Tag Archives: DOJ

legal news

Is there an indictment in Trump’s future?

If we are to believe the New York Times reporting on this matter — and I do, generally — then it appears that Donald J. Trump will dodge the indictment bullet in the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

The newly installed DA, Aaron Bragg, appears to be closing up shop in his investigation into the Trump Organization’s business dealings. Many of his chief assistant prosecutors have quit the office. Bragg isn’t inclined to pursue the former POTUS any further.

Now, does that forestall a probe being conducted by New York Attorney General Letitia James? Hah! Hardly.

However, it could be argued that without the NYC prosecutor’s office going full tilt on its investigation, the AG’s office might be caught with fewer evidence-gathering tools at its disposal.

Nor does this mean that the 1/6 investigation ongoing in the U.S. House of Representatives is going to flicker out and die. House intel committee chairman Bennie Thompson plans to commence public hearings in June on his panel’s probe into the insurrection. U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland is standing by with possible plans to take legal action against all sorts of players from the Trump administration. Hmm, maybe even against The Donald himself?

Oh, one more thing. We have that probe going on down yonder in Fulton County, Ga., where legal eagles are investigating whether Trump broke state law by demanding election officials to “find” enough votes to turn that state’s 2020 presidential electoral result from Joe Biden to Trump.

The plot is still pretty damn thick, even if the Manhattan DA is bowing out.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

International news, legal news

AG faces immense pressure

Merrick Garland has put a brave face on an investigation he is conducting into the activities of the 45th president of the United States. I get that the U.S. attorney general doesn’t want to give away his game plan, but I want to flesh out a couple of issues the AG is facing.

Garland is being pressured by congressional Democrats and some within the White House to hurry up his probe into what Donald Trump did and did not do during the 1/6 insurrection. He says he won’t buckle under the pressure. I hope he holds true to his pledge. However, is he able to withstand it?

Garland would set an astonishing precedent were he to seek to indict a former POTUS. It’s never happened in the history of this republic. Given the precedent-setting nature of such a proceeding, it seems only natural that the AG would want to ensure that he dots every “i” and crosses every “t” properly, that he leaves no doubt of the validity of an indictment, were he to seek it.

To be absolutely certain, indicting a former president would enrage the significant — but reportedly shrinking — base of voters who continue to cling to Donald Trump’s standing as the leading Republican in the nation.

AG Merrick Garland is every bit as human as anyone else. Thus, he feels the heat. Whether it will determine the course he follows remains one of the key questions of the moment. Indeed, Garland has pledged to “follow the law wherever it leads.” OK. I am on board with that.

The stakes of where this probe might take us all, though, requires that the attorney general get it right. Thus, the calls for a hurry-up job appear to be self-defeating … which could inflict possibly mortal wounds on our democratic process and the rule of law.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

Get off the AG’s back!

Allow me this additional demand of congressional Democrats and even some within the White House who are getting — allegedly! — annoyed with the pace of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s examination of the 1/6 insurrection and whether he intends to file charges against the former president of the United States of America.

Let the man do his job!

Democrats in Congress are reportedly peeved that Garland isn’t moving quickly enough. They want to see The Donald brought before the Bar of Justice for inciting the 1/6 insurrection and for doing nothing to stop it when it was occurring on Capitol Hill. Hey, so do I want to see the former A**hole in Chief brought to account for his action and inaction.

However, I am going to stand with the AG on this one. He said he won’t be pressured by Congress or by the White House to finish his task before he is ready to declare it finished.

Garland is on record many times already declaring he won’t be pushed, prodded or pressured by political forces. I am OK with that.

His career as a judge prior to becoming attorney general was marked by steady-as-you-go deliberation. What is so wrong with that as he works diligently with his staff of legal eagles at the Justice Department to ensure that they have all their ducks lined up before making a public decision?

Let us not lose sight of what else is at stake. Indicting a former president on felony criminal charges would set an astonishing precedent. Don’t you think? The AG must get it right and getting it right makes it imperative he run every trap he can find before delivering the goods.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Let the AG do his job

Congressional Democrats are grumbling about the pace that Attorney General Merrick Garland is setting as he considers whether to indict The Donald for alleged crimes committed during the transfer of power from the Trump administration to the Biden administration.

And whether The Donald committed crimes by, oh, inciting the insurrection and blocking efforts to allow the winner of the 2020 presidential election to take power as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution … the document that The Donald has never read, nor understands.

I believe we ought to let the AG do his job at the pace he determines is fitting for what he intends to accomplish.

Garland has pledged — and I believe he is an honorable man — to follow the law wherever it leads him. If he has enough to prosecute the former POTUS, he is going to do it. He won’t be swayed, he said, by political favor or by public opinion.

