminal charges to the Justice Department.

What does the AG do?

He will face certain recrimination no matter what he decides.

If AG Garland decides to prosecute Trump on, say, conspiracy to commit sedition, he will face the wrath of the far right and the Trump cultists. They’ll wave the “witch hunt” banner and proclaim that the “far left Democrat Party” is out to get their guy.

If, however, he decides against charging Trump with a crime, he will face the wrath of others who believe the president should not be allowed to walk away … again! I mean, he did skate through two impeachment trials and it well might be that a third successful avoidance of accountability could be too much for some of us to handle.

Then again, the attorney general could indict Trump on a host of lesser charges, which I am sure would bring its share of teeth-gnashing as well.

This is sort of my way of saying that I would not want to be in Merrick Garland’s place at this moment in history.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

AG faces mind-numbing concerns

This is why U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland is getting the big bucks, man.

These hearings before the House 1/6 select committee examining the insurrection are producing a mountain of evidence against Donald Trump. What is an attorney general to do about this?

Sigh …

There appears to be a school of thought developing that any decision by Garland to forgo a criminal prosecution of Trump carries at least as much grief for the AG as a prosecution. Indeed, the cost of doing nothing might be greater than the blow back that will come if Garland takes this case to a grand jury, which then could indict Trump.

On what? Seditious conspiracy is possible. Dereliction of duty is another. Interfering with election officials’ conduct, too.

I thought the sedition accusation might be the most difficult to prove. I am not sure about that today. I mean — wow! — the dude and his key staff knew all hell was likely to break loose on 1/6. They did nothing!

Merrick Garland is a man of impeccable character. I am likely to accept whatever he decides, even though a no-go on prosecuting Trump is going to make me grit my teeth real hard.

He said he will follow the law all the way to the top. I will take him at his word. It’s looking more and more to me as though we are going to watch all hell breaking loose once again once the AG examines that mountain of evidence in front of him.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Keeping faith in AG

You have read on this blog that I trust Attorney General Merrick Garland implicitly to carry out his duties as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

Now that I have reaffirmed that trust, I feel compelled to say the following: I will place my trust that the AG will follow the law in its strictest sense and will make a determination on whether to prosecute Donald Trump based solely on what the law allows him to do.

Put another way: I will accept, albeit with gritted teeth, a decision to forgo a criminal indictment against the former president.

I happen to believe fully in our federal legal system. It’s not that I don’t recognize flaws in prosecution when I see them. Bear in mind, though, that I am the farthest thing imaginable from a lawyer. My mind isn’t trained in the legal intricacies of criminal or civil investigation.

So, when a top-tier lawyer — such as Merrick Garland — goes through the rigorous process of determining whether a former president of the U.S. should be prosecuted for crimes, I am left only to accept whatever decision the AG has reached.

I suppose I should stipulate that my layman’s noodle has concluded that Trump has committed crimes against the government. He bullied the Georgia secretary of state to “find” enough votes to steal the state’s electoral votes from Joe Biden; he knew of plans seat fake electors on 1/6; Trump incited the insurrection that sought to “hang Mike Pence”; Trump knew all that he sought to do was illegal, but he insisted on pursuing The Big Lie.

The question for Merrick Garland, as near as I can tell, is this: Can we convict this guy? The attorney general cannot afford to let Trump slither away should he indict him. Indeed, the nation’s governing process cannot afford to have Trump hanging around out there, sowing discord and distrust in our electoral system.

I believe Donald J. Trump is guilty of high crimes against the government. However, I am not pursuing this. The AG, a learned man of impeccable character, is riding in the hottest seat imaginable.

I hope he reaches the correct conclusion. If he decides to go another way, well, he will put my faith in our federal system to a stern test.

It will remain strong.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Don’t swing and miss, Mr. AG!

Chris Christie, the former Republican governor of New Jersey and ex-federal prosecutor, has issued a stern warning to the 1/6 House select committee.

It is that if it recommends criminal charges should be filed against Donald J. Trump for his role in inciting the insurrection on 1/6, it had better have it buttoned up and secure for a conviction.

The committee — or Attorney General Merrick Garland — cannot afford to “swing and miss” on this matter if an indictment is to be issued.

