Sunday, September 4, 2022

Biden’s Abuse of Power

 From Gregg Jarrett:

In considering whether to appoint a special master to review and segregate the documents seized by the FBI in their lawless search of Donald Trump’s home, Federal Judge Aileen Cannon plaintively asked, “What’s the harm?”  Excellent question.

The answer by Attorney General Merrick Garland’s attack-dog lawyers was both predictable and lame.  Oh, gee…it’ll halt or interfere with our investigation of the former president.  The irony should be lost on no one.  According to whistleblowers, the FBI halted and interfered with the Hunter Biden probe…shutting it down and spreading the lie that the laptop was Russian disinformation.

The hypocrisy (and comedy) aside, Garland’s warped case against the former president is predicated on two major assumptions that may well prove faulty.  First, he assumes that the documents in question are classified.  But Trump disputes that, insisting he declassified them.  Second, the AG assumes that the former president had no right of access to, or custody of, his presidential papers.  That, too, is debatable under the Presidential Records Act, as two veterans of the Department of Justice wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal column.

Biden’s attorney general is guilty of a flagrant abuse of power.  His actions bear the unmistakable stench of political persecution.  That was the point made by Trump’s lawyers in court on Thursday when they ripped the DOJ for the staged photograph that was both gratuitous and prejudicial.  They knew the liberal press would grab it and run with their hair on fire.  Indeed they did.  Garland is the media’s new BFF.  He and his minions are constantly leaking anti-Trump bile for their biased stories.  The AG’s goal is to convict Trump in the court of public opinion.

Garland’s obstruction of justice accusation is utterly absurd.  Under the law, it requires proof of a corrupt intent, which means an “immoral, depraved, and evil purpose.”  Where is that shown?  If Trump truly believed he had a right to the documents, then his actions hardly constitute a corrupt purpose.  It is really, then, just a legal clash over what the Presidential Records Act means.  It is a civil —not criminal— matter that has never been litigated. (Read more.)


No comments: