• Prosecuting Trump

    September 6, 2022

    Tags: , , , , , , ,
    Posted in: Trump

    What would you do if you were Merrick Garland? Would you prosecute Trump? Or would you walk away, concerned about accusations you and the FBI were playing politics?

    Step One appears easy, put off any decision until after the midterms. Trump is not a candidate, key issues driving the midterms (inflation, Ukraine, Roe) are not his issues and though Trump is actively stumping for many candidates, initiating any prosecution before the midterms is just too obvious. Nothing else about Mar-a-Lago has had an urgency to it (months passed from the initial voluntary turnover of documents and the forced search) and announcing an indictment now would be a terrible opening move. So if you’re Garland, you have some time.

    On the other hand waiting until after the midterms can be dangerous if as expected the Republicans do well and take both the House and the Senate. Even with slim majorities Republicans are expected to initiate their own hearings, into Hunter Biden’s laptop and how the FBI played politics with that ahead of the 2020 election. Holding off an indictment until that is underway risks making your case look like retaliation for their case. That’s a bad look for a Department of Justice which claims it is not playing politics. It would look even worse if the Republicans try and cut you off, opening some sort of hearings into the Mar-a-Lago search prior to an indictment. Nope, if you’re Merrick Garland you are caught between a rock and a hard place.

    But there is a bigger question: if you are Garland and you indict Trump, can you win? Candidate Trump is already earning a lot of partisan points claiming he is the victim of banana republic politics, and his indictment ahead of 2024 (it matters zero if he has formally announced or not, he is running of course) will allow him to claim he was right all along. An indictment will allow Trump to fire both barrels, one aimed at Garland and the other at the FBI and these, coupled with the dirty tricks a Republican investigation into the FBI and Russiagate will expose will make Trump look very right. He was the victim of partisan use of justice, and the FBI did try to influence both the 2016 election (with Russiagate) and the 2020 (by deep-sixing Hunter Biden’s laptop claiming falsely it was Russian misinformation) and now is taking a swing at 2024 with the Mar-a-Lago documents. If public opinion moves further to Trump’s side, Merrick Garland through his indictment just reelected Trump to the White House as a sympathy candidate. The spooks call that blowback, and it is a real threat in this instance.

    Any action against Trump must preserve what is left of faith in the rule of law applied without fear or favor, or risk civil disenfranchisement if not outright civil unrest. Garland will have to address the most obvious precedent case involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who maintained an unsecured private email server which processed classified material. Her server held e-mail chains classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level which included the names of CIA and NSA employees. The FBI found classified intelligence improperly stored on Clinton’s server “was compromised by unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber intrusion or other means.” Clinton and her team destroyed tens of thousands of emails, potential evidence, as well as physical phones and Blackberries which potentially held evidence. She operated the server out of her home kitchen despite the presence of the Secret Service on property who failed to report it. Her purpose in doing all this appeared to have been avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests during her tenure as SecState, and maintaining control over what records became part of the historical archive post-tenure.

    Clinton seems to have violated all three statues Trump was searched under. If the FBI is going to take a similar fact sets and ignore one while aggressively pursuing another, it risks being seen as partial and political. Any further action against Trump and certainly any prosecution of him must address why Hillary was not searched and prosecuted herself. Fair is fair, and after all nobody is above the law.

    The other fear holding Garland back would be that of losing the case outright in court. Classified documents are typically dealt with either via administrative penalties (an officer is sent home for a few days without pay) or as part of some much larger espionage case where the documents were removed illegally as part of the subject spying for a foreign country. Rarely is a case brought all the way to court for simple possession. Most of the laws Trump may have broken require some sort of intent to harm the United States. In other words, Trump would have had to have taken the documents not just for ego or his library or as some uber-souveniers but with the specific intent to commit harm against the United States. Garland certainly does not have that.

    Other factors which typically play into documents cases are also not in Garland’s favor. Despite not being kept in line with General Services Administration standards, the documents appear to have been locked away securely at Mar-a-Lago, the premises itself guarded by the Secret Service. Trump has already turned over surveillance video of the documents storage location, which presumably does not show foreign agents wandering in and out of frame. It is much harder to prosecute a case when no actual harm was shown done to national security.

    Another factor in documents cases involves the content of the documents themselves. The uninformed press has made much of the classification markings, but Garland will need to show the actual content of the docs was damaging to the U.S., and that Trump knew that. Overclassification will play a role, as will the age and importance of the information itself; after all, it is that information which is classified, not the piece of paper itself marked Secret. Garland will know Trump will fight him page by page, meaning much of the classified will be exposed in court and/or the trial will move to classified sessions to shield the information but feed the conspiracy machine. One can hear Trump arguing his right to a public trial being taken away.

    Hyperbole aside, the critical question returns to whether or not prosecutors could prove specific intent on Trump’s part for the more serious charges. Proving a state of guilty mind — mens rea — would be the crux of any actual prosecution based on the Mar-a-Lago documents. What was Trump thinking at the time, in other words, did he have specific intent to injure the United States or to obstruct some investigation he would have had to have known about? Without knowing the exact nature of the documents this is a tough prediction but even with the documents on display in front of us proving to a court’s satisfaction what Trump wanted to do by keeping the documents would require coworkers and colleagues to testify to what Trump himself had said at the time, and that is unlikely to happen. It is thus unlikely based on what we know at present that Trump would go to jail for any of this.

