By Charles C. W. Cooke
Tuesday, August 09, 2022
The opinion on last night’s FBI raid on
Mar-a-Lago around which many in the media seem quickly to have coalesced is
that it was, indeed, a “dramatic” and “norm-breaking” event, but that this fact
implies that it “must” therefore have been warranted. On CBS last night, Major
Garrett confirmed that such action “is without precedent in American history, a
former president of the United States now subject to a search of his primary
residence by the FBI.” This morning’s Politico Playbook describes it as “the most aggressive law enforcement action ever
taken against a former American president.” The BBC notes that “there has never been a search warrant quite like this in American
history.”
In response, the most prominent among our
pundits seem to have responded, “. . . and that’s just how bad Trump is!”
On CNN this morning, George Conway
said that “they’ve crossed the Rubicon
here. Not even Richard Nixon’s house in San Clemente was searched by the FBI,
as far as I know.” Then he said, “You have to conclude there’s something behind
the curtain that would surprise us.” On Twitter last night, David Axelrod
said, “One thing is very clear. Garland would
not have authorized this raid, and no federal judge would have signed off on
it, if there weren’t significant evidence to warrant it.” This seemed to be the
takeaway on most of the cable news shows, too.
Missing, though, was the second part of
the thought. Namely: What if that isn’t true? George Conway says that the FBI
has “crossed the Rubicon,” but that this must be because there’s “something
behind the curtain that would surprise us.” Okay, but what if there’s
not? Then what? I’d like to hear his thoughts. David Axelrod
says that “Garland would not have authorized this raid, and no federal judge
would have signed off on it, if there weren’t significant evidence to warrant
it.” Okay, but what if they did? Then what? I’d like to know
what Axelrod thinks that means. If this was obviously justified, Conway,
Axelrod, and co. will be able to sit back and say, “see!” And I’ll join them!
As I’ve written before, there’s nothing per se wrong with investigating presidential
candidates, so long as it’s done even-handedly, and if Trump has committed a
crime for which others in a similar position have been prosecuted, then he
should be charged. But if it wasn’t justified, and the FBI “crossed the Rubicon”
without cause, what happens next? Do we just move on — as if nothing ever
happened?
Politico Playbook quotes a lawyer on this point:
“If they
raided his home just to find classified documents he took from The White
House,” one legal expert noted, “he will be re-elected president in 2024, hands
down. It will prove to be the greatest law enforcement mistake in history.”
This is a useful yardstick. It contains a
specific and testable definition of “unjustified”: “just to find classified
documents he took from The White House.” It contains a judgment that utilizes
that standard: “It will prove to be the greatest law enforcement mistake in
history.” And it contains a prediction: “he will be re-elected president in
2024, hands down.” I would like to hear a similar specificity from others who
have suggested that the raid must have been justified. What,
in precise terms, does “justified” look like? And if the raid was unjustified,
using those terms, then what should happen to the people who enabled it? Should
Merrick Garland resign? Should the judge who signed off on the warrant be
impeached? Should the FBI be reformed? Should Joe Biden — who is at the head of
the executive branch — be blamed? What would it say about the federal
government? Let’s define terms here.
I know nothing more about the details than
anyone else, but I’ll lay out my own views on this as best I can. They are:
·
that the warrant must immediately be made
public
·
that as the head of the executive branch,
Joe Biden must explain to the country what happened today (yes, it’s Biden’s
concern: progressive wishes to the contrary, the DOJ is not some free-floating
fourth branch of government, it is under the president’s purview)
·
that, for the raid to be justified, the
warrant and the explanation must clearly reveal (a) that there was an urgent
need to obtain evidence that pertained to a serious crime, (b) that this
evidence could not possibly have been obtained by other means, or on another
occasion, or without a surprise visit, and (c) that, if the target was not
named Donald Trump, a similar operation would have been launched
·
that if this standard is not met, Merrick
Garland must resign or be impeached, as must the head of the FBI
·
that the FBI must be examined and reformed
as a matter of utmost priority
There will be more George Conways and
David Axelrods on TV and on Twitter today. Any hot takes from them that omit
the crucial “then what?” part of the equation will be next to useless.
No comments:
Post a Comment