Tag Archives: Merrick Garland

crime news, legal news

Why target FBI?

Republicans are preparing to wage war on several fronts against the government they proclaim they want to protect

They have several targets in their sights but for the moment I want to focus on just one of them: the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The FBI used to be considered a sacred cow in GOP political circles. They dared not criticize the elite federal law enforcement agency for fear of being labeled “soft on crime,” or being a squishy liberal.

No more, man.

The FBI is now Public Enemy No. 1 among many Republicans for doing its job legally and by the book. What did the FBI do to incur the GOP wrath?

It acted on orders from the Department of Justice, the attorney general and entered the home of a former president to look for evidence of a possible (or probable) crime. The ex-POTUS took several boxes full of classified documents with him from the White House to his glitzy estate in Florida. AG Merrick Garland sought a federal judge’s permission — also by the book — to search the ex-POTUS’s estate for evidence. The judge granted it and so he sent the agents to the house to conduct the search.

That’s a no-no, according to the GOP stalwarts who defend the ex-POTUS to the hilt. How dare the feds do their job?

They are gunning for the attorney general and — get a load of this! — for the FBI director, Christopher Wray, who was appointed to his post by Donald Trump, the aforementioned ex-POTUS.

Let’s understand a couple of key points.

One is that the attorney general did nothing out of the ordinary. He ran all the necessary traps before authorizing the search at Trump’s estate. He acted within the law. Accordingly, AG Garland has declared that “no one is above the law,” and by “no one,” he means not a single American citizen … and that includes former presidents of the United States.

The FBI has not been “weaponized.” The AG has utilized the law enforcement agency totally within its scope of authority and for Republicans to declare their intention to “defund the FBI” makes a mockery of their criticism of progressives who said the same thing about local police agencies.

The world has been turned upside-down. We need to regain our balance.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, legal news

Special counsel looking better

Merrick Garland’s decision to appoint a special counsel to lead the investigation into the 1/6 insurrection and the pilfering of classified documents by the former POTUS is looking better all the time.

The counsel is John L. “Jack” Smith, a career prosecutor, a registered independent and a no-nonsense public servant. The attorney general saw a potential conflict of interest in prosecuting Donald J. Trump while the former president campaigns for the office. The conflict would arrive if Trump gets nominated by Republicans and runs against Joe Biden, the president who selected Garland to run the Justice Department.

So he’s backing away from active participation. Why is that such a bad thing?

I see few downsides to it. Smith will get to work immediately and will guide the prosecutorial team already assembled to its conclusion in both of these cases.

My hunch follows the lead already expressed, which is that Smith will get to the end of it all in fairly short order. Then we’ll get a decision on whether Donald Trump is indicted for the crimes I believe he committed.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

Special counsel: yes or no?

Attorney General Merrick Garland no doubt saw this moment coming a while ago, yet he waited until today to announce that he is appointing a special counsel to examine two key aspects of the criminality demonstrated by Donald J. Trump.

The special counsel is a young man named Jack Smith, a career prosecutor and someone known to be a no-nonsense battler for the truth.

What did the AG see happening? It was the prospect that Trump would declare his candidacy for president in 2024. He likely figured the twice-impeached, disgraced and utterly unfit Trump would make another go at the office of POTUS.

OK, I am going to endorse Merrick Garland’s decision to step away formally from the probes into the 1/6 insurrection and the Mar-a-Lago document theft.

Look at it this way. Garland and the Department of Justice have done a lot of the spade work already. They have uncovered mountains of evidence that Trump incited the attack on the Capitol on 1/6 and — more specifically — that he has obstructed justice in the recovery of documents Trump took with him to his estate when he left the White House … hopefully for the final time, ever!

I know what some of you might be thinking. We’ve been down this “special counsel road” already. Robert Mueller took the job to probe whether there was collusion between Trump and them Russians. He didn’t indict anyone.

But wait. That was then. The here and now has revealed another set of evidence on another set of crimes. The new special counsel has before him a mountain of evidence through which he can pore.

Do I want any more delay in this search for accountability? Of course not! Nor do I necessarily believe there will be a delay. AG Garland has promised that the counsel will move expeditiously. Let’s hope he hits the ground at a full gallop.

The bottom line, though, is that Merrick Garland envisioned a potential conflict of interest were he to remain in charge of these two probes. It remains a possibility — although I consider it a remote one — that Trump might end up running for president against the man who selected Garland to lead DOJ.

Accordingly, I believe Garland’s decision was the correct one.

Now, it becomes imperative for the special counsel to get busy … as in right now!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news, national news

When will indictment arrive?

All the smart money — and even some of the dumber dough — believes that Attorney General Merrick Garland is going to indict Donald J. Trump … for something!

So many questions lurk on the edges and even some in the guts of the issue.