Christie, a one-time Donald Trump GOP presidential primary opponent who then became an ally of the POTUS, possesses strong opinions and is able to articulate them sharply and cogently.

He does not believe that Merrick Garland ultimately is going to seek a criminal indictment against Trump. Why? It carries too much risk of a failed prosecution, Christie said this past weekend.

I agree with Chrisie on one point: The House panel and the attorney general cannot afford to get this one wrong. I will disagree, if only nominally, with whether Garland is going to wimp out on seeking an indictment.

Merrick Garland, to my eyes, appears to be a careful lawyer. He is studious and fair, or so his friends have said about him. He also is meticulous and careful to dot every “i” and cross every “t” before proceeding.

That makes me believe an indictment, if it comes, will be ironclad.

That is my hope … and I’m sticking with it to the finish line.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

So many ‘what ifs’

Games of “what if” at times fill my noggin with thoughts that require some analysis. My skull is filling up at this moment with a number of “what if” scenarios relating to the probe of the 1/6 insurrection.

What if Attorney General Merrick Garland decides to indict Donald J. Trump on seditious conspiracy charges? My hunch is that he would need to fast-track a trial in a hurry, to get it done prior to the start of the 2024 Republican Party presidential primary season.

What if the AG indicts Trump but doesn’t have full confidence that he can obtain a conviction? Garland would be tempting fate beyond all reasonable measure if that’s the case.

What if the AG decides, “I cannot bring an indictment forward”? He then becomes, in the words of a dear friend, “The Neville Chamberlain of the insurrection.” Chamberlain was the British prime minister who stood by and allowed Adolf Hitler in 1938 to annex the Sudetenland and then Czechoslovakia on the eve of World War II. Garland might be tarred for life if he doesn’t hold Trump accountable for what I believe he did on 1/6.

What if U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney loses her GOP primary election in Wyoming? The courageous congresswoman who voted to impeach Trump becomes a lame duck. Then she dons the brass knuckles as she fires up her rhetoric.

Finally, what if Donald John Trump gets convicted of seditious conspiracy?

He’s done as a political force … which would please me greatly.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Barr: too late with the truth

I wanted to believe the best in William Barr, even going to back to when Donald Trump appointed him to be U.S. attorney general. Barr had served as AG during the George H.W. Bush administration and I long thought of him as a man of principle.

Silly me. He turned out to be a Trump toadie during his second stint as attorney general.

Now we hear from Barr during those taped depositions he gave to the House 1/6 committee that he believed Trump’s claim of vote fraud in the 2020 presidential election were “bullsh**.” Oh my goodness! He’s telling the truth! Finally!

I wanted to give him kudos for telling the House panel what it needed to hear. Then I thought: Not so fast; this guy shoulda said as much long ago, when Trump first threw out the vote fraud canard.

Instead, Barr remained quiet. He even seemed on at least two occasions to endorse the notion that the 2020 presidential election had been infected by fraudulent ballot-casting.

Yes, there is probative value in what Barr has declared. I’ll give him that much. However, I will not hold this man up as a paragon of judicial virtue for telling the House panel what he should have revealed to the public long ago.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

My mind is made up

I don’t want the House hearings to end just yet; I want to hear more from the witnesses summoned by the select 1/6 committee.

This much seems clear to me: My mind is made up. It is settled in my own noggin that Donald J. Trump deserves to be prosecuted for seditious conspiracy, as he plotted to block the “peaceful transition” from his administration to the Joe Biden administration after the 2020 presidential election.

Truth be told, I really don’t need to hear any more from the witnesses. However, I want to hear more.

I must have some sort of political bloodlust coming into play. Well, I don’t care. I have the luxury of passing judgment without hearing all the facts, unlike Attorney General Merrick Garland and his team of prosecutors who are listening to every word during the hearings.

Do I believe AG Garland will do as I wish? I am not going to predict what Garland will do. I know, though, that were I in charge of the Justice Department, I would be drafting criminal complaints to deliver to a grand jury. I then would be preparing my arguments to grand jurors, seeking to persuade them to issue a “true bill” that means an indictment would come forth.

Let’s await the end of this televised portion of the hearings.

