There are at least two sides to every story, as we know. And, in fairness, the search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago yesterday has no known connection to any attempt by anyone to overturn any election anywhere. If you think all of this completely coincidental “destruction of crucial evidence,” by Secret Service, by the never confirmed acting heads of the Department of Homeland Security, by the winking slightly partisan Inspector General of DHS, by the Department of Defense, by White House log keepers, in any way justifies government agents searching an ex-president’s home, and even his safe, you need to hear a complete defense for why that FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago was, to some, much worse than the so-called riot on January 6th and all the alleged plans appurtenant thereto. Here we go, my best attempt to distill the story as told in defense of the man whose home was searched:

In an unprecedented attack, not seen since Nazi Germany, the private home of an innocent man was overrun by agents of a hostile political party! It was a private home. There was no justification for a partisan storming of the man’s house. The man had already been completely acquitted and exonerated of all charges at two previous trials, which were brought only to hurt him because his enemies knew he was actually right. He was totally exonerated both times. There was never any evidence against him, certainly not at either purely political “trial” and there is no evidence now, and no evidence was ever destroyed and nobody ever lied on his behalf in a court of law or anywhere else (and Stone and Manafort were both pardoned and whatever they were accused of or convicted for never happened, smart ass). He himself also never lied, in the true harmful sense of the word, but those who hate him, and by extension all good legacy Americans, constantly lie, in the most evil and destructive way!

There will be revenge for this deplorable gazpacho attack, we’re taking names and kicking asses because we are not idiots and we’re justifiably angry as hell. Long live our holy party and our righteous cause! Fuck communism!

Here’s a much more intellectual version, for your consideration.

An op ed in today’s Washington Bezos, entitled  “Trump should make the search warrant public”  (https://wapo.st/3SDW9bx) begins:

There is little doubt that the residence and offices of a former president can be subjected to lawful searches and seizures. Anyone doubting this should read the opinion of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in 2020’s Trump v. Vance as well as the concurrence by Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

In that case, a New York state grand jury subpoena had been served on the president’s longtime accounting firm for the president’s papers. The Vance opinions review all the relevant precedents involving Thomas Jefferson, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton. The justices, including the dissenters, agreed that not all criminal subpoenas of a sitting president were barred. “On that point the Court is unanimous,” the chief justice concluded.

If a sitting president is in some circumstances subject to criminal subpoenas from state officials, a former president can most certainly be subjected to criminal process by federal agents. This has never happened before, but as with all things Trump, the past is no guide to the present.

shortly afterwards, the legal analysis takes a sudden turn, with an announcement of what one side

rightly believes:

Most Republicans rightly believe that Trump has been unfairly targeted by civil servants motivated by partisanship going back years, long before his stunning election in 2016 and certainly thereafter. The “Steele dossier,” now thoroughly discredited, the charges of collusion with Russia debunked by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, and the allegations of obstruction of justice dismissed as insubstantial by Attorney General William P. Barr all helped create an automatic suspicion on the right of this latest search.

punchline:

Opinion by Hugh Hewit

Hugh Hewitt is a nationally syndicated radio host on the Salem Radio Network. He is also a professor at Chapman University School of Law, where he has taught constitutional law since 1996. 

Aha! Colleague (former) of onetime dean of Chapman, John Eastman, Esq. (dismissed by Chapman after his central role in January 6 plan became public.)

Now go back and read the news reports, you’ll have a better perspective, having heard another side of the story.

From a recent Washington Bezos exclusive:

Prospective jurors in [Roger] Stone’s trial had completed confidential questionnaires that asked for their views on Trump, Stone and others caught up in Mueller’s investigation. Stone’s lawyers agreed to keep the responses confidential, and no details had been disclosed publicly. Questionnaires completed by those selected as jurors were later leaked to right-wing operatives, prompting an FBI investigation. No findings were ever publicly disclosed.

https://wapo.st/3bDVo1p

It’s almost impossible for me to understand how a 6-year and counting seamless pattern of lying, obstructing investigations, quid pro quo pardons for people who lied to obstruct, real time witness tampering, ongoing obstruction of investigations, orders to defy subpoenas, false privilege claims, ongoing destruction of evidence, has not given an apolitical Department of Justice enough evidence to bring obstruction of justice charges against the most corrupt administration in American history. I mean, seriously, what the fuck?

The official phase began when new president Trumpie fired FBI director James Comey for insufficient personal loyalty to the boss when he refused to “drop the Flynn thing.” Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his illegal contacts with the Russians, eventually a Special Counsel was appointed and negotiations were undertaken with Trumpie to testify under oath. Despite his Bannon-like bluster about not being afraid of Mueller (who he tried several times to fire, enlisting various lackeys including White House Council Don McGahn, to do his dirty work), the ex-president agreed only to have his lawyers respond to written questions, his answers claiming no recall of anything, except for the final answer about Flynn, Kislyac, Jared, Don Jr., Bannon, Erik Prince and others. That was, arguably, one of Trumpie’s most “inadequate responses”. The response was, and I quote, “no response given.” Inadequate, indeed. But apparently no indication of intent of any kind, and absolutely no legal repercussions.

