Perhaps the Justice Department had good reasons for this historic humiliation of a former president, I don't know, but it has certainly raised some serious questions about whether how one is treated by federal law enforcement depends upon one's political party.
In a piece for the Wall Street Journal (subscription) Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, no Trumpster he, discusses the disparity between the DOJ's handling of apparently similar cases in the past. He writes:
Why was the matter handled so differently from the prior investigations of Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton, who were also suspected of mishandling classified material? Mrs. Clinton herself mocked that question by sporting a baseball cap with the logo “But her emails.”For some reason, mention of the case of Ms. Clinton is evidently prohibited in many media precincts which further stokes suspicions that the left cares not one tittle about fairness and equity but only about destroying Trump no matter what the cost. Dershowitz is dismayed by the apparently abandonment of liberal principle:
Her hat is intended to deride the argument made by Trump supporters and some civil libertarians that the investigation of Mr. Trump’s alleged security breaches should be evaluated against the way in which earlier cases were handled.
Berger and Mrs. Clinton were suspected of mishandling confidential materials—he by removing them from the National Archives in 2005, she by transmitting them over her private email server while serving as secretary of state.
Berger was administratively fined, and Mrs. Clinton was rebuked by James Comey, then director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which might have cost her the 2016 election. But neither was subjected to broad search warrants or criminal prosecution.
Those who reject this comparison accuse those who make it of “whataboutism.” But treating like cases alike is crucial to the equal protection of the laws. The way in which Berger and Mrs. Clinton were treated is highly relevant in determining whether Mr. Trump is being subjected to a double standard of justice.Not only does the treatment of Mr. Trump seem to violate the Berger/Clinton standard so, too, does the treatment of his associates:
The facts, especially the degrees of culpability, may be different; and if so, that would provide a good answer to the “what about” question. But if the facts are similar and the treatment is different, Americans are entitled to ask whether this constitutes the even application of the law that Mr. Garland promised.
The shoe must fit comfortably on the other foot if justice is to be done and seen to be done. There can’t be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans.
So the question “What about her emails?” is an appropriate one. Mocking it is no answer. Neither is the cliché “two wrongs do not make a right.”
A second wrong doesn’t justify or excuse the first, but unequal treatment of two comparable wrongs should raise concerns about fairness and equality. Unequal treatment of two equal wrongs is a third wrong.
The “whataboutism” argument applies as well to the manner in which Trump loyalists such as Peter Navarro, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were arrested. In comparable cases involving similar charges, the defendants weren’t handcuffed, shackled or subjected to restraints generally reserved for those who pose a risk of violence or flight.If our Justice Department allows itself to become a tool of one political party then the United States is no different than Russia, China, North Korea or any third world autocracy.
It may be that the conduct of Mr. Garland's Justice Department is merited by the facts, but until those facts are clearly laid out for the American people to decide, Mr. Garland and his FBI Director Christopher Wray have self-administered another black eye to the agencies they run.