Tag Archives: Trump indictment

national news

‘What-about-ism’ is no game

Congressional Republicans seeking to find some way to defend Donald Trump against a scathing federal indictment are engaging in a strategy that should be a game … except that it isn’t.

No way! Given the stakes involved, the GOP version of “what-about-ism” is ringing as hollow as a ripe watermelon.

I watched Sen. Lindsey Graham, the king of the Senate Trumpkins, fire back at ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos who sought simply to ask him whether he thinks Trump “did anything wrong.”

I’ll back up for a brief moment. The feds have indicted Trump on 37 counts involving the theft of classified documents from the White House. Special counsel Jack Smith announced the indictments involve obstruction of justice, violations of the Espionage Act and abuse of public office.

Graham sought this morning to compare Trump’s alleged crimes to Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email servers during her time as secretary of state. He said repeatedly that “nothing happened” to Clinton. Wrong! She was investigated thoroughly by the FBI, which determined she committed no crime.

That wasn’t good enough for Graham, who also said President Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence also had documents in their homes … just like Trump! No comparison.

The president and the former VP turned those documents over immediately to the feds, who then filed them with the National Archives.

Trump did nothing of the sort. The indictment states that Trump hid the documents from the FBI and instructed others to do the same thing. That, as you Americans would say, is “obstruction of justice.”

When I hear Republican suck-ups like Graham throw out the “What about the other guy?” response as a defense tactic for their own guy, I am left only to call it what it is.

Deflection.

They want to change the focus from their ally to their foes. It’s a phony dodge.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news, political news

My wish? Ban Trump from public office

As strange as it might seem for readers of this blog, I want to declare that I have no burning desire to see Donald J. Trump tossed into prison if he is convicted of the crimes for which he is under indictment.

My stronger wish is to ensure that Trump never again is allowed to seek — let alone hold — public office.

The 37-count indictment handed down by a south Florida grand jury is damning in the extreme. It looks to be ironclad. Special counsel Jack Smith has a mountain of evidence to pore over and present a trial jury eventually.

If Trump is convicted, then I suspect there will be prison time involved. He stands accused of taking classified documents in violation of the Espionage Act; he is accused of obstructing justice and of abuse of power. He is the first former POTUS to be charged in a criminal indictment by the Justice Department.

Dark days lie ahead for this individual.

He never should have been elected president in 2016. But he was. He got the rebuke he so richly deserved in 2020 when he lost to Joe Biden.

I do not want him anywhere near the Oval Office ever again.

You know what? There might be a deal to be had to help this crook avoid prison time. It might involve a permanent ban from seeking public office. I don’t know what Jack Smith is inclined to pursue, nor do I know what Trump is inclined to accept.

But as a red-blooded American patriot, I am fine with ensuring we keep Trump away from any public office. I want him out of public life altogether. He sickens me to my core.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, legal news

Special counsel speaks fundamental truth

Jack Smith, with just a single sentence, today laid out the complexities of our criminal justice system and highlighted his personal integrity.

Smith emerged today to reveal the contents of the indictment issued against Donald J. Trump. The cascade of evidence looks — to my untrained eyes — like a slam-dunk case. If I could predict an outcome, it would be that Trump is going down … hard.

Not so fast, the Justice Department’s special counsel, said today.

Trump, Smith said, “is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

So, there you have it summed up neatly in a single phrase uttered by a seasoned prosecutor who had been called to duty by Attorney General Merrick Garland. Smith’s wisdom highlights graphically how complicated our system is and how it must always be.

No matter how persuasive the evidence appears to be — and Smith’s 37-count indictment appears to be irrefutable — we have a judicial process that must run its course. Our Constitution provides a guarantee of the presumption of innocence, to which all U.S. citizens are entitled.

Donald Trump usually expresses outward fearlessness of anyone or anything. My own view of the former POTUS suggests he must be trembling in terror at the prospect of Jack Smith prosecuting this case against him.

Smith showed his ethical chops today by declaring his own understanding that in our system of jurisprudence, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

The special counsel, therefore, has set a high bar for himself, which tells me he has every intention of clearing it.

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

national news

Clown show plays poorly

The Jim Jordan Clown Show opened and closed after the U.S. House Judiciary Committee chairman sought ostensibly to examine crime in New York City.

Except that the clown show wasn’t at all about NYC crime. It was an attempt to embarrass Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg, who had the temerity to ramrod a grand jury indictment of Donald Trump. Jordan, the Ohio Republican, would have none of that.

What did the GOP fire-breather do? He convened a “field hearing” in NYC that he said would seek to examine the crime in the nation’s largest city. Oh, wait! He didn’t mention that New York’s crime rate is among the lowest per capita of any large city in the country.

NYC’s violent crime rate is lower than, say, Columbus or Cleveland, in Ohio — where Jordan lives.

What the nation witnessed in New York was a blatant effort to politicize a legitimate criminal investigation, which the Manhattan DA concluded with the grand jury indictment of the former POTUS. And to listen to Jordan and his fellow GOP Trumpkins accuse Democrats of playing politics is enough to make me hurl.

What’s more, Jordan decided to conduct this so-called field hearing after he sought to summon Bragg to testify before his committee at the Capitol Building. One problem: Jordan has no legal or constitutional authority to require an elected official from one of our states to make such an appearance.

