The design that America’s founders gave the nation can only function with an honor code (“On my honor I will not lie, cheat or steal, nor condone anyone who does.”)
The prosecution of a former President, especially one running against Mr. Biden, had better be for serious offenses. The evidence should be so compelling that it persuades fair-minded Republicans, not merely MSNBC or CNN anchors. Mr. Garland signed up to make these difficult calls when he agreed to be AG, and he should have made them on Mr. Trump himself.
Yeah, well, this is what End of Empire looks like. Little men attempting big, dishonorable projects.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
WSJ is comparing this to the Benghazi investigations which McCarthy bragged were to damage a political opponent.
Or to a president extorting a foreign leader to find dirt on another opponent.
Except that comparison is false. We know Trump planned to overturn the election and threatened his VP with physical violence via his gangs. We know he had absconded with and obstructed the return of documents, highly classified and otherwise. It is a matter of indictment.
We have given presidents immunity while in office. Fine. But Trump wants it after he leaves office and now when he runs for office.
He knows he is in legal trouble on both federal and state levels. What better way to rile up his base than victim status. That was what MAGA was all about from the escalator on down.
WSJ’s veiled threat, (they better have a case or else), is just a last gasp effort from the right to sound sympathetic to the supporters while acknowledging that Garland is probably doing the right thing in a novel situation.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “WSJ is comparing this to the Benghazi investigations…Or to a president extorting a foreign leader to find dirt on another opponent.”
WSJ doesn’t mention Benghazi or extortion of foreign leaders. It argues, instead, that AG Garland has appointed a special counsel to investigate Trump without showing any good reason for doing so. It is reasonable to suspect Garland of abusing his power under the circumstances.
LikeLike
“It is reasonable to suspect Garland of abusing his power under the circumstances.”
Only to members of the Cult.
LikeLiked by 1 person
After this, especially now instead of a year ago, the bubble of people who don’t see Trump’s claim that the DOJ is corrupt and weaponized vindicated must be getting pretty small.
I had real hopes the GOP was done with him and he would have simply lost the primaries and faded away but this almost guarantees Trump will win in 2024.
LikeLike
A year ago? It has taken a while to gather evidence from a stonewalling group of supporters in the White House.
Also, the scope of stolen documents was just being realized.
Are you saying if a crime is committed, just wait a year and it goes away?
Fading away wouldn’t happen. More importantly, if Trump is not held accountable, what will keep the next “Trump” from trying again to overturn elections or steal secrets? Remember, conservatives won’t always be in the Oval Office.
Precedence is a crucial part of our legal structure.
LikeLiked by 3 people
What I am saying is that even if Garland has a case, announcing this right after Trump declares his candidacy has millions of undecideds ordering red hats.
Perception trumps reality, and this looks like the DOJ is Biden’s KGB.
LikeLike
RE: “Perception trumps reality, and this looks like the DOJ is Biden’s KGB.”
Well put.
It is possible that Garland has a case, but it is unlikely. If Trump has committed crimes, there should be victims. I haven’t heard of any.
LikeLike
American people are the victims. Undermining the elections, stealing national documents, obstruction, extortion, tax fraud…
LikeLiked by 3 people
Too vague.
LikeLike
I am not going to write a legal charge in proper form for each of those crimes. You know what I mean.
As far as victims go, people who cheat on taxes victimize those who do obey the law and pay. Aside from the fact that tax evasion is a crime unto itself.
Extortion was the direct threat to prosecute the GA Secretary of State and his attorney unless they found more votes for him. I think that is the one he is in serious trouble with.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Perception trumps reality sounds pithy, but when perception supplants reality, we have MAGA and its conspiracies. I prefer reality as do most Americans.
Trump knew the special counsel was coming and that is why he declared his candidacy long before any other contender. First, he would set the tone and direction of the GOP races, and second, he would get the victim status.
I suspect the GOP is not happy and it’s actions will tell.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not happy with Trump, and I’m pissed that the Democratic party is so deep in its bubble that it will do stupid things to put him back in office.
LikeLike
The decision to prosecute Trump was very carefully considered, almost agonizingly so.
Look how we bent over more than backwards to tip toe around the stolen documents. Pleading, begging, subpoenas, obstruction after lying obstruction for over a year until the risk of revealing top secrets was just too great.
