Tag Archives: DOJ

national news

History to be made

No matter what transpires after this week, I believe you and I are about to witness a history-smashing event when the House select committee examining the 1/6 insurrection meets for its final public meeting.

All signs — every single one of them — tell us that the panel is going to recommend at least one criminal referral against Donald J. Trump.

Now, to be sure the House panel cannot indict Trump. That task rests with the Justice Department. History will be shattered, though, when the panel votes on the referral. It will be the first time in U.S. history that a congressional committee has made such a recommendation on a former president of the United States of America.

An even more critical question will arise when the committee takes its vote: Will the DOJ follow the recommendation handed it by the House? All the smart money in the land says “yes.” Why? Because Attorney General Merrick Garland hired a career prosecutor, Jack Smith, to serve as special counsel.

Smith hit the ground in a dead-on sprint. He has been working to finalize the evidence gathered by the House committee and by the probe that the DOJ had completed before Garland decided to recuse himself from the insurrection probe and the examination of the pilfering of classified documents from the White House as Trump was leaving office.

To be absolutely clear, the fecal matter is going to hit the fan when the committee casts its vote Monday. We can expect the MAGA cultists in Congress to yammer and yowl about “partisan witch hunts,” and “weaponizing the Justice Department” and, yes, there will be calls to impeach Merrick Garland.

It’s all BS. The committee was constituted correctly at the beginning of this saga right after the insurrection. It has collected damning testimony — most of it coming from Trump loyalists within the administration!

I believe there is sufficient evidence to indict the ex-POTUS on any number of charges. But … first things first. The House committee needs to make history for the rest of it to proceed. I also believe we should prepare for a monumental moment.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, legal news

Tamping expectations

Try as I have done to tamp down expectations on what will occur Monday when the House select committee makes its criminal referrals on the insurrection and assorted crimes relating to the 1/6 insurrection, I admit to difficulty doing so.

However, I am prepared to acknowledge that the House panel charged finding truth behind that violent chapter in our nation’s history only is going to recommend criminal charges be brought against those who were responsible for the onslaught.

The heavy lifting will occur in the offices of the Department of Justice and the special counsel who is examining the evidence.

I believe the referrals will include Donald Trump. He incited the assault on 1/6. He refused to stop the assault, even as the treasonous assailants were shouting “Hang Mike Pence!”

Let us remember that the House committee has no power to issue indictments. That power rests solely within the executive branch of government, which means the DOJ and the man who is serving as special counsel in this probe.

Still, I am certain that Americans who decide to tune in Monday will be treated to some riveting TV watching. I look forward to watching this drama unfold.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Uncategorized

Now … comes the 1/6 report

Americans with an interest in how the government came under attack on Jan. 6, 2021, and how we might prevent a recurrence of such a travesty have some riveting TV viewing ahead of them.

The House 1/6 select committee is going to meet one final time Monday in front of you and me. It will discuss what it has discovered after interviewing more than 1,000 witnesses and reviewed more than a million documents.

The committee then will take arguably the most monumental congressional votes in U.S. history. It will vote on whether to refer criminal charges against the former president of the United States who, in 1/6, incited the insurrection that tore through the Capitol Building with the aim of overturning a free and fair presidential election.

To be abundantly clear, Congress only can refer criminal charges to the Department of Justice. DOJ must decide whether to indict whoever the congressional committee refers in its report.

And … yes. Donald J. Trump’s name needs to be among those referred for criminal prosecution.

To suggest that the1/6 committee has been anything but meticulous, patient, diligent and courageous in its pursuit of the truth about 1/6 is to be guilty of the most partisan cynicism imaginable.

On the receiving end of those referrals, of course, is Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has insisted repeatedly that “no one is above the law.” By “no one,” he means precisely what we must infer, which is that Donald Trump is vulnerable to a criminal indictment … or two … or three.

Having watched many hours of previous testimony and commentary from committee members, I have no doubt — none, zero! — that Donald Trump committed multiple crimes before, during and after the assault on the Capitol Building.

What remains to be determined if whether the AG is going — after poring through the committee’s findings — to make history by doing something to previous attorney general has done. Will he indict Donald J. Trump?

I believe that moment is coming.

Meanwhile, I am going to listen with the most intense interest possible at committee members’ message as this drama draws to its long-awaited conclusion.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

What would happen if …

I have been rolling around a notion that came to my attention the other day and which I shared on this blog.