Alvin Bragg did his job according to the oath he took when he became district attorney. The grand jurors also did their jobs in accordance with the oath they took when they surrendered their time as working citizens to examine the evidence presented to them.

I am not going to take anything that comes from Jim Jordan or his Trumpkin cabal seriously until he — and they — take their public offices seriously. I doubt it will happen.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

Complaints are outrageous!

When I hear the likes of the MAGA cult and other right-wing fanatics denigrate the criminal justice system because it delivers decisions they dislike … it fills me with rage.

The denigration is in full swing in the wake of Donald Trump’s indictment by a Manhattan grand jury, which is about to level several criminal charges against the ex-president related to his paying an adult film star hush money to keep quiet about a fling the two of them allegedly had in 2006.

The DA in that case, Alvin Bragg, is a competent lawyer. He seated a duly constituted grand jury of ordinary folks to examine the evidence. The grand jury delivered its decision to indict Trump. Yet the former POTUS and his minions are claiming the DA and the grand jury are corrupt. They are politicizing this case.

I don’t believe any of that crap, any more than I believe the rubbish that the 2020 election was stolen, or that the Justice Department is “weaponizing” evidence just to get Trump.

I am a believer in the system. It is working as it should. Trump is likely to pay the price for misdeeds and possibly for criminal activity.

Is anyone on the take? I do not believe it … for an instant!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Predictable response

Politicians and other observers across the spectrum are reacting to Donald Trump’s indictment in totally predictable fashion.

The conservative media call the grand jury’s indictment of the 45th POTUS as a witch hunt, a “political persecution” and a case that won’t hold up. Other media suggest that Trump faces the prospect of actual prison time if a trial jury convicts him, presuming it goes to trial.

I don’t know what to think. I do believe that the hush money payment of 130 grand to Stormy Daniels is small potatoes compared to what is likely to come from other jurisdictions. The Fulton County grand jury might indict Trump on seeking to overturn an election result; the Justice Department is examining whether Trump sought to overthrow the government and obstructed justice by refusing to turn over classified documents he took on his way out of the White House.

The Manhattan indictment, though, is a big deal in this regard: It’s the first time in history that a former POTUS is accused of committing a crime.

This is going to be loads of fun to watch.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Donald Trump

Mixed feelings about POTUS 45’s campaign

I remain fairly convinced that the 45th president of the U.S. isn’t going to stay in the race for the White House in 2024.

It doesn’t bother me in the least that he would drop out to concentrate on fighting the bucketloads of legal trouble standing before him.

Nor does it bother me were he to stay in. Why? Because the moron remains a highly beatable Republican nominee for POTUS if the GOP faithful is stupid enough to nominate him in 2024.

The first indictment from the Manhattan grand jury appears to be just the first of several such actions awaiting the ex-POTUS. The more serious charges — tampering with election results, inciting the insurrection on 1/6 and squirreling away classified documents — all are grounds for criminal prosecution … in my humble view.

Thus, it seems to me that it is unlikely that even this idiot can continue to campaign for the White House.

If he does, big fu***** deal!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

Biden shows needed reticence

Joe Biden is good enough of a politician and a lawyer to understand that when a political foe is being indicted for crimes that it is best to just keep his mouth shut.

It was reporters’ efforts to get the president to comment on Donald Trump’s indictment on multiple counts relating to the hush money payment he made to an adult film star that prompted Biden to declare that he won’t speak about Biden’s legal difficulty.

Why should he speak out? Indeed, no lawyer in America would ever counsel an active politician to weigh in on something such as Trump’s indictment.

You see, President Biden is both. An active pol and a man with a decent legal education.

Moreover, you might be willing to bet your last nickel that the president has instructed every member of the Cabinet, the White House staff and even the foreign service officials on duty to dummy up. Don’t talk to reporters about any of this! Got it? Good!

One of the axioms in politics is that when your adversaries are in trouble, it is best to just let ’em stew in their own sauce. Donald Trump’s difficulties are just beginning.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Belief in the system

I happen to be a staunch and faithful believer in the U.S. criminal justice system, the one that relies on everyday folks such as you and me to deliver justice in the form they believe fits.

With that, it is incumbent on me to forgo any bitching about a system that could produce a verdict in a high-profile case involving a former POTUS who has just been indicted on unspecified charges involving a hush money payment he made to a woman with whom he allegedly had a one-night tumble in 2006.

I’ll tell you where I am going with this. Even though I want a criminal trial jury to convict Donald Trump of whatever he is being charged, I need to stipulate that I must accept an acquittal if that is what the jury decides in due course. I won’t like the verdict, but in the interest in fealty to my faith in the system, I need to accept it.

There is no way to predict what a trial jury would decide, even if it goes to trial. I am just preparing myself for the worst outcome, but you won’t see me marching in the streets to protest whatever a jury would decide.

Unlike the defendant in this case, I believe in the integrity of the system, in the Manhattan, N.Y., district attorney who presented the evidence to the grand jury and in the grand jurors who acted in good faith to deliver their indictment.

The ex-president won’t ever acknowledge that the system worked the way it is designed to work. Fine. Let him bitch.

I won’t stoop to his level of cynical ignorance.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com