Tag Archives: DOJ

national news

How does this clown do it?

For the ever-lovin’ life of me I cannot understand a key element of the contemporary political landscape.

It is this: How in the world does Donald J. Trump remain a “player,” someone the media are obsessed with in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election campaign season?

There appears to be a growing probability that Justice Department sleuths are going to find enough to indict the former president on charges that could include conspiracy to commit sedition.

Indeed, it well might be that the 76-year-old huckster who masqueraded as our commander in chief is going to spend the rest of his sorry, crooked, corruption-filled life as a criminal defendant.

Let us remember something about the damning testimony we have heard in recent weeks implicating Trump as a conspirator in the 1/6 insurrection: Every witness, almost all of whom are Republicans, delivered their evidence under oath; they took an oath that states that if they were not truthful, they faced criminal prosecution on charges of perjury.

Trump is now reportedly considering a third run for the presidency. He failed to get more actual votes than either Hillary Clinton in 2016 or Joe Biden in 2020. He sneaked into the White House by a fluke victory in the Electoral College.

Then he got impeached twice. Once on a charge of soliciting a political favor from a foreign government and once on inciting the all-out attack on our government. No need to remind me that he avoided conviction on either count.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said he will pursue “anyone” who is criminally complicit in the effort to interfere with the “peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next.” Donald John Trump sought to interfere in that process. What in the name of democracy is going to prevent a felony indictment against this clown?

And yet … he remains a player in the 2024 presidential campaign. I hear serious political observers say with a straight face that this twice-impeached narcissist is the GOP favorite to be nominated in two years.

I am baffled to the point of madness.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Keeping emotion in check

It is difficult to stop clapping, smiling and wishing that the big news announced this week will produce justice for those of us worried about the impact of the 1/6 insurrection.

But, dang! Here comes news that the Department of Justice has been conducting an active investigation into possible criminal activity by the immediate past president of the United States, the purveyor of The Big Lie, the guy who wanted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election … which he lost!

Attorney General Merrick Garland has spelled out in terms that even I can understand that “no one is above the law,” and that DOJ is going to pursue anyone who was criminally culpable in the peaceful transition of power of one presidential administration to another.

Wow! Do you think, therefore, that the AG has his sights set on Donald J. Trump?

Looks like it to me.

However, my inclination tells me to hold off on the celebration that there might be a way after all to keep that charlatan away from the Oval Office.

The former Idiot in Chief was impeached twice. He got away both times because not enough Senate Republicans had the courage to convict him of either soliciting a political favor from a foreign power or inciting the 1/6 attack on the Capitol.

And all that yammering about the House select committee marching far ahead of DOJ in the hunt for the truth behind the insurrection? It now appears that Justice Department sleuths were doing their job all along, only in private.

From my vantage point it appears that the walls are continuing to close in on Trump. May they close to the point of making history with an indictment of the most crooked and venal individual ever to win election to the nation’s highest office.

Stay on the hunt, Mr. Attorney General.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news, national news

Go for it, Mr. AG

Given that I consider Attorney General Merrick Garland to be a man of high honor, integrity, honesty and candor, I will take him at his word when he declares …

That he would be willing to prosecute a former president of the United States for crimes against the government if the evidence he gathers leads him to that decision.

Even if it “tore the country apart”? asked NBC News anchor Lester Holt.

Yes, Garland said. Even that will not dissuade him from holding “everyone” accountable who has committed a crime involving the 1/6 insurrection.

“So, if Donald Trump were to become a candidate for president again, that would not change your schedule or how you move forward or don’t move forward?” Holt asked.

“I’ll say again that we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer — legitimate, lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next,” Garland answered.

Merrick Garland does not rule out prosecuting Trump over Jan. 6 (msn.com)

OK. Are we clear? Must we continue to hector, pester and harangue the AG over his intentions? That is unwise.

President Biden chose a man of impeccable integrity to become the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. I remain committed to the belief that AG Garland will do his duty thoroughly and completely.

I also happen to believe that Donald J. Trump should be prosecuted. But …  that ain’t my call.

I am going to hold out hope that if the facts lead us to Donald Trump’s feet that the attorney general will do what he must do to hold “everyone accountable” for the dastardly deed of seeking to overturn a free, fair and legal presidential election.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot

Hey, libs: Pipe down and let AG do his job

To be sure, I have spent a lot of emotional capital chastising conservatives over a whole array of issues. Today, though, I want to take aim at the progressives among us who are growing impatient with the pace of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s potential probe into Donald Trump’s role in the 1/6 insurrection.

Summing it up, I want to say that progressives need to settle down and quit acting as if the world is going to explode if Garland doesn’t meet their deadline for a decision.

The AG is examining whether to prosecute a former president of the United States of America — for God’s sake — on charges that might include conspiracy to commit sedition. Think of the seriousness, here.

It’s never been done before.

Now, do I believe Trump committed crimes while refusing to stem the attack on the Capitol on 1/6? Yes! I do! However, I am just a chump layman out here in the peanut gallery. I use www.highplainsblogger.com to say what I believe, which is my right as a red-blooded American citizen.

I will not have to pay the price, though, were I to seek a flawed indictment of a former POTUS.

Therefore, I am willing to give the attorney general all the room he needs to roam in search of evidence he believes will result in a conviction of unnamed, unspecified charges against Donald J. Trump.

Earth will not spin off its axis if Garland doesn’t meet the progressives’ deadline … whatever it is! He is a studious, careful, meticulous, learned lawyer. Let him do his job!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news

Breath is bated for AG

Given a lot of factors that are patently obvious — the first of which is that I am not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer — I am trying to prepare myself for a possible disappointment if Attorney General Merrick Garland decides to indict the immediate past president of the United States.

The disappointment might lie in that Garland will not indict Donald J. Trump on the most serious crime on the table: seditious conspiracy.

Instead, Garland might try to bust up whatever criminal proceeding he would seek into a group of smaller offenses.

I am absolutely sure that Garland recognizes the staggering precedent he could set if he indicts Trump for inciting the insurrection of 1/6. No need to explain what that means.

Garland appears to be a meticulous, deliberate and thorough lawyer, one who has a stellar record as a prosecutor, I should add. He won a conviction of the madman who blew up the Oklahoma City courthouse in April 1995.

It well might be that Garland cannot win a conviction on the whole array of charges that loom in front of Donald Trump. That will be his call to make exclusively. He will not need, nor should he accept, any recommendations from the peanut gallery, where many others and I occupy prime seats.

This might be my way of preparing for a possible disappointment. I have declared my intention to accept whatever the AG decides. I just hope I don’t hurt my jaw when I am finished gnashing my teeth.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

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