When will the indictment(s) come? How far will the AG go in charging the former president of the U.S.A. with committing a criminal act? How does an indictment affect the former POTUS’s plans for running for the presidency again, if he’s indeed going to do so? What will be the response of Trump’s diminishing — but still frothing rabid — base of supporters?

I happen to believe that Garland could indict Trump on obstruction of justice, on violating his oath of office, potentially on contempt of Congress, on conspiracy to commit sedition.

It all turns on the events of 1/6. Trump incited the insurrection and no one on Earth is going to persuade me he didn’t do it.

However, Merrick Garland is nothing if not a realist. He knows the stakes are huge. If Republicans gain control of Congress after the midterm election, he faces the prospect of impeachment by Republicans still steamed over Democrats’ decision to impeach Trump twice.

The biggest obstacle to impeaching the AG, though, is that he is doing his job. Unlike the “high crimes” that produced two impeachments against Trump — seeking political favors from a foreign government and inciting the attack on the Capitol — Garland merely would be doing his job in accordance with the law.

That likely wouldn’t stop the GOP from seeking to make Garland “pay” for the impeachment of the former POTUS.

This is all part of the drama that awaits as Merrick Garland ponders what appears to be an inevitable action. I am waiting to see how this drama ends.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Donald Trump, legal news

Rule of law set for challenge

Here it comes: We’re going to see, more than likely, a supreme test of the notion that “no one is above the law” that Attorney General Merrick Garland keeps reminding us.

The House select 1/6 committee has subpoenaed Donald J. Trump to talk to the committee about all he knows about what happened before, during and after the insurrection. Trump has issued a 14-page response that doesn’t way whether he will honor the summons and talk to the committee.

Congress could cite the ex-president of contempt of Congress. He could be indicted for that. Trump could go to trial. A jury could convict him … all of which happened to former Trump adviser/toadie Steve Bannon, who now is facing a two-year term in a federal prison.

Is Trump on the same plain as the rest of us? Must he face the consequence of prison time if he refuses honor the demands of a duly constituted congressional committee?

Merrick Garland says he must. I believe we are to learn in due course whether The Donald actually dodges this bullet.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, FBI, legal news, national news, political news

Believing now that indictment is coming

From virtually the moment that he skulked out of town prior to the ceremony celebrating the guy who defeated in the 2020 presidential election, I have resisted the notion that Donald J. Trump would be indicted on charges of criminal behavior.

Today, though, my thoughts have changed … dramatically, I must add.

I believe that Attorney General Merrick Garland is going to indict the former president of the United States, making a huge bit of history in the process. The charges that Garland might level against Trump, though, remain an open question.

They include the most serious, say, obstruction of justice or conspiracy to commit sedition. Those are felonies that carry enormous prison terms if someone is convicted of the allegation.

There might be misdemeanor charges leveled, dealing with the handling of those classified documents that Trump squirreled away in his glitzy Florida estate.

Friends of mine who live in faraway lands have speculated that Trump would be hauled off in leg irons and handcuffs. Other friends of mine — those who are loyal to Trump — have said quite the opposite. They don’t defend the individual’s character, saying he “never would do” the things that have been alleged already. Instead, they challenge the motives of the federal investigation.

I believe Merrick Garland is as fine a public servant as we can find. His career as a federal judge was marked by universal praise — from the left and the right — for his judicial scholarship and the meticulous nature of his court rulings. Even when the Senate GOP leadership blocked his nomination to the Supreme Court in early 2016, they didn’t question his qualifications or the quality of the man; they were motivated by pure politics.

I am unaware of the particulars of the AG’s investigation. All I have to assess it is my belief in the character of the man leading it.

He has said that “no one is above the law.” By “no one,” he means, well … no one!

Therefore, I believe he has compiled enough evidence to cobble together a prosecutorial complaint against Donald John Trump.

Then we shall watch the full-scale implosion of a man deluded with notions of grandeur. It cannot happen to a more deserving individual.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, military news, national news, political news

Equal justice? Hah!

Donald J. Trump is supposed to be subject to the same standards as every U.S. citizen now that he no longer is president of the United States.

Isn’t that the rule? Isn’t that what Attorney General Merrick Garland has implied all along while stipulating that “no one is above the law”?

Former Defense Secretary William Cohen, though, has a different take on it. Cohen, who served as defense boss during the Clinton administration, said today that had he taken the documents now believed to have been found among the cache of papers in Trump’s home that he would have been arrested on the spot and taken into custody.

Which begs the question: If Donald Trump now is just an ordinary citizen of this country and has been found to have taken highly classified documents home with him as he left the White House for keeps, why hasn’t he been arrested and charged with, oh, violating the Presidential Records Act or the Espionage Act?

