Tag Archives: special counsel

Special counsel crosses ‘the line’

Robert Hur, appointed to look into whether President Biden broke any law when the FBI found documents in his home, did the president no favors with his decision against filing charges against him.

Oh, no. Instead, he hurled some unflattering labels at Joe Biden, calling him an “elderly man with a poor memory.” Indeed, his report to the public announcing his decision against seeking criminal indictments against Biden, contained several references to the president’s age and hinted that the POTUS might be falling a step or two behind.

Did the special counsel cross some vague line? I believe he did.

However, Joe Biden hasn’t helped himself any with his angry response to what Hur said in his report. He sounded petulant and appeared visibly angry at reporters peppering him with questions about what Hur had said.

Oh … my  … goodness.

To be fair, not all the criticism has come from Democrats.

USA Today reported: “I think it’s outrageous. Prosecutors are taught that the Department of Justice should speak through charges or it shouldn’t speak at all,” said Mark Lytle, a veteran Justice Department public corruption prosecutor who also served in the White House Counsel’s Office in the Trump administration.

I am not going to climb aboard the “Dude Has Lost It” hay wagon. I consider the president to be mentally fit and alert — and is fully capable of doing his job as our head of state/government and as our commander in chief.

Did the  special counsel cross the line in bashing Biden’s memory? Even some Republicans think so (msn.com)

However, he doesn’t buttress his public image by lashing out as he did the other day when Hur issued his 388-page report.

As for the special counsel, who was appointed by Biden’s immediate predecessor to be U.S. attorney for Maryland, he simply could have declared there was no criminal activity found … and left it at that.

I fear that the special counsel has poured fuel onto a presidential campaign fire that appears set to explode on its own.

Trump won’t testify … ever!

All this chatter I keep hearing from TV news talking heads about the possibility of Donald Trump testifying in any of the criminal trials awaiting him makes me want to laugh out loud.

Let’s settle the issue once and for all: Donald Trump will not testify in any of these trials. Why not? Because he cannot tell the truth. Thus, he becomes a candidate for perjury.

Trump cannot tell the truth about his involvement with the Jan. 6 assault on our government. He cannot speak truthfully about how he squirreled away those classified documents from the White House. He cannot speak truthfully about the co-defendants who also have been indicted.

Imagine him putting his hand on a holy book and swearing to tell the “truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

It won’t happen. No judge worth a damn is going to summon Trump to court and demand that he tell the truth.

Donald Trump cannot comply with a judge’s order.

Conviction = condemnation

One almost can predict with metaphysical certitude what will happen if a federal jury convicts Donald J. Trump on any of the charges being brought before them.

The MAGA mob of morons will condemn the jury. It will blast the presiding judge to smithereens. It will cast doubt on the integrity of the federal judiciary. It will demonize the Justice Department, starting with the attorney general and the special counsel.

None of will — or at least it shouldn’t — have any material effect on the outcome. We still would have a former POTUS standing as a convicted felon facing years in prison.

I won’t wager which of the charges holds the most potential for conviction. My opinion on all of that changes with the direction of the wind.

Oh … and then we have the two state trials that Trump is likely to face. He’s got the one in New York City and quite likely one in Fulton County, Ga. Both of those prosecutions are being led by Black district attorneys, which of course feeds into Trump’s racist wheelhouse. We damn sure can look forward to hearing Trump bloviate on the racial component of those actions.

Now, of course none of this will matter if he’s acquitted, if he walks away cleanly, if the feds and the states cannot persuade juries to convict beyond a reasonable doubt of Trump’s guilt in his effort to steal the 2020 presidential election and of his hiding of classified documents taken from the White House. Then we have the hush money payment he made illegally to the adult film star to keep her quiet about a tryst the two of them had … but which Trump denies ever occurred.

We are heading for a major storm. Let’s all hold on.


Will the ex-POTUS implode?

As I watch the media cover the myriad investigations into Donald J. Trump, I am left to wonder this about the former president of the United States:

How is he going to react when — and I have no doubt that it will occur — the special counsel indicts him for felony crimes? Will he lose what is left of his mind? Will he say something we could deem as a direct physical threat to the special counsel, Jack Smith? If he does, will the feds then decide on the spot to arrest him for issuing such a threat?

I am growing increasingly concerned about Trump’s behavior as news keeps leaking about the state of Smith’s probe. Trump is running for POTUS again, but as a candidate under federal — and state — investigations, he places himself in considerable jeopardy by shooting off his pie hole.

This guy not only cannot tell the truth. He also cannot control himself. He doesn’t heed lawyers’ advice to stop talking about these legal matters. On and on he goes, blathering lie after lie.

My goodness. He has admitted to others that he kept “classified documents,” despite denying he did the obvious.  Trump then offered a jaw-dropping response to a question as to whether he told anyone about the documents: “Not really,” he said.

Huh? What the … ?

He has given the special counsel the ammo he needs to unload on the former POTUS when the time comes to indict him.

Back to my question: What will he do the moment he hears that Smith has asked the grand jury to indict him?

