Go back in time with me, five years, to the media frenzy that was the “Trump-Russia collusion” story, the claim that the Trump campaign in 2016 worked with Russia to rig the election.
The assumption that conspiracy had occurred seems to underpin the bulk of the coverage, particularly the comments.
Later, however, in one of history’s great “never minds,” it was revealed that special counsel Robert Mueller’s exhaustive investigation had failed to prove the existence of any collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia (which prosecutors referred to as a conspiracy or coordination).
After years of investigation, the Mueller team decided that they had not found enough evidence to prove that the crime had even occurred, let alone identify the perpetrators.
The media’s constant harping on about collusion in 2017 and 2018 was notable for how much it relied on unproven theories supported by hidden evidence.
Secret recordings were made of President Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, speaking with the Russians. Evidence was uncovered in a covert FBI probe.
Informal statements were made to Mueller’s attorneys in confidence. Of course, the infamous “dossier” full of claims against Trump remained under wraps.
(In contrast to the previous examples, the dossier was made public early on in the investigation, prompting reasonable people to suspect—correctly—that it was a forgery.)
It seems unnecessary to recount that event. Because Trump, who is now running for the Republican nomination for president in 2024, is the subject of a fresh special counsel inquiry.
Newly appointed Attorney General Jack Smith has been tasked with looking into both allegations that President Trump incited the riot on January 6 and an investigation into “classified documents and other presidential records, as well as the possible obstruction of that investigation,” according to Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The second topic, the papers inquiry, stands noteworthy since it relies heavily on covert evidence, just like the previous investigations. Stay abreast on events in the nation’s capital by subscribing to the Washington Examiner now.
Undoubtedly, Trump took with him a large number of White House records when he left office. I don’t see why he would have done it.
Recently, the Washington Post stated that prosecutors with the Justice Department believe Trump’s motivation “was mostly his ego and a wish to hold on to the papers as trophies or memories.”
Despite the Biden Justice Department’s best efforts, the study claims that Trump’s activities were motivated only by a desire to acquire expensive mementos.
But Garland still sent in the investigators, this time with a special counsel. Why?
Garland elaborated, “Based on recent developments, including the former president’s announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election and the sitting president’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel.”
It serves a “public interest,” after all. Garland was arguing that this is not just a legal matter like any other, but rather one in which the public has a substantial stake.
When conducting an investigation, the department in question must take measures to maintain public trust.
Allegations that Trump mishandled sensitive documