I’m going to quote myself toward the conclusion of this column, because I see no reason to re-invent the wheel.
I’m doing so in reference to the latest example of the two-tiered system of justice now manifest in our federal government.
As I explained previously in this forum, the feds executed what was — in my expert opinion — an illegal raid on the home of Donald and Melania Trump, allegedly to obtain classified documents the former President allegedly illegally possessed. In doing so government agents violated one of the fundamental, historical, rights of citizens of a free society — the sanctity of their home.
Let’s look at the facts, based on subsequent court pleadings, of that case. A President, who has the legal authority to declassify materials at his discretion, on leaving office took with him classified documents that were stored in a secure location protected by the Secret Service under constant video surveillance.
The feds were aware he had the documents, and that he was in the legal process of negotiating with the National Archives about which — if any — of the documents he would have to turn over to them. So the feds violated Donald and Melania’s rights because an administrative process was — in the feds opinion — taking too long… or might not go the government’s way.
Think about that. The constitutionally protected sanctity of a citizen’s home was violated because an administrative agency is dragging its feet in circumstance where the agency’s legal position vis-a-vis the citizen is not even clear.
The usual suspects in the Democratic party, and their propagandists in the regime media, were outraged — at the former President. But not about the blatant illegal search.
They demanded the former President be indicted for violation of the Espionage Act — a law enacted during WWI, and used by then-President Woodrow Wilson (a self-styled ‘progressive’ Democrat) to prosecute political dissent.
A subsequent ‘progressive’ Democrat President, Barack Obama, used the Espionage Act as a political weapon.
Are you detecting a pattern?
The current President, who, by virtue of the ongoing negotiations with the Archives, knew all along the documents were in the former President’s possession, and never made any public reference to them. But when they were seized from the former President’s home, only then did the current President say this about how ‘irresponsible’ it was to have those documents.
That didn’t age well because, as it turns out, Top Secret documents have been located in an office and home of the current President. But he didn’t hold any office when those documents were put there.
Let’s look at those facts.
The current President was formerly the Vice-President, an office with no lawful authority whatsoever to even possess, let alone declassify, such documents. One batch of those documents were kept in a private business he used after being out of office as VP, and before being elected President. That business was in a building also occupied by a front company of a foreign government — China. Others documents were kept in his private home.
Because the former VP held no government office for four years while those documents were in those locations, there was no security other than the locked doors any private business or home would have.
Compare that scenario with the Secret Service protected location of the former President — which the FBI raided.
If Democrats and various media stooges insist the former President should be criminally charged, shouldn’t they be demanding the same of the former VP/current President? That would require a level of intellectual honesty they don’t possess. Instead they are twisting verbal pretzels explaining how the two situations are “totally different”.
Speaking as a criminal law expert, I don’t think either situation is a crime. But if they are, the conduct of the former VP is an infinitely stronger, and more egregious, case.
The Democrats have another problem. Even if hell froze over and the current Attorney General wanted to indict the current President, it’s not legally possible. But the current Republican-controlled House of Representative can.
“Where the President is concerned, only the House of Representatives has the authority to bring charges of criminal misconduct through the constitutionally sanctioned process of impeachment.”
It would be pure irony to see all those Democrat representatives and senators who called for the former President to be prosecuted for the documents found in his home to have to vote publicly on impeachment of the current President for the same thing. Karma is a bitch.
It’s one thing for the media to make fools of themselves trying to rationalize their blatant hypocrisy in the two cases. But when officials in the government treat them differently, that is a serious threat to our very existence as a society. (
Now comes the part where I quote myself.
“The core principle of our legal system is literally carved in stone on the portico of the United States Supreme Court – ‘Equal Justice Under Law’. Without this principle, there can be no individual liberty. Unless laws are applied equally to all, a legal system has no legitimate authority.
“Federal laws are no longer being equally applied. Even more disturbing is how many citizens and members of the news media (the so-called watchdogs of liberty) condone abandonment of the rule of law if it furthers their political agenda.”
In 1850, renowned French anti-socialist Fredrick Bastiat wrote, “It is easy to conceive that instead of being a check on injustice, [law] becomes its most invincible instrument.” This very public hypocrisy over the handling of classified documents has exposed the corruption of our two-tiered federal justice system in a way the politicians and regime media can’t ignore or hide.
A two-tiered system of justice is destructive of the ‘equal justice under law’ principle on which our very society is based. As Thomas Jefferson wrote nearly 250 years ago in the Declaration of Independence,
“…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive… it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”
Gary Beatty lives between Florida and Pagosa Springs. He retired after 30 years as a prosecutor for the State of Florida, has a doctorate in law, is Board Certified in Criminal Trial law by the Florida Supreme Court, and is now a law professor.