The piously corrupt William Pelham Barr, took the extraordinary step of trying to rescind the charges against Flynn, charges Flynn had already pleaded guilty to. Barr argued in a motion to dismiss that Flynn’s admitted lies to the FBI were “immaterial” and therefore noncriminal. In coordination with Flynn’s new lawyer, Sidney Powell, the DOJ moved to dismiss Flynn’s guilty plea. Trumpie later pardoned Flynn. Nothing to see here! Flynn, who went on to advocate invocation of the Insurrection Act and the imposition of martial law so his buddy could remain in power, recently pleaded the fifth over and over again in response to virtually every question the January 6 committee asked him. As you do, you know, when you have nothing to hide.

No presidential phone records during the riot that Trumpie unleashed on the Capitol, all gone, along with the burner phones Trumpie used to speak to his allies in Congress, and in the Willard hotel war room. Call logs all gone missing, whoops. No outtakes from Trumpie’s January 6, go home, beloved patriots video. Secret Service texts from the lead up and the hours of the riot, all permanently deleted after preservation orders were sent by numerous government entities. Though DHS has known about this by all appearnces illegal mass deletion of evidence since at least February, just last week they announced a criminal investigation into what appears to be a criminal cover-up that the Trump appointed director of DHS may well have been personally involved in. Nothing to see here, but the attorneys for people stonewalling the January 6th Committee, paid for by Trumpie, get copies of all transcripts, which the vindictive boss carefully reads, don’t forget!

Apparently, in a post-truth USA, proving obstruction of justice is virtually impossible. If the person angrily denies he obstructed Justice, intimidates all witnesses to his obstruction and rewards everybody who lies about, and obstructs investigation into his obstruction, in a pinch pardoning them, well isn’t that kind of a draw?

“The … suggestion that President Trump did not act swiftly enough to quell the violence is absolutely not true. Upon hearing of the reports of violence, he tweeted, pleading with the crowd to be ‘peaceful,’ followed by a tweeted video urging people to ‘go home’ and to do so in ‘peace.’ He and the White House further took immediate steps to coordinate with authorities to provide whatever was necessary to counteract the rioters. … He, like the rest of the Country, was horrified at the violence.“

— Trump lawyers’ trial memorandum, second Trump impeachment, Feb. 8, 2021.

https://wapo.st/3b0P3wF

With the revelation that the Secret Service (literally the [US]SS, damn), destroyed all evidence of real-time communications on January 5th and 6th, presumably out of loyalty to their former leader, since they were his praetorian guard and had taken a personal oath of loyalty to him, as in the old days of the Führer oath, my mind goes back to another famous, little remarked on bit of obstruction of justice by our greatest criminal president,

If you want to set the date for when the Department of Justice left an unaccountable criminal president in office because of an OLC memo, look no further than Trump’s final interrogatory answer to Mueller’s last written question. The questions were put to Trump in writing after a long negotiation because Trump’s lawyers understood his inability to tell the truth, even under oath, would inevitably land him in the famous “perjury trap”. The question is long and convoluted and Trump, who has a famously short attention span, had his lawyers provide what Mueller tactfully, and ridiculously, called an “inadequate response.”

Mueller’s question is insanely long and convoluted, but also greatly detailed. Good luck getting through it, I suggest a quick skim noting the names of an infamous cast of characters, and then a moment to review the full depth of Mr Trump’s inadequate response. If you want the date that democracy probably died, just look up when this inadequate answer, that was never answered more adequately, was made.

SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:

b. Following the Obama Administration’s imposition of sanctions on Russia in December 2016 (“Russia sanctions”), did you discuss with Lieutenant General (LTG) Michael Flynn, K.T. McFarland, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Jared Kushner, Erik Prince, or anyone else associated with the transition what should be communicated to the Russian government regarding the sanctions? If yes, describe who you spoke with about this issue, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).

c. On December 29 and December 31, 2016, LTG Flynn had conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the Russia sanctions and Russia’s response to the Russia sanctions.

i. Did you direct or suggest that LTG Flynn have discussions with anyone from the Russian government about the Russia sanctions?

ii. Were you told in advance of LTG Flynn’s December 29, 2016 conversation that he was going to be speaking with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, describe who told you this information, when, and what you were told. If no, when and from whom did you learn of LTG Flynn’s December 29, 2016 conversation with Ambassador Kislyak?

iii. When did you learn of LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak’s call on December 31, 2016? Who told you and what were you told?

iv. When did you learn that sanctions were discussed in the December 29 and December 31, 2016 calls between LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak? Who told you and what were you told?

d. At any time between December 31, 2016, and January 20, 2017, did anyone tell you or suggest to you that Russia’s decision not to impose reciprocal sanctions was attributable in any way to LTG Flynn’s communications with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, identify who provided you with this information, when, and the substance of what you were told.

e. On January 12, 2017, the Washington Post published a column that stated that LTG Flynn phoned Ambassador Kislyak several times on December 29, 2016. After learning of the column, did you direct or suggest to anyone that LTG Flynn should deny that he discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, who did you make this suggestion or direction to, when, what did you say, and why did you take this step?

i. After learning of the column, did you have any conversations with LTG Flynn about his conversations with Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016? If yes, describe when those discussions occurred and the content of the discussions.

f. Were you told about a meeting between Jared Kushner and Sergei Gorkov that took place in December 2016?

i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting.

g. Were you told about a meeting or meetings between Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev or any other representative from the Russian government that took place in January 2017?

i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting(s).

h. Prior to January 20, 2017, did you talk to Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, or any other individual associated with the transition regarding establishing an unofficial line of communication with Russia? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of such an unofficial line of communication.

TRUMP:

(No answer provided.)