The DOJ is being very careful to make sure the evidence is strong in both the document case as well as 1/6. Trump knows this and that is why he is screaming like a banshee with almost daily rants on his site.
A special prosecutor will also insulate the DOJ from the expected uproar from the Freedom Caucus through endless investigations. Can’t unload a special prosecutor even if Garland is impeached. Think Durham.
The majority of Americans think Trump is damaging and unhinged, but he was president and we have institutionalized by law and tradition deference and limited immunities while in office. Losing presidents are new ground in this case.
LikeLiked by 3 people
First, they aren’t stolen documents, they are disputed documents. Trump maintains they are his property and no court has yet ruled otherwise.
The DOJ has admitted there were no important documents and that Trump had no nefarious reasons other than his insistence that they are his. He may prove to be wrong but disputed is not stolen.
But the primary problem is that the DOJ has destroyed the reputation of the FBI, and that is a bad thing.
LikeLike
“DOJ has admitted there were no important documents…”
Really. No classified ones either. Or presidential records required by the Archive.
That is news to me.
LikeLiked by 3 people
From the WAPO article:
Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter.
As part of the investigation, federal authorities reviewed the classified documents that were recovered from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and private club, looking to see if the types of information contained in them pointed to any kind of pattern or similarities, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said. FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets. Instead, the former president seemed motivated by a more basic desire not to give up what he believed was his property, these people said.”
LikeLike
So it did not refute that he took them without permission, just that he didn’t sell them or use them for his personal business.
Try that if you were let go at a company and see how you fare.
“But, your honor, they were pretty documents and I wanted to keep them.”
Then tell the authorities that you gave them all back. Except you lied. Twice.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As I said, Trump believed them to be his, he might be wrong, but you can’t steal what is in your possession and you believe to be yours. The ownership still needed to be determined by the courts.
In many of the cases, though not all, I think Trump was correct. The Obama letter for example.
LikeLike
Of course you might take what is not yours, but if you do keep it, it is stealing.
Presidential papers are our property. Trump knew that. Plus he was surrounded by the “best” legal minds in the country. Pleading ignorance of the law doesn’t work for you or me.
The special master that Trump personally picked will determine if there are any personal or privileged papers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Criminal acts require intent. If Trump believed the papers to be properly his, he cannot have intent to steal them.
It might be established at some point that they are not his, but though many claim he is in error, it has not yet been adjudicated.
LikeLike
“ If Trump believed the papers to be properly his, he cannot have intent to steal them.”
When the Archives requested the return of the papers it should have been obvious to Trump and his lawyers that such was not the case. Your “intent” theory especially falls flat when he lied and obstructed in the multiple efforts to retrieve the documents.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yet the archives were negotiating with Trump’s lawyers on what was his and what was not, as they have with previous Presidents.
LikeLike
Not really. Negotiations were just stonewalling. His lawyer even sign a statement that said he had no more papers. A lie, of course.
That is not a negotiation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…” but though many claim he is in error, it has not yet been adjudicated.”
Funny how you give TFG a pass, yet call for immediate indictment of “the Biden Crime Family” at every turn.
You and your hypocritical horse can stay on the compound.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The decision to prosecute Trump was very carefully considered, almost agonizingly so.”
How do we know that? WSJ makes the very point that we don’t.
The country won’t be better off for prosecuting Trump and it wouldn’t suffer at all if Trump were not prosecuted. This is how we know that witch hunters are at work in this instance.
LikeLike
That is your opinion. Letting Trump’s crimes go unanswered just makes a lot easier for anyone else to do as they please.
Much harder for him to evade a special counsel than the DOJ. After all, we did not hear from Mueller nor Durham until indictments or reports became public. I think that scares Trump. He depends on his supporters to speak out (or act out, for that matter). Closed door testimony under oath is harder to combat in the court of MAGA opinion. And he can’t ignore subpoenas like he did for Congress.
Rushed candidacy announcement is the tactic he has resorted to. In order for that to work I think he prefers publicity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Letting Trump’s crimes go unanswered just makes a lot easier for anyone else to do as they please.”
It has not been established that Trump may have committed any crimes. This is the essence of WSJ’s criticism of Garland.
You are the one expressing opinions here. Do you wish them to not be taken seriously because they are just opinions?
LikeLike
“Millions of undecideds?”
I would venture to opine that there are very few people undecided about Trump and even fewer who will see his prosecution as anything but upholding the law.
