FBI Arrests MI Republican Candidate for Governor — Over Jan 6 Protest

 

I’ve done a little digging about this story: here’s the video on YouTube.

Michigan is having a lively Republican primary. The FBI arrested one of the contenders at his home and the local news, of course, broadcast pictures of his home showing the street number.

He was arrested for something like remaining in a public building without the King’s warrant. Hard to tell. It’s a misdemeanor.

He needs to run for federal office if he wants to use candidacy as a defense — works for Democrats. Most of the comments on the YouTube video are pretty good.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 76 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):
    Not worth being banned again. Everyone knows Gary’s opinions on Trump and all Trump related things. I think most tune him out.

    For real. I almost responded to one of his nonsense posts last week, and then I said, “Why even bother.” Then I went into the kitchen and ate some cheese. It was a better use of my time.

    What kind of cheese?

    • #61
  2. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I am glad that he was arrested. I hope that every single person who invaded the Capitol is prosecuted.

    Especially when they were welcomed in by the authorities.

    Given FST’s lament (or warning) here…

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    But generally the ordinary American didn’t need to worry that his political affiliations would govern how the legal system treated him. I have been adamant that America did not have political prisoners. But, the law enforcement reaction to the events of January 6 has completely destroyed that belief.

    …I do feel obliged to ask if what I’ve been (provocatively) saying for several years now — that the law is dead — is true or not; and if true, to what extend do US lawyers believe it is true. Of more precisely, What is the health status of American law and juris prudence? Is the law:

    Alive and well?
    Wounded but still standing?
    Wounded and on life support?
    “Mostly dead”?
    Or, dead?

    And for whom, and to what ends, does the law now apply?

    Clearly, one member wants a particular class of protester (or rally-goer) to be PROSECUTED for entering, and being ushered into by police, the nation’s Capitol — as “invaders”. This member has already — apparently from news reports — come to the conclusion that these citizens need to be arrested and punished far beyond the existing law for trespassing, and this seems to be an obviously emotional, irrational, and prejudicial, mean-spirited, and spiteful posture for one who is arguably a licensed law professional.

    If I fear anything, it is the spread of this phobic, anti-American, and evil mentality within an otherwise sober, rational, and societally-necessary professional arena.

    I worry that “the rule of law” is dying, but I think if you ask lawyers, many (particularly the younger ones) would not agree. But what they call “the rule of law” is different from what has traditionally been defined. A disturbing number of modern legal commentary considers it within “the rule of law” to treat different categories of people differently, or to require conformance to certain ideological beliefs before being able to invoke rights or duties under “the rule of law.” Several lawyers’ groups have changed (in practice, though often not in explicit word) the tradition that lawyers have ethical obligations to represent all people into a requirement that lawyers should refuse to represent people with unpopular political or social views. 

    “The rule of law” is turning into the rule of the powerful. But the powerful are being careful to keep a shell or mantle that sort-of looks like “the rule of law.” 

    • #62
  3. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    Then I went into the kitchen and ate some cheese.

    Should have eaten a banana.

    • #63
  4. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    • #64
  5. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    A disturbing number of modern legal commentary considers it within “the rule of law” to treat different categories of people differently, or to require conformance to certain ideological beliefs before being able to invoke rights or duties under “the rule of law.”

    Social Justice is poison.

    • #65
  6. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    They talked to Ray Epps. He said he wasn’t an insurrectionist, and that was good enough for Adam.

    How did that hammerhead ever get elected? How did he get reelected?

     

    • #66
  7. Nanocelt TheContrarian Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    E. Kent Golding (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    I would not be surprised that Jan 6th becomes a federal holiday celebrating the day the Republicans were destroyed as an effective political party.

    Republicans haven’t been effective since Lincoln.

    Other than the Civil War Republicans haven’t been effective since they were Whigs, and weren’t even effective then. Lincoln himself was a great Progressive,as were all of his successor Republican Presidents except Coolidge and, with caveats, Reagan (he was an FDR New Dealer until he learned what Communists were up to-same as Democrats are up to now—when he was head of SAG). Two of the three Progressive Presidents of the Progressive era were Republicans—three of the four if you toss in McKinley. The Republican Party has always been a Milque toast Progressive Party, however much their failed candidates have been Libertarian (Goldwater).

    • #67
  8. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I worry that “the rule of law” is dying, but I think if you ask lawyers, many (particularly the younger ones) would not agree. But what they call “the rule of law” is different from what has traditionally been defined. A disturbing number of modern legal commentary considers it within “the rule of law” to treat different categories of people differently, or to require conformance to certain ideological beliefs before being able to invoke rights or duties under “the rule of law.” Several lawyers’ groups have changed (in practice, though often not in explicit word) the tradition that lawyers have ethical obligations to represent all people into a requirement that lawyers should refuse to represent people with unpopular political or social views. 

    “The rule of law” is turning into the rule of the powerful. But the powerful are being careful to keep a shell or mantle that sort-of looks like “the rule of law.” 

    As if on cue:

    https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/997306.pdf

     

    • #68
  9. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I worry that “the rule of law” is dying, but I think if you ask lawyers, many (particularly the younger ones) would not agree. But what they call “the rule of law” is different from what has traditionally been defined. A disturbing number of modern legal commentary considers it within “the rule of law” to treat different categories of people differently, or to require conformance to certain ideological beliefs before being able to invoke rights or duties under “the rule of law.” Several lawyers’ groups have changed (in practice, though often not in explicit word) the tradition that lawyers have ethical obligations to represent all people into a requirement that lawyers should refuse to represent people with unpopular political or social views.

