DOJ’s lack of interest in Dems’ classified docs is Trump’s sole defense
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Troubling Warrant on Twitter
Special Counsel Jack Smith is once again making headlines with disturbing details about his warrant served on Twitter. The warrant compelled Twitter to provide account information of users who interacted with Trump’s posts leading up to the events of Jan. 6, 2021. Wait… what?
We were led to believe that Smith had simply subpoenaed Trump’s Twitter account records without notifying Trump or his lawyers. But if you engaged with a tweet from the former president, you could now find yourself on the DOJ’s watchlist thanks to Jack Smith. Your privacy rights were sacrificed in the pursuit of “getting Trump.” You were just collateral damage.
American Democrats are celebrating, but let me share the news. If you responded to a Trump tweet by insulting him, you’re also on Smith’s list.
To make matters worse, the D.C. judge overseeing related matters fined Twitter over $300,000 for not promptly providing your personal account information. This feels like a biased attack on Trump in the DOJ’s favorite anti-Trump territories of NYC and D.C. They would have taken him to Seattle or San Francisco if they could. What about the Sunshine State, though?
Trump has long claimed that the Democrat establishment is after all of us, not just him. Smith’s questionable tactics lend credibility to that claim and erode citizens’ trust in our judicial system. It’s worth noting that most stories about Trump’s legal issues prominently mention the political party of the presiding judge and the president who appointed them. This insinuates that an Obama or Biden appointee will be tough on Trump.
How will Smith’s rule-skirting behavior play out in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago classified documents case? A federal district judge has already reprimanded Smith for abusing the grand jury process by keeping a secret, parallel D.C. grand jury open to investigate Trump for alleged document mishandling, even after he had been indicted by a Miami grand jury. This is blatant forum shopping and grand jury abuse. It’s misconduct that could warrant sanctions. It’s reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy’s tactics.
This scorched-earth approach was always on the menu for those determined to get Trump at any cost. However, as long as the court maintains fairness, there won’t be a mid-year trial, and the Florida jury will eventually receive all the evidence needed to make an informed decision.
The federal government alleges that Trump mishandled documents taken from the White House, failed to secure them, and refused to deliver them to the presidential archivist when requested. However, the lenient treatment of other high-profile individuals who committed similar acts weakens the case against Trump.
For instance, Hillary Clinton misused an unauthorized private email server to store classified communications. When she was under federal subpoena, she and her team used an app to delete data and destroyed devices to cover their tracks. Despite this, the DOJ gave Clinton a pass. FBI Director James Comey acknowledged her wrongdoing but stated that no reasonable prosecutor would charge her because she lacked clear intention to expose classified information to enemies. She may have leaked critical data, but she lacked the motive to harm America. Remember the standards: clear intention and no reasonable prosecutor.
Comparing Mishandling of Classified Information: Biden, Clinton, and Trump
For decades, both Senator and Vice President Biden have consistently mishandled classified information, much like Clinton. Classified, secret, and sensitive materials were discovered at Biden’s homes, offices, and other locations. The sheer volume of information scattered by Biden far surpasses what Trump held and what Clinton destroyed. Surprisingly, a significant portion of this information was once stored at secure government facilities that Biden had access to, but he failed to leave empty-handed. It’s clear that Biden had an abundance of papers.
Recently, the Department of Justice announced that they will not pursue any charges against President Biden, following the pattern of leniency shown towards Clinton. This raises the question: why can they charge Trump? Apart from being the only Republican in this trio, what sets him apart?
In order to convict Trump, every juror must be willing to hold him accountable for the same actions that these uncharged Democrat politicians have committed openly. If defense lawyers can create doubt in the mind of even one juror regarding Trump’s guilt, he will be acquitted. The stakes are high, and the credibility of the prosecution is at the forefront.
We will never truly know what the FBI would have discovered had they obtained warrants or investigated the Clinton and Biden-controlled locations. This is precisely the issue. The FBI leaked photos of meticulously arranged Trump papers, but they remained tight-lipped about the other two. This exemplifies the unequal treatment under the law.
These comparisons are crucial because one of Trump’s defenses is selective prosecution. All three - Trump, Clinton, and Biden – stored classified documents at their homes. However, only Trump, the one with the authority to declassify, has been raided and charged. Legal analysts argue that Trump will struggle to establish this defense since he cannot prove that he was treated differently due to his sex, race, or political party. The key difference lies in their political affiliations, with Trump being the sole Republican.