This individual’s behavior suggests to me that we need to watch him ver-r-r-r-ry carefully.


Trump wants to meet with AG?

Donald J. Trump’s lawyers, apparently feeling the fire burning under them, have reached out for a meeting with Attorney General Merrick Garland.

They want to meet with the AG to discuss the investigation that reportedly is being wrapped up by the special counsel whom Garland appointed to investigate the 1/6 assault on our government and the classified documents that Trump took from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, Fla.

OK, now. Here’s a quick answer to Trump’s legal team: Merrick Garland is not going to meet with you.

Why do you think he appointed special counsel Jack Smith to complete the probe into the insurrection and the document grab? He did it to remove himself from the probe, removing any suspicion that might come at him if a grand jury indicts the former POTUS.

It looks to me as if special counsel Smith is closing in on some indictments. Moreover, we now hear from lawyers who used to work for Trump who tell us they believe Trump is going to serve prison time if he’s convicted.

Donald Trump’s life is about to get so very messy.


Special counsel closes in

I am not a lawyer … and I don’t even play one on TV, but I have a hunch about a legal proceeding that I want to share.

It is that former Vice President Mike Pence’s testimony this week before a grand jury examining the 1/6 insurrection well might be the beginning of the end of Donald Trump’s idiotic quest for the presidency in 2024.

Special counsel Jack Smith summoned Pence to testify before the panel; Pence initially fought it, then he and the Pence-Trump legal team were told that the ex-VP had to testify.

Today, he did. Prosecutors sworn him to tell the truth and they then worked him over behind closed doors.

They likely asked Pence: What did Trump say to you in advance of the 1/6 assault on the government and what did you say to him?

I suppose it is possible that Pence could invoke the Fifth Amendment, which protects him against self-incrimination. Except that he isn’t the subject of the probe; Pence is a low-risk witness, given that on that terrible day he stood his ground and stood on the Constitution, which required him to do his duty that day, which was to preside over congressional certification of the Electoral College results from the 2020 presidential election.

Oh, yes, that’s the election that Joe Biden won over Donald Trump. 

Pence has told TV interviewers that Trump’s remarks that day were “reckless” and that they put “everyone in the Capitol that day” in dire danger. Indeed, traitors who stormed the Capitol threatened to assassinate Pence and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

What did Trump do to stop it? Not a damn thing!

That’s the kind of testimony that the former vice president of the United States can deliver to the special counsel and the grand jury that will determine whether to indict the former president of the United States.

My non-lawyerly gut tells me the special counsel’s hammer is about to hit home … as it must.


Does one ‘scandal’ affect the other?

Donald Trump’s classified document scandal is the real thing; a president leaves office and takes with him hundreds of pages of documents that do not belong to him.

Joe Biden’s classified document matter is different: he served as vice president, left that office, and squirreled away a few pages of classified documents.

Trump has challenged efforts to retrieve them; Biden has cooperated fully with the feds.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed two special counsels to examine these matters. Question of the day: Should one scandal affect the investigation of the other? My answer: No.

More specifically, special counsel Jack Smith’s work on the Trump matter should proceed with all deliberate speed. Robert Hur’s work on the Biden matter also should proceed.

One investigation must not affect the other one. More to the point is that Smith’s probe into the Trump scandal — which differs, in my mind, greatly from what is occurring with the Biden matter — must continue to its conclusion.

In my view, that conclusion should include an indictment of the ex-POTUS on allegations that he has obstructed justice and committed an illegal theft of government property.

But … that call belongs to AG Garland and his team of legal eagles. He vows to proceed with meticulous caution, which is all right with me. Garland has to get it right, understanding as I am sure he does the gravity of indicting a former POTUS and charging with enough criminal behavior to put him behind bars — if he’s convicted — for the rest of his sorry-ass life.

The Biden matter might complicate the probe into Trump’s scandal, but it must not derail it.


Let’s see who is ‘weaponizing’ justice

Republicans in Congress have adopted a goofy notion that Democrats — starting with President Biden — are “weaponizing” the Justice Department in an effort to bring down Donald J. Trump.

Well, let’s see how that plays out.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has named Robert Hur as special counsel in a probe into whether Biden broke the law when he held classified documents in a think tank and in his Wilmington, Del., garage. The documents come from his time as vice president.

Hur is a U.S. attorney endorsed by Trump. Hmm. Will the prosecutor follow the law, or will he back the Trump allies’ campaign to subvert and destroy Biden? If it’s the latter, then just who is “weaponizing” the Justice Department?

I believe Garland did the right thing by appointing a special counsel. He had no choice, given that he did the same thing when he appointed a special counsel to examine whether Trump broke the law when he took documents out of the White House and hid them in his Florida home.

One of many key differences in these cases lies in the principals’ response. Biden vows to “cooperate fully” with authorities; Trump has sought to block any effort to return the documents to the National Archives, where they belong, on the specious grounds that they are his property. That is pure crap!

Who is guilty of weaponization? It’s not AG Merrick Garland and President Joe Biden. If Robert Hur does his job dispassionately and without bias, then the whole weaponization mantra will be rendered moot.


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.


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!