    Take for example the charges of tax evasion now levied again the Trump Organization (i.e., not Trump personally and not part of the Mar-a-Lago case.) Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, as part of a plea deal, will testify against the Organization but not Trump himself as to why the Organization paid certain compensation in the form of things like school tuitions, cars, and the like, all outside the tax system. It will be a bad day for the Organization but loyal to the end, Weisselberg will not testify as to his boss’ mens rea. It is equally unclear who would be both competent and willing to do so against President of the United States Trump. Blue Check enthusiasm aside, he won’t go to jail over this.

    The final questions are probably the most important: DOJ knows what the law says. If knowing the chances of a serious conviction are slight, why would the Justice Department take the Mar-a-Lago case to court? Then again, if knowing the chances for a serious conviction are slight, why would the FBI execute a high-profile search warrant in the first place? To gather evidence unlikely ever to be used? No one is above the law, but that includes politics not trumping clean jurisprudence as well.

    And then what? If Garland successfully navigates the politics, if he proves his case in court, and if he secures some sort of conviction against Trump which withstands the inevitable appeal, then what? Trump’s Mar-a-Lago “crimes” are relatively minor. Could Garland call Trump having to do some sort of community service during the 2024 campaign a win? Pay a fine? It seems petty. It sure seems Trump wins politically big-picture whether he wins or loses at Mar-a-Lago. If you were Merrick Garland, what would you do?

    Related Articles:

    Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.

  • Recent Comments

    • Rich Bauer said...


      “Trump’s Mar-a-Lago “crimes” are relatively minor.”

      If you think Jeff Epstein had his minors servicing Demented at Mar-a-lago…

      09/6/22 9:24 PM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      A more pertinent question might be: If Biden were Merrick Garland what would he now do? Garland is beholding to Biden for his exalted station and thus Biden can demand Garland remove by whatever means necessary the Trump threat once and for all time. That demand could backfire but not for Trump.

      09/7/22 11:10 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Win, place, show

      To recap: After Trump’s failure to WIN the race, he hid TS secrets in his shitty Florida PLACE to SHOW people willing pay for them.

      While some think this is just a storage issue, you can bet Trump and his fellow amateur circus coup clowns have left a trove of evidence for the FBI to make a case to throw them all in prison.

      09/7/22 12:34 PM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      Bauer: What makes you think the DOJ, FBI and the oppositional party Attorney General all want credit for sending a former POTUS to prison? Even they wince at R.W.Emerson’s maxim of: “If you must strike at a king (or former king), you must kill the king”. They may only want to ensure that Trump is banned from elective politics. If Trump forces their hand then so be it but he may sense they do not have the heart for such an unprecedented outcome.

      09/7/22 4:51 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...



      The Repug powers want Trump to be gone. DeathSantis would stab Demented in the back if he could. Mitch knows Demented is the reason his side is losing.

      Trump must be indicted for flagrant security violations or DOJ can forget about prosecuting government workers for storing TS docs in their home. Expect their defense lawyers to claim “no criminal intent.”

      09/8/22 8:56 AM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      Bauer: There may be more Americans than you or I realize who deeply want a king to rule in America. That separation of powers and three branches of government thingee is just too unwieldy and confusing. Simple minds want a simple setup I guess. Kings aren’t kings unless they are above the law (“the law is for little people” to paraphrase Leona Helmsley

      09/8/22 9:11 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      “Any action against Trump must preserve what is left of faith in the rule of law applied without fear or favor, or risk civil disenfranchisement if not outright civil unrest.”

      Are you volunteering to do something? Let US not delude ourselves about the risk of outright civil unrest. Most of the weekend warrior Oaf Keepers are on their way to prison. Bannon, the Incredible Hulk of shit, will be joining them quite soon. While polls indicate the majority of Trump supporters SAY they believe he won, the truth is the majority of these Trump supporters are either cowards or too lazy to do anything about it. So much for their “strong” beliefs, sound and fury, signifying they are NOT gonna do anything to get them off their Lazyboys watching Fox.

      09/10/22 11:38 AM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      Bauer- where is your quote from? I would put Trump’s leadership transgressions far below George Bush’s monstrous legacy of deception and needless invasion. I doubt any discerning citizen today has faith in any politician to abide by integrity and honesty. Obama lied about Chris Stevens’s death to hide the truth and there seemed to be little outrage except by the so called opposing party. The rule of law is for little people. Pol Pot evidently died peacefully and comfortably in his old age.
      Your Javert fixation on Trump baffles me. Did he owe you money?

      09/11/22 10:05 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...



      Where did my quote, (you meant where did Peter’s quote) come from?

      Good question. I think Peter gets his talking points from Tucker at TAC.

      09/12/22 11:52 AM | Comment Link

    Leave A Comment

    Mail (will not be published) (required)