Former Secretary of Defense walks through what would happen to him if he took the documents Trump did (msn.com)

I am acutely aware that all of that would take us down a path on which we have never walked. However, it does appear to be more than just scuttlebutt that Trump had in his possession documents containing — gulp! — nuclear secrets.

What in the name of MADness was Trump going to do with this stuff?

This brings me to another question: Is Donald Trump ever going to be treated like any schmuck who takes official documents illegally?

Allow me to borrow this phrase: Lock him up!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Weaponization anyone?

Wait just a dadgum minute. Didn’t those Republican idiots who stood up for Donald Trump accuse Democrats of “weaponizing” the impeachment process during both of the impeachments that Trump endured?

Yeah, they did. What in the name of pure partisan politics is going on now with Republicans in the House saying they’re getting ready to impeach President Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Vice President Harris — and perhaps even the White House chef, for all I know — if they seize control of the House after the midterm election?

What in the world would be the basis for any of this absolute horsesh**? Is it because, um, that Biden managed to pass legislation without GOP help in Congress? Or that Garland decided to issue a lawful search warrant to find documents that Trump pilfered from secure locations in the White House? Of that Harris cast tie-breaking votes when Republicans failed to join Democrats in enacting legislation designed to help Americans?

Or — what the hell? — maybe the White House chef cooked a souffle that deflated too early?

I don’t know. I do know that whenever I hear this nonsense coming from the GOP side of the great divide on Capitol Hill, it fills me with a modicum of hope that voters across the land might be able and willing to spare us all the nightmare that awaits if the GOP takes control of Congress.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news, national news, political news

Evidence is clear …

Merrick Garland is facing one of the most complicated decisions imaginable, even as he considers what appears to be a mountain of evidence that, by all rights, should simply that decision.

The U.S. attorney general, a former judge who understands the meaning of legal precedent, is likely poring over evidence gathered that suggests — strongly, I should add — that he must indict a former president of the United States.

On what charge or charges? Let’s consider obstruction of justice, or inciting violence, or violations of the Espionage Act, or conspiracy to commit sedition.

Donald J. Trump, to put it as succinctly as I possibly can, is in a deep pile of doo-doo.

The FBI search of Trump’s home in Florida has produced evidence of a possible crime. We’ve all seen it now that the heavily redacted affidavit authorizing the search warrant has been released. The chatter is getting louder about the national security secrets that well might have been compromised when the ex-POTUS took those documents with him when he left office in January 2021.

Therein is where the AG faces the conundrum for the ages.

He says that “no one is above the law.” The means former presidents are as vulnerable to prosecution as, well, anyone. No ex-president ever has faced a criminal indictment.

The AG appears to be a careful man, not to mention a meticulous prosecutor. May he take great care in preparing what has been laid out before him. Then he can deliver justice where it belongs!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, legal news, national news

So many options for AG and others to ponder

As I sit here in the peanut gallery far from Ground Zero in the Donald Trump investigation hotbed, I find myself thinking about the options that await the former president of the United States.

Only one of them looks good and at this moment it appears to be the farthest from taking shape.

Attorney General Merrick Garland is among those who are trying to determine whether to indict the ex-president on criminal charges. We also have the Fulton County (Ga.) district attorney looking into allegations of vote tampering and the New York state AG examining whether Trump’s business committed crimes. Oh, and then we have the House of Reps’ select committee examining whether Trump broke the law by inciting the mob of traitors to storm the Capitol on 1/6 and seek to stop the certification of the 2020 election … that Trump lost to Joseph R. Biden Jr.

There’s nothing cast in stone that says Garland must indict Trump on anything, let alone on the most serious charges he might be considering. The AG could determine there isn’t enough to send Trump to prison for the rest of his life, so he might decide to pursue lesser charges.

Then the DA in Fulton County, Fani Willis, also might determine that Trump didn’t really seek to interfere with the election by demanding that the state “find” enough votes to put him over the top.

New York AG Letitia James also could find that she doesn’t have the goods on Trump’s business, even though his chief financial officer has pleaded guilty to tax fraud and is awaiting a sentence.

And what about the House panel? The committee has compiled a mountain of evidence that suggests everything from inciting insurrection and dereliction of duty on 1/6. The testimony we have heard has been stunning in the extreme!

But you see, Trump is facing a mounting array of legal challenges … even as he supposedly ponders whether to run for the presidency yet again in 2024. My strong sense is that one of those challenges is going to fall hard on The Donald.

The least likely option would be for none of these probes to produce a formal criminal charge against the former president. I understand fully the gravity of taking such a step. I also grasp the blowback that would occur from the cultists out there who continue to excuse the ex-POTUS’s conduct at all levels in the period after the 2020 election.

It just occurs to me that the very last person on this Earth I would want to be is Donald John Trump.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com