It came from former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade, who said the 1/6 House select committee has enough evidence to refer to Justice Department officials an allegation that Donald J. Trump committed involuntary manslaughter by refusing to call off the 1/6 insurrection.

Thus, I cannot get rid of the thought that if DOJ actually indicts Trump on such a criminal act, the MAGA crowd would launch into orbit. It would explode. It would go utterly, completely and irrationally ballistic.

I don’t think it will happen, but a part of me wonders if DOJ has the stones to do, well … the seemingly impossible.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot, Donald Trump

Manslaughter charge for Trump? What the … ?

1 Comment

Five people died in the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, an event that Donald J. Trump could have stopped with a single verbal order to his maniacal followers that day.

He didn’t say a word. He let the attack on our government continue. The event turned bloody. Now comes this tidbit from a former U.S. attorney, Barbara McQuade, who says Trump could face manslaughter charges for his role in provoking the assault and for his abject failure to stop it.

Wow, man!

Is that for real? McQuade believes the 1/6 House select committee has compiled enough evidence to refer to Justice Department legal eagles a criminal referral seeking a manslaughter indictment.

McQuade wrote this in making the case: Under federal law, involuntary manslaughter occurs when a person commits an act on federal property without due care that it might produce death. To establish a criminal case of manslaughter against Trump, prosecutors would need to prove each of the elements of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt: an act, committed without due care, that caused death.

First, did Trump commit an act that could constitute the actus reus for manslaughter? His statements at the Ellipse in which he urged the crowd to march to the Capitol could be an act that constitutes this element. Recent evidence that this was not a “metaphorical” statement, but rather a coordinated plan, would make the statement even more egregious because it would mean that Trump had time to reflect on the potential deadly consequences of his actions.

Oh, boy. I don’t know that the committee needs to go that far. It seems to me it has enough evidence to seek plenty of criminal indictments that stop short of accusing Trump of manslaughter.

Still, the idea does make one ponder what might be coming down the road.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, national news

Now comes the 1/6 panel

Donald J. Trump’s business organization is guilty of tax fraud. That appears to be the prelim to the main event, which is ready for the bell-ringing any day now.

The House select 1/6 committee examining the insurrection and Trump’s role in inciting it is set to make its findings known to the public. Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson has spilled the beans, telling us that there will be “criminal referrals” contained in the report.

Hmm. Let’s see. Who might the committee “refer” for indictment? My hunch is that it will include Trump his own self.

Let us be clear. The committee cannot indict anyone. It must hand that duty over to the Justice Department, or the agent DOJ has chosen to represent it. That means the special counsel Jack Smith is likely to get the referral, given that Attorney General Merrick Garland has recused himself from any direct investigation into the insurrection or the document theft from the White House.

The only curiosity left to satisfy is learning whether fire-breathing Republican committee member Liz Cheney got her way in singling out Trump’s role. There reportedly has been something of a rift between Cheney and other panel members over how to focus its final report; others reportedly wanted to shy away from Trump’s role in the insurrection and focus instead on the systemic failures that led to it.

Whatever …

If the committee is going to make a criminal referral, it ought to go all the way to the top of the food chain. That would mean Donald John Trump.

I believe it has collected more than enough evidence to take this remarkable step toward seeking full accountability for that terrible day in our nation’s history.

Let ‘er rip, committee members.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

Trump allies dropping off

Now it’s William Barr who has incurred the wrath of the man who selected him to be — ostensibly, at least — the nation’s attorney general.

The reality, though, was that Barr turned out to be a Donald Trump loyalist who misinterpreted the Robert Mueller special counsel findings on whether Trump colluded with Russians in 2016. There were many other times when Barr acted more like Trump’s lawyer than the nation’s chief law enforcer.

Now we hear from Barr that Trump is likely to be indicted for allegedly violating the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act by pilfering classified documents, taking them from the White House and storing them at his home in Florida.

Trump is angry, man. He is outraged. How can Barr say those things? He can say them because he is pretty good lawyer who likely has a good sense of what prosecutors know.

There have been a long and growing list of former Trump loyalists who now are speaking out — belatedly — about the hideous conduct of the 45th POTUS.

The list will grow. Bet on it.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

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