Neither Biden nor any other Democrat fears a Trump candidacy. From a political point of view it would be a gift if he became the nominee. And even if he should not, his candidacy is still a gift.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding your posts below:
” If Trump believed the papers to be properly his, he cannot have intent to steal them.”
” First, they aren’t stolen documents, they are disputed documents. Trump maintains they are his property and no court has yet ruled otherwise.”
What?!
If he’s that unaware of what the Archives are and what they’re for, we got stuck for 4 years with a guy who is much more UNFIT for the presidency of the USA than most of us thought. And, that’s saying a ton.
The folks who day after day try to support and take up for this guy’s lack of good sense are starting to sound as goofy as he is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
…”starting to sound as goofy”…
Which raises the question: Who is more foolish; the fool or the one who believes him?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Goofy” is a very kind word for the cultish nonsense on display.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Criminality requires intent. That’s how Hillary got off, remember?
Trump clearly believes he is entitled to those papers. He is probably right about some, wrong about others. That’s what was being negotiated.
He is most certainly right about the Obama letter, for example.
LikeLike
“Trump clearly believes he is entitled to those papers.”
I doubt that, but that is not the measure of “intent.” The measure is did he intend to take them. And he clearly did.
You are dead wrong about the Obama letter. That is a historic Presidential paper which is specifically the property of the National Archives as a matter of law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was it addressed to the Office of the President or to Donald Trump?
LikeLike
“Was it addressed to the Office of the President or to Donald Trump?”
I do not know and it does not matter. The National Archives specifically identified that document as a historic Presidential paper belonging to the nation. And, by law, it is THEIR call. Look it up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, it is not. The Archives are not elected officials nor are they part of the judicial branch. The Archivist is appointed by the President, in this case by a President of an opposing party. If disputes cannot be settled by negotiation, then it falls on the courts to settle the matter. The Archivist cannot rule by fiat.
That’s why every President in the last 30 years has negotiated ownership with the Archives
LikeLike
“Allows the incumbent president to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he or she has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal in writing.”
“Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.”
“Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records_Act
It is pretty clear that Trump ignored these three provisions. Any negotiation would be after the archivist has taken possession and/or APPROVED IN WRITING which records the president can keep. That is the law. Remember the Rule of Law?
More importantly is the purposeful and deceitful effort to obstruct access to the documents, even to the extent of a signed affidavit that all records had been returned.
So the archivist was appointed by a Democrat. You think that clouded the vision? He asked, begged, implored and tried hard to get them without publicity for a year. Trump essentially told him to take a hike. Then lied about giving back the papers twice. Under a subpoena the second time.
And I haven’t even broached the matter of restricted access top secrets.
How much do we, as citizens and actual owners of the papers have to humor such boorish behavior? In the case of sloppy handling of top secrets, actually dangerous to the security of our nation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That does not resolve the question of which were Presidential Records and which were personal.
In the case of the Obama letter, which us the only record I know much about, what makes you think it was with the Presidential records and not among his personal effects the FBI went through. I doubt it was the store room as it was something Trump valued
I don’t know about the other things but that was quite clearly personal .
LikeLike
OK, lets do this again.
“Allows the incumbent president to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he or she has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal in writing.”
“Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.”
“Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.”
The president is REQUIRED to take all practical steps to separate person from Presidential. The Archivist has to approve in writing which documents he can dispose of as he pleases.
Not hard understand…I thought.
Trump just said “screw you, I am doing as I please”. And this is after he left office and obstructed and lied about what he had.
Any clearer now? I hope so, I can’t simplify this anymore.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think I see what’s confusing you.
Those are all rules about the disposition of Presidential records.
They say nothing about what is or is not a Presidential record, as opposed to the private records and correspondence of the President.
For example. the President’s checkbook is not a Presidential record nor would be a birthday card from a friend. The Archivist has no jurisdiction over those.
If Obama’s letter had dealt with ongoing issues or treaties being considered, that would be a Presidential record. But it wasn’t, It was a personal letter on dealing with the stresses and challenges of being President.
And that is a personal communication, which I do not believe belongs to anyone but Trump, though it does have some historical value and Trump should provide archives with a copy, with Obama’s permission, but the handwritten original is very much Trump’s property.
LikeLike
“I think I see what’s confusing you.”
