19 Comments

I understand the arguments related to probable cause but that is a two way street. There was more than enough probable cause in the case of Hillary Clinton and the secret server in her home, and that classified document and emails were located on that server but where was the highly publicized search of her home by 30 FBI agents.

Why was Sandy Berger only convicted of a misdemeanor for stealing and destroy documents from the National Archives related to Bin Laden and the Clinton administration?

This is why there is a very real perception of two standards of Justice in this that is based on political affiliation.

Expand full comment

Love anonymous posters projecting their own imagined malfeasance onto others with sterling reputations

Expand full comment

So I see you presume no bad faith on the part of Garland, the most partisan and intellectually dishonest AG dating back at least to John Mitchell. (See Jonathan Turley’s analysis on Garland’s refusal to appoint a special counsel in the Biden Family corruption scandal, often mistakenly localized only to the President’s son. Or see the whistleblower giving the lie to Garland’s testimony that the DOJ was not targeting parents at school board meetings. Or see the Grassley letter setting forth the whistleblower evidence relating to the suppression of the Hunter Biden investigation. Etc.) I suspect that when a Republican House majority investigates this dangerous precedent in American political and legal history your presumption will be proven wrong and, if so, I will expect to read here the jurisprudential equivalent of Captain Renault’s exclamation: “I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.” Yes, it is indeed shocking, but it is not surprising.

Expand full comment

Where to begin?

1. If it was a violation of the Presidential Records Act, why not a subpoena? Hillary Clinton destroyed documents, servers, kept a private server with classified documents in her home. Where was the search warrant then? Why immunity for her staff? Did they raid her house? Sandy Berger. Barack Obama. James Comey. No raids. Except for a slap on the wrist for Berger, no consequences The list goes on and on.

2. So a criminal fishing expedition is AOK against a former President of the United States? Wow.

3. They can pick up evidence in plain view. Nine hours to find incriminating evidence “ in plain view”.? In Melanie Trumps clothes closet?

4. Trump voluntarily provided millions of documents to the special prosecutor, but they now think he will hide something?

5. Tens of millions of dollars, tens of thousands of hours, multiple hundreds of investigators and attorneys over the last five years to find a crime Trump may have committed, and so far they have come up with zero. With those kinds of resources, and the thousand of crimes on the books, they could find a crime committed by virtually any of us. Trump must be purer than the driven snow. They won’t find a crime here either unless it’s a General Flynn crime like the Logan Act.

6. No public comment because of an ongoing investigation, but anonymous leaks to the Legacy media. Us minions have no right to know, only members of the Brotherhood of Saints. If there was nothing nefarious about this, why not be transparent?

This wasn’t political? Right.

6.

6.

.

4.

Expand full comment

At The Guardian, Moira Donegan suggests that Garland's newfound courage might be the result of realizing that, if the House of Representatives is dominated by the GOP, then he and the Department of Justice will be attacked regardless of whether Trump is investigated or not. She writes, "If Garland is going to be punished for upholding the law and for not upholding the law, then the consequences for action and inaction become [difficult] to tell apart. He may as well do his job."

Expand full comment
Aug 11, 2022·edited Aug 11, 2022

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/08/10/doj-source-calls-raid-a-spectacular-backfire-claims-ag-garland-didnt-approve-it-n488788

The FBI being unaccountable and stupid is the Occam's Razor explanation to this whole situation.

Expand full comment

You seem to be implying that unless the search at Mar-A-Lago produces evidence of “serious” crimes - such as those associated with Jan. 6 - the AG shouldn’t prosecute. Given that Trump doesn’t use emails and doesn’t seem to write things down, the evidence of serious crimes is much more likely to come from testimony of those who talked to Trump and the people they talked to, and their texts and emails and written documents. Whatever Mar-A-Lago yields or doesn’t, the AG should use all available evidence in deciding whether to prosecute. Personally, I think that evidence of Trump’s criminality exists, will be obtained by the FBI and DOJ, and will persuade Garland to prosecute.

Expand full comment

In my view, the elephant in the room is the mystery of why the former President kept the documents in the first place. George Conway has speculated that Trump kept them because he is a narcissist. I don't buy that. Would he "show off" the retained papers as a mark of status? Would he gold-plate them?

Another poster here (Mark Neuberger) has suggested that the papers might be retained in order to cover up evidence of previous crimes. Again, I do not find this plausible for several reasons: First, Trump was not a big record-keeper, and would have been unlikely to generate such records. Second, if such incriminating records existed, why keep them? Why not destroy them?

Recent reports indicate that among the retained documents are some sensitive nuclear secrets. Keeping these makes even less sense -- seems inconsistent with either of these explanations.

So, inquiring minds would like to know why he retained the documents.

Expand full comment

Whether evidence is "strong" is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion Trump could be convicted by juries of all three scenarios if the trial were in the District of Columbia, whereas a fair trial (to both sides) could be held in the Southern District of Florida, venue would also be proper. Want to guess which venue DOJ would pick?

Expand full comment
Aug 10, 2022·edited Aug 10, 2022

Why is no one speculating the boxes contain documents pertaining to 1) inappropriate Russian influence 2) incriminating documents regarding Ukraine/ Hunter Biden 3) Illegal dealings with (pick your foreign country including but not limited to Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, etc.). I am.

Expand full comment
Aug 10, 2022·edited Aug 10, 2022

I know what he was thinking. Something along the lines of “You took away my PRECIOUS. Sneaky little Trumpses. Now you pay!” Thank goodness he was kept off the Court. Dodged one right there. Also, way to go tarnishing a sterling reputation on the DC Circuit. Goes to show people can put on an act for a long time.

Expand full comment