    “The rule of law” is turning into the rule of the powerful. But the powerful are being careful to keep a shell or mantle that sort-of looks like “the rule of law.”

    As if on cue:

    https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/997306.pdf

     

    Wow.  Just the first couple of pages told me what I need to know.  We’re going to have to chisel the blindfolds off all our justice statues.

    • #69
  10. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    BDB (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I worry that “the rule of law” is dying, but I think if you ask lawyers, many (particularly the younger ones) would not agree. But what they call “the rule of law” is different from what has traditionally been defined. A disturbing number of modern legal commentary considers it within “the rule of law” to treat different categories of people differently, or to require conformance to certain ideological beliefs before being able to invoke rights or duties under “the rule of law.” Several lawyers’ groups have changed (in practice, though often not in explicit word) the tradition that lawyers have ethical obligations to represent all people into a requirement that lawyers should refuse to represent people with unpopular political or social views.

    “The rule of law” is turning into the rule of the powerful. But the powerful are being careful to keep a shell or mantle that sort-of looks like “the rule of law.”

    As if on cue:

    https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/997306.pdf

     

    Wow. Just the first couple of pages told me what I need to know. We’re going to have to chisel the blindfolds off all our justice statues.

    Silly me, I went all the way through to look for a dissent.

    • #70
  11. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    BDB (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I worry that “the rule of law” is dying, but I think if you ask lawyers, many (particularly the younger ones) would not agree. But what they call “the rule of law” is different from what has traditionally been defined. A disturbing number of modern legal commentary considers it within “the rule of law” to treat different categories of people differently, or to require conformance to certain ideological beliefs before being able to invoke rights or duties under “the rule of law.” Several lawyers’ groups have changed (in practice, though often not in explicit word) the tradition that lawyers have ethical obligations to represent all people into a requirement that lawyers should refuse to represent people with unpopular political or social views.

    “The rule of law” is turning into the rule of the powerful. But the powerful are being careful to keep a shell or mantle that sort-of looks like “the rule of law.”

    As if on cue:

    https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/997306.pdf

     

    Wow. Just the first couple of pages told me what I need to know. We’re going to have to chisel the blindfolds off all our justice statues.

    It’s really bizarre to have fought to remove the unequal treatment of minorities from our governance so they wouldn’t be 2nd class citizens only to have it put back in under pretense of equity while really, it’s to subject the majority to second class status.

    • #71
  12. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    BDB (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I worry that “the rule of law” is dying, but I think if you ask lawyers, many (particularly the younger ones) would not agree. But what they call “the rule of law” is different from what has traditionally been defined. A disturbing number of modern legal commentary considers it within “the rule of law” to treat different categories of people differently, or to require conformance to certain ideological beliefs before being able to invoke rights or duties under “the rule of law.” Several lawyers’ groups have changed (in practice, though often not in explicit word) the tradition that lawyers have ethical obligations to represent all people into a requirement that lawyers should refuse to represent people with unpopular political or social views.

    “The rule of law” is turning into the rule of the powerful. But the powerful are being careful to keep a shell or mantle that sort-of looks like “the rule of law.”

    As if on cue:

    https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/997306.pdf

    Wow. Just the first couple of pages told me what I need to know. We’re going to have to chisel the blindfolds off all our justice statues.

    My thoughts exactly.

    • #72
  13. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    On January 6th, the vast majority of people who protested stayed outside of the Capitol and did not engage in violence.  Does Gary want them arrested?

    Of those who entered the Capitol, most appear to have wandered around the Capitol, which is at worst a simple trespass.  Does Gary want them arrested, rather than ticketed?

    The problem with the J6 committee is that it is not even slightly interested in investigating why the systems involved failed.  The Capitol Police are not up to the standard of any major city police department, with no independent investigation of shootings.  Part of my job is investigating incidents, and this outrages and disgusts me.  Do they think that there will never be raucous protests at the Capitol again?  Given how they are running the place, you would think they would be more concerned.

    I just hope that this does not spread to other investigative bodies in the government.  “NTSB officials have released their report into the plane crash.  They blame the crash on the fact that the pilot was Republican and voted for Trump.”

    • #73
  14. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    On January 6th, the vast majority of people who protested stayed outside of the Capitol and did not engage in violence.  Does Gary want them arrested?

    Yes.

    Of those who entered the Capitol, most appear to have wandered around the Capitol, which is at worst a simple trespass.  Does Gary want them arrested, rather than ticketed?

    Yes.

    • #74
  15. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    I’ve asked Gary to lay off on this thread, and it looks like he has.  There are many (many) places around here where you can find what he thinks about Trump, 1/6 and so forth.  No need to do so here.

    • #75
  16. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Michigan_gubernatorial_election#Polling

    https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/03/craig-johnson-lose-appeals-land-spot-primary-ballot/7482112001/

    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63372943/united-states-v-kelley/

    Duplicate MI docket populated with some of the documents:

    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63372988/united-states-v-kelley

    Released on personal recognizance with almost no restrictions:

    https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.miwd.105032/gov.uscourts.miwd.105032.4.0.pdf

    Still waiting for the DC case 1:22−mj−00133 to hit the database.

    DC docket:

    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63379230/united-states-v-kelley/

    Statement of facts:

    https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.244261/gov.uscourts.dcd.244261.1.1.pdf

    • #76
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.