I will pray for discernment and wisdom from the Attorney General Garland and hope that it leads him to do what I hope he will do: Indict and then prosecute fully the former president of the United States for seeking inciting an insurrection against the government he swore he would “protect and defend.”

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

Waiting now to see what AG will do

We are all going to know in due course — but it won’t occur within the next few days — what lurks inside the head and the heart of the U.S. attorney general, Merrick Garland.

The House select committee examining the insurrection that occurred on 1/6 is going to make a decision after it concludes its testimony-taking from witnesses who saw what happened in the White House on that hideous day.

Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney more or less let it be known what the panel is thinking, which is that Donald J. Trump was criminally liable for what he did to provoke the traitorous mob into attacking the Capitol Building. What Trump did that day, Cheney said, was “illegal” and “immoral.” The illegal part lies at the crux of what Garland is facing.

If the committee determines that the 45th POTUS committed an illegal act, then it falls onto Garland to decide whether the Justice Department should charge him with committing a felony.

It’s never been done before. Thus, AG Garland is facing an unprecedented quandary. Garland has declared he will follow the facts wherever they lead. If they lead his legal team into the Oval Office that day, well, that means an indictment is a cinch.

Garland strikes many of as a careful, thoughtful man, one who is not prone to embark on half-baked fishing expeditions just to make a political point.

You know what I want to see happen. In truth, though, the desires of the public should mean nothing to Garland as he ponders what he should do.

I just want to remind everyone about a fundamental truth that has been repeated publicly to the point of it becoming almost cliche. It is that “no one — not even the president of the United States — is above the law.”

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

We need answers! Now!

1 Comment

So help me, I could not believe my eyes when I read that the Uvalde police officials at the center of an investigation into what happened in that South Texas community a few days ago had stopped cooperating with state and federal authorities.

Specifically, the stonewalling appears to be occurring within the ranks of the Uvalde Independent School District police department and its chief, Pete Arredondo, who reportedly has gone missing for the past several days.

Meanwhile, rumors and gossip are flying all over the place about what went so terribly wrong with the police response as the lunatic shooter opened fire in a Robb Elementary School classroom, killing 19 precious children and two of their teachers.

A grief-stricken community is demanding answers from the chief. It wants to know why he waited so horribly long to “neutralize” the shooter. It seeks to know whether the department was on site with resource officers. Now come questions about a door that was closed, but not locked.

There appears to be a boatload of deception going on about the response. The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation. The Department of Public Safety and its investigative arm, the Texas Rangers, are on the case, too.

Meanwhile, we have a Uvalde ISD chief of police who’s hiding in the weeds. Come out from your hiding place, Chief Arredondo, and talk to the community you took an oath to protect and serve.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

DOJ getting serious? Well …

The U.S. Justice Department has asked the 1/6 House select committee for transcripts. Lots of transcripts. They are taken from testimony collected by the panel in the search for the truth behind the insurrection and the riot that sought to undercut a free, fair and legal presidential election.

I can hear the progressives jumping for joy even from out here in Flyover Country. Fine. Let ’em jump.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has said time and again that he wouldn’t be bullied, coerced, pushed and prodded into acting prematurely in his search for the truth behind what Donald Trump knew on 1/6 and what he did or didn’t do to stop the rioters.

I am taking the AG at his word, which I consider to be quite honorable.

He also has pledged to follow the law “wherever it leads.” That means if he finds enough to recommend an indictment of the former POTUS, then that’s what he’ll do.

Let’s first try to get our arms around what Garland is trying to do. He is trying to gather information to help him determine what to do with it all. If there’s enough to indict Donald Trump, he’ll proceed. If there isn’t enough to do so, well, he’ll proceed down that particular path.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party keeps yapping that Garland is moving too slowly. I wish they would keep their traps shut and let the man take care of business in the way that will guarantee a thorough outcome.

I trust the attorney general implicitly to conduct his investigation with due diligence and professionalism. That he is seeking transcripts from the 1/6 committee tells me the AG might be getting closer to making a key decision on the future of the 45th president of the United States.

My hope is that the future forestalls any effort for the ex-POTUS to seek public office ever again. Then again, I am not the individual in charge of making that call. I’ll leave it that matter to Attorney General Merrick Garland.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com