Don's Tuesday Column

             THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson    Red Bluff Daily News   6/20/2023

An indictment about nothing?

By devoting this column to valid, legitimate arguments and perspectives that undermine the indictment of former President Donald J. Trump, I hope readers will find first, things absent from the seemingly mono-narrative found on network, cable and public news media. Secondly, Republicans and right-leaning readers will have their beliefs validated, while those on the left will have to think.

Ignored is the long-standing role of “legal precedent” in American judicial processes. Judges are bound by prior settled rulings, and can’t “just make up” interpretations of law. Our adversarial process creates endless contention between advocates in every court case; one side prevails. Decisions reflect applicable precedents in prior cases; decades-old Supreme Court rulings occasionally are overturned.

Bringing up Hillary Clinton’s unsecured private server and her 30,000 emails—many documents and communications were classified, and exposed to foreigners—is not “what about-ism,” irrelevant to Mr. Trump’s situation. Then-FBI Director James Comey rattled off numerous crimes applicable to Clinton; he subjectively concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge her. Trump and Republicans rightly called foul.

Democrats were nonetheless forced to double down in their illogical defense of Clinton when reams of emails and classified material were found on Anthony Wiener’s computer, his source being Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin. Andrew McCabe’s intervention—substituting “extremely careless,” a non-criminal standard, for “gross negligence,” a criminal offense—allowed Comey to exonerate Clinton of malign intent.

That standard of non-prosecution, applied to other elected officials like Mike Pence, rationalized the non-prosecution of Joe Biden. His purloining of classified material began as a Senator up through his vice presidency; at no time was he empowered to declassify anything, unlike both Bushes, Obama and, through January 20, 2021, President Trump.

Those presidents, including current POTUS Joe Biden, have “plenary” powers as the supreme executive, a “unitary” position at the head of the executive branch, the only member of that branch put there by Americans’ votes. It’s inarguable that products of departments of the executive branch, including military and national security agencies, are the rightful property of the chief executive, the President.

The Presidential Records Act (the PRA) cannot therefore be inferior to the Federal Records Act (the FRA). The PRA was written to clarify and even supersede the Espionage Act from a century ago, which was never in anyone’s imagination—prior to the wild interpretation of prosecutor Jack Smith—conceived of applying to any President’s claim to his personal documents, papers and memorabilia.

The issue was settled by the Supreme Court when they decided against Judicial Watch’s well-intended lawsuit over Bill Clinton’s many tape recordings. The “Clinton Sock Drawer” case established a president’s unquestioned right to decide what he could retain post-presidency—creating a “precedent."

The National Archives and Records Administration—again, part of the executive branch—was empowered with zero authority to criminally pursue any president’s held records, documents and memorabilia, many of which will have some classification markings. Radio host Dan Bongino, formerly a Secret Service agent, explained that something as secret as a motorcade route, highly classified prior to the president’s trip, can’t reasonably remain classified after the trip is concluded. Just an example of the “over-classification” problem.

The National Archives is not superior to the president and can only negotiate and civilly litigate over documents possessed by an ex-president. Perhaps you’ve not been told by your sources that the above paragraphs—reread them, please—make the entire case against Trump dissolve into dismissal on precedent and constitutional principles.

Other relevant issues: The blatantly prejudicial photos of many boxes—not the 1,850 or so stored by Joe Biden in who-knows-how-many locations—filling a stage, a bathroom, etc. in a gated, Secret Service-protected Mar-a-Lago, are meant to convey the false illusion of irresponsible handling by Trump. Then the indictment asserts that 102 pages are classified—or “documents with classification markings”—little more than the half-inch of paper in my printer feed tray. Big whoop!

Look up: “IN-DEPTH: Trump Indictment Rests on Untested Legal Theory, Experts Say; ‘The Espionage Act has never been used to prosecute in this sort of a setting,’ says former federal prosecutor.” “Significant Portion of Trump Indictment Based on Protected Attorney-Client Privilege: Ex-Federal Prosecutor.” “Former Top Department of Justice Official Blows Up Jack Smith’s Case Against President Trump with One Tweet—Notices Key Item on Third Page of the Federal Indictment That Is ‘Grounds for Granting a Motion’ to Dismiss.”

“Disgraceful: The Left’s Trumped-up Charges Damage More Than Donald J. Trump”; “FLASHBACK: Biden Promised to Use His Power to Prevent Trump from Returning to White House”; “Previous Target of DOJ’s Trump Legal Hit Squad Details Illegal Wiretaps, ‘Misconduct’”; “6 Reasons DOJ’s ‘Get Trump’ Documents Case Is Seriously Flawed.” The indictment is reasonably called “Dangerous” (Ben Shapiro), “Irresponsibility Squared” (Michael Barone).

The motives of the Democrat/DOJ/news media cabal have an undeniable cloud of suspicion, considering six years-worth of shameless propagation, and arrogant certainty, over fallacious charges of Russian collusion, etc. They are determined to deny the voters a choice in 2024 by litigious assassination of Donald Trump. Supporters will not be fooled.