Merrick Garland has appointed a special counsel to investigate former president Donald Trump. The appointment was prompted by Trump’s announcement that he’s running for president. Garland explained that, given Trump’s candidacy and Joe Biden’s stated intention to run for reelection, it is “in the public interest” to appoint someone independent of the Biden Justice Department to handle the investigation of Trump. Doing so, he said, will “underscore the Department’s commitment to both independence and accountability in particularly sensitive matters.”
The purpose of a grand jury is to protect defendants from meritless, vindictive or politicized prosecutions. A case against Trump seems to me to be exactly what the grand jury was designed for. If grand juries cannot adequately perform this task -- if they will really indict ham sandwiches, or if the DC jury pool is too lopsided for a political case -- then this recommends reforming the grand jury system, which may be failing other defendants in high profile cases who are also unpopular but lack cult followings which give the prosecutors pause.
The real threat to our representative democracy is the blatant interpretation and application of the law in a political way rather than applying it equally to all. We can all consider the many things Trump may or may not have done and whether or not they rise to the level of criminal prosecution. But there are so many, many instances where things far more obviously illegal have occurred and investigators have shrugged with a "no harm no foul" claim.
There probably is a statute that makes taking documents to Mar-a-Lago illegal. But it doesn't apply to the president. The SC has ruled that document classification authority originates with the Commander In Chief. Neither statutes, the FBI, nor the Nat. Archives can change that.
IMHO, the likeliest indictment would be for obstruction of justice based on Trump instructing his minions to hide documents subpoenaed by the grand jury and then telling them to tell the grand jury that all responsive documents had been returned. That’s a simple case that doesn’t depend on whether the docs were or were not classified or did or didn’t belong to Trump.
The purpose of a grand jury is to protect defendants from meritless, vindictive or politicized prosecutions. A case against Trump seems to me to be exactly what the grand jury was designed for. If grand juries cannot adequately perform this task -- if they will really indict ham sandwiches, or if the DC jury pool is too lopsided for a political case -- then this recommends reforming the grand jury system, which may be failing other defendants in high profile cases who are also unpopular but lack cult followings which give the prosecutors pause.
The real threat to our representative democracy is the blatant interpretation and application of the law in a political way rather than applying it equally to all. We can all consider the many things Trump may or may not have done and whether or not they rise to the level of criminal prosecution. But there are so many, many instances where things far more obviously illegal have occurred and investigators have shrugged with a "no harm no foul" claim.
This analysis just ignores constitutional law.
There probably is a statute that makes taking documents to Mar-a-Lago illegal. But it doesn't apply to the president. The SC has ruled that document classification authority originates with the Commander In Chief. Neither statutes, the FBI, nor the Nat. Archives can change that.
IMHO, the likeliest indictment would be for obstruction of justice based on Trump instructing his minions to hide documents subpoenaed by the grand jury and then telling them to tell the grand jury that all responsive documents had been returned. That’s a simple case that doesn’t depend on whether the docs were or were not classified or did or didn’t belong to Trump.
So it’s okay for Bill and particularly Hillary to take classified documents (and even try to steal furniture, artifacts, etc.) but not for Trump?