You should just read the law. “Presidential records” are defined. Obama’s advice to his successor is very clearly covered by that definition. The fact that this well-known historical Presidential document had disappeared was a trigger that told the Archives that the law was being ignored by Mr. Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” Remember the Rule of Law?”
That doesn’t apply, unless the breaker of the law is a Democrat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The Archivist cannot rule by fiat.”
Just read the law and quit making a fool of yourself.
Central points:
1. Presidential records are owned by the United States.
2. Presidential records are ANY records created or received having to do with the President’s execution of his Constitutional duties.
3. At the end of the term the Archivist has custody and control of ALL Presidential records.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title44/chapter22&edition=prelim#:~:text=(g)(1)%20Upon%20the,Presidential%20records%20of%20that%20President.
As with any law, the responsible party can be taken to court. The right to sue does not include the right to steal.
LikeLiked by 3 people
And the Archivist has absolutely no authority over Trump’s PERSONAL records or correspondence, a great deal of which were taken by the FBI.
That is the issue, which papers are Presidential records and which are the President’s records and correspondence.
LikeLike
Please read the law.
The president is REQUIRED to sort personal from Presidential. Then the Archivist approves or disapproves which documents he can keep and which are archived.
That’s the law. It has nothing to do with party. The Archivist has to have access.
Now if you don’t like the law, that is another story.
All this was done without publicity until Trump made it an issue. He had top secrets mixed in with personal and presidential documents and refused to cooperate. He lied and obstructed. For a year.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What makes you think that personal records and souvenirs were not kept separate?
The FBI gathered papers from all over Mar a Lago. For all we know, Obama’s letter might have been on display or in Melania’s underwear drawer. The FBI scooped up papers from everywhere.
And we still don’t know about classified papers, Many of the pictures were of empty folders.
LikeLike
They were intermingled in boxes. If you refuse to believe anything that has been already determined and witnessed what can I say?
Everybody is corrupt all the time. Deep state.
I’m moving on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
More excuses for the criminals that are in the GOP while claiming that anything Democrats do is illegal.
Same refrain every day.
One more time: You are a hypocrite to the point I believe your picture will soon grace dictionary pages of the definition.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Says the guy who can see no fault in any Democrat.
I’m simply saying that the same standard applied to Hillary should apply to Trump.
LikeLike
Actually, I have criticizaed Democrats whwen they deserve criticizing. You , on hte ohter hand make excuses for Republicans because, well, judges and tax cuts for the rich.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’m simply saying that the same standard applied to Hillary should apply to Trump.”
Hillary did not personally or DELIBERATELY compromise classified materials. In fact, it took an extensive review of years’ worth of correspondence to find offending but incidental mentions in her email exchanges. There were zero documents marked as classified involved. That is no way comparable to what Trump has done.
So, the same standard IS being applied. There was no intent by Clinton. There is obvious intent by Trump even to the extent of submitting false affidavits.
Do you ever apply ANY critical thinking to what you post or do you just repeat the lying lies that flood the media you prefer?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“It has not been established that Trump may have committed any crimes.”
That is what a special counsel is supposed to determine. What you or I think regarding his criminal culpability means little. That is up to the counsel to gather evidence, hear sworn testimony, then decide.
Just like the Durham investigation, which you had nothing but praise for BTW.
LikeLiked by 3 people
They are so stupid and blind they do not see their own hypocrisy…
GOP does it, it is fine legal and moral. Regardless of how bad, illegal corrupt or evil it REALLY is.
No matter what the Democrats do, it is ALL EVIL, ALL the time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting exchange. It would provide interesting material for a PhD thesis on the mindset of the fully indoctrinated cultist. Some of the characteristics are clearly visible:
An unshakeable faith that their derangement is widely shared. Anyone who does not share their derangement is living in a bubble. Not them – everybody else.
The complete failure of evidence and the lack thereof to change preferred beliefs. Mueller’s success in vindicating the FBI’s probes did not change beliefs nor did Durham’s failure to find evidence of fault. Acquittals do not show failed cases, they show corrupt or stupid jurors.
Unrelenting excuses for the clearly criminal behavior of the cult leader. For example, the creation of novel criminal theory that it is okay to steal and okay to lie under oath if you truly believe that you are being unfairly treated.
Perceived victimization by malevolent, “corrupt,” and powerful forces.
LikeLiked by 3 people