The grumbling among Democrats is intended, I believe, to push Garland to speed the process along.

Give it a rest, eh? The attorney general is a seasoned, experienced and fair-minded legal pro. Do I want there to be enough to prosecute Donald J. Trump? Absolutely, I do.

It’s not my call. Nor is it anyone else’s call.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Trump ‘will be charged’

Let’s stipulate something up front: Glenn Kirschner is no friend of Donald J. Trump. Indeed, Kirschner is a noted critic of the ex-POTUS and someone who speaks frequently and loudly about why he detests the idea of Donald Trump ever holding the office of president.

However … Kirschner is an experienced prosecuting attorney who once served in that capacity for the U.S. Army. He said today that after listening to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s remarks on National Public Radio that The Donald is facing criminal conspiracy charges from the Department of Justice.

Newsweek reported:

“We begin with the cases that are right in front of us with the overt actions and then we build from there,” the attorney general said. “And that is a process that we will continue to build until we hold everyone accountable who committed criminal acts with respect to January 6.”

Hundreds of Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol after the then-president at a nearby rally urged them to march to the federal legislative building and to “fight like hell.” More than 780 of Trump’s supporters have been indicted for their actions that day, with some saying in court that they believed they were carrying out Trump’s orders.

Then Kirschner posted this item via Twitter:  “Accordingly, the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from AG Garland’s promise is that . . . TRUMP. WILL. BE. CHARGED. Because #JusticeMatters.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-will-be-charged-kirschner-concludes-after-ag-garland-s-remarks/ar-AAUU2Im?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

I am not a lawyer (duh, obviously!) but I am going to presume that an experienced barrister can detect nuance that goes over the heads of us laypeople.

Garland has promised to follow the law wherever it leads. He also has pledged to never let politics guide any decision he makes on behalf of the federal agency he leads. I believe AG Garland is an honorable man and that he will obey the oath he took and will keep the promise he has made.

If the path he follows leads him to The Donald’s doorstep, then I expect him fully to indict the former president of the United States on a charge of conspiring to overturn the results of a duly constituted presidential election.

Wouldn’t that just be a kick in the rear end?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Dare I read Barr’s book?

William Barr is about to have a book published that tells the world what the world already knew: that Donald Trump is a dangerous psychopath who flew “off the rails” after losing the 2020 presidential election.

There. Having established that bit of knowledge, I am likely to pass on purchasing the former U.S. attorney general’s book. Why? Because he isn’t likely to tell me anything I don’t already know or already strongly believed about The Donald.

When Barr got the call to become AG after The Donald fired Jeff Sessions, I held out hope that Barr would become an enforcer of the law and the Constitution. I never imagined he would become a Trump toadie capable of perverting the law to suit The Donald’s machinations. Barr had served honorably as AG in the final phase of President George H.W. Bush’s administration. I was terribly wrong.

Now he’s telling the world what we all knew. I am glad he is coming clean. I only wish he had done so earlier, had resigned earlier than he did and revealed to us that the one-time head of state/commander in chief is off his ever-lovin’ rocker.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news, national news, political news

National Archives: Trump broke the law

Whenever I think of organizations prone to be subjected to partisan political pressure, among the last of them I think of is the National Archives, the keeper of all things official that emanate from the federal government.

So … when the National Archives issues a statement that Donald J. Trump broke the law when he hustled classified documents out of the White House and stashed them at his glitzy resort in south Florida, well, that’s a big bit of news.

Furthermore, think of the irony of this revelation. Didn’t the GOP presidential nominee, Trump, accuse Hillary Clinton of similar if not identical crimes while campaigning against her in 2016?

The National Archives has sent the matter to the Department of Justice for review and possible criminal referral.

Hmm. Looks to me like the walls are closing in on the ex-president.

According to The Associated Press:

Federal law bars the removal of classified documents to unauthorized locations, though it is possible that Trump could try to argue that, as president, he was the ultimate declassification authority.

No matter the legal risk, it exposes him to charges of hypocrisy given his relentless attacks during the 2016 presidential campaign on Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server as secretary of state. The FBI investigated but ultimately did not recommend charges.

National Archives: Trump took classified items to Mar-a-Lago (msn.com)

Trump’s carelessness about national security matters have become almost legendary during his time as president and as a candidate for the highest office in the land. Recall, for instance, how he revealed some national secrets to Russians government officials visiting him in the Oval Office.