The defense will not be allowed to make unsupported allegations against Clinton and Biden. Trump will not be permitted to argue that Biden scattered documents for his son to sell to enemies while the Biden family was receiving millions from foreign powers. To make a compelling comparison, Trump needs access to the government’s files on Clinton and Biden’s “document cases” to draw tangible similarities and strengthen his defense. The judge will ultimately decide which classified records Trump can present to the jury and if there are any other relevant documents he is entitled to. The jurors will then determine if these cases are truly different or if Trump is being unfairly treated for not being a protected Democrat.
When it comes to criminal charges that require intent, the defendant’s state of mind is crucial. Comey himself emphasized this. He explained that Clinton lacked intent to cause harm by keeping an email server in a Colorado bathroom. Biden is being portrayed as careless at worst, yet we are left in the dark about the number of documents he possessed and which ones were classified when he took them.
Proof of scienter, or intent, is often presented in a comprehensive manner to help the jury understand the defendant’s thought process during key moments. Did Trump know that his actions were illegal, and did he intend to cause harm? The DOJ has opened the door to evidence on both of these questions by charging Trump with intent crimes. According to the federal authorities, Trump even asked his team if he could destroy documents at Mar-a-Lago, similar to what Clinton did. If it was not illegal for her to destroy classified records, why would it be for him? This appears to be his state of mind.
If Trump can convince the court that he is entitled to directly compare the disparate treatment of the Democrat mishandlers, he should be granted access to these investigative files. Many people believe that the investigations into Clinton and Biden were mere charades. If this is true, it further supports Trump’s defense that he is being singled out despite following the same rules that the DOJ initially applied to Clinton and then to Biden. In Trump’s mind, he was doing what they did, which must have been legal since they were not charged. If the jury finds this reasoning reasonable, they will acquit him.
On the other hand, Smith’s team is unlikely to convince anyone that Clinton was let off the hook because of her inherent cooperativeness. People remember Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, and Bleach-Bit. Can 100 percent of the Florida jury pool truly believe that Trump’s refusal to hand over documents to a glorified bureaucrat librarian is a national security atrocity of unprecedented proportions? It’s highly unlikely. All it takes is one person to conclude that something doesn’t seem right.
Ultimately, it is crucial for every American to understand the rules that impact their liberty and for those rules to be applied fairly. Our behavior is influenced by the expected consequences. If half of the country’s leaders enjoy absolute immunity while their prosecutors aggressively target their counterparts and anyone in their way, it represents a failure of the justice system that cannot be repaired.
In the end, this case is a losing battle for Smith. No one falls from hero to zero faster than someone the left no longer needs. If Smith gathers all the resources of the federal government to prosecute Trump, at least half of the country will view it as a targeted attack aimed at clearing the path for an inept lifelong politician. If Trump is acquitted, Smith’s team will resemble the one that failed to convict O.J. Simpson.
Either way, the outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for the justice system and the perception of fairness in our society.
Our Rights are Slipping Away
It’s a troubling reality that under the current administration, we, the people, are witnessing a gradual erosion of our rights. It seems that those in power are willing to sacrifice our freedoms just to target the one man who poses a significant threat to their comfortable arrangements and unchecked authority.
How do the inconsistencies in the handling of classified information mishandling cases by the DOJ raise concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the judicial system?
Et off the hook due to lack of intent, while Trump should be charged for similar actions. The inconsistencies in how classified information mishandling cases have been handled by the DOJ raise serious concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the judicial system.
As the trial against Trump unfolds, it is important to remember that this case goes beyond just the former president. It raises questions about the integrity of our justice system and whether it is being used as a weapon to target political opponents. The selective prosecution of Trump while giving leniency to Democratic politicians like Clinton and Biden undermines the trust citizens have in the legal system.
The outcome of this trial will have far-reaching implications for future cases involving classified information mishandling. If Trump is convicted without evidence of intent, it sets a dangerous precedent that could be used to target individuals based on their political affiliations. It will send a message that the rule of law can be manipulated for political gain.
In order to restore faith in the justice system, it is imperative that the court allows Trump to present a strong defense and compare his case to those of Clinton and Biden. The defense should have access to all relevant documents and investigative files to demonstrate that Trump is not being treated fairly. Only then can the jury make an informed decision and ensure that justice is served.
Regardless of one’s political views, it is crucial to recognize the implications of this case. The erosion of trust in the judicial system and the potential for abuse of power should concern every citizen. It is our duty to hold our government accountable and demand fairness and impartiality in our legal system.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