The former Moron in Chief, though, apparently has invited “Lock him up!” chants if what the National Archives alleges proves true. As for the DOJ probe, my gut tells me that the FBI has plenty of grist on which it can chew.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Nothing ‘legit’ about violent protest

As one American patriot who believes in civil disobedience, I feel the need to set the record straight on why the 1/6 riot and all those incidents of violence aboard commercial aircraft are so damn disturbing.

There is not a single, solitary aspect of either event that one can describe as “civil disobedience.” The Republican National Committee recently issued a statement calling the 1/6 insurrection an expression of “legitimate political discourse.” I have participated in many such actual events that featured “legitimate political discourse.” None of them bore a shred of resemblance to the violence that erupted on Capitol Hill that day.

And yet, that nonsense came from RNC chair Ronna Romney McDaniel, who sought to tamp down the description of the event. She and other Republicans are uncomfortable with calling it an insurrection. However, to my eyes that is precisely what it was; the rioters sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. If that isn’t an insurrection, then the term has no meaning whatsoever.

Indeed, the Justice Department has indicted the ring leaders of the riot on a charge of “conspiracy to commit sedition,” which bears no significant difference to the insurrection term that others are throwing around.

The Justice Department has received a request from aviation regulators to allow a permanent ban on air passengers who attack flight crews or fellow passengers while their aircraft is in flight. DOJ should follow the recommendation and allow the permanent ban on those who are accused of such hideous mayhem at 30,000 feet above the Earth’s surface.

A group of eight GOP U.S. senators doesn’t want those miscreants banned. They contend the idiots are expressing legitimate concerns about mask mandates on commercial aircraft. Bullsh**! They are putting others in potentially mortal danger by engaging in fistfights with flight attendants or, in at least one case, by trying to open one of the fuselage doors as the aircraft is at cruising altitude.

Civil disobedience? My ass!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Ban ’em from airlines!

Count me as one American who believes the Federal Aviation Administration should push hard for federal legislation that would ban unruly passengers from all domestic commercial air travel.

The FAA has referred 80 cases to the FBI and has asked Congress for legislative remedies to deter future passengers from disrupting flights and putting all their fellow passengers in potential dire peril while on board commercial aircraft.

The 80 cases represent all incidents that have occurred in 2022, which just arrived about six weeks ago. The rate of these incidents is alarming in the extreme.

What has caused the surge in these cases? Hmm. Let’s think about this. Oh, mask mandates have been the cause for more than two-thirds of the incidents. Airlines order passengers to mask up; some passengers are resisting; fights break out on aircraft in mid-air. One flight attendant suffered severe facial injuries after being punched by a passenger.

Here, though, is where this story gets bizarre. Eight Republican U.S. senators have objected to any federal legislation. They have signed a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, asking him to forgo the criminal referral. They contend foolishly that any federal ban would infringe on Americans’ right to protest mask mandates. How absurd and stupid can these senators get?

I happen to believe in civil disobedience. However, there can be no way in this world you can consider a physical attack on another human being to be “civil.” These attacks, which have spiraled since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, put hundreds of innocent bystanders in potentially mortal danger. If someone, then, is accused and convicted of attacking a flight attendant or of trying to open an airplane door in mid-flight — which did occur in one incident — then by all means they should be banned from traveling via commercial airlines … for the rest of their life!

This form of mayhem has to stop. Thus, the FAA is correct to seek ways to deter future incidents from erupting at 30,000 feet.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, national news

Will we actually ‘lock him up’?

A gentleman I have known for more than two decades — a retired journalist who lives in South Australia — has mentioned a particular scenario he would like to see play out regarding the 45th president of the United States.

My friend wants to see Donald Trump arrested, dressed in an orange jump suit and tried for treason against the United States of America. Indeed, my far-away friend believes it’s still possible even as Trump wiggles and writhes in the face of growing pressure from federal and state authorities looking into his myriad business dealings.

Oh, and then we have the 1/6 riot, the insurrection that Trump incited that horrendous day in the final two weeks of the presidency he was about to vacate.

My friend and I exchange messages from time to time and he regales me with his view that Trump presents an existential threat to this great nation. He and I are on the same page as it regards the former Insurrectionist in Chief.

I am still clinging to the notion that an indictment might be coming — perhaps soon — from the Department of Justice. It might involve a charge of sedition against the individual who once swore to protect the Constitution. Sedition, of course, is the act of undermining the government, which Trump — to my mind, at least — did on 1/6 when he exhorted the rioters to “take back” the government.

I am going to wish the best for the investigation into Trump’s knowledge of the 1/6 riot. The “best,” in this instance, would be for congressional and DOJ investigators to cross enough t’s and dot enough i’s to bring a criminal indictment against a man I consider to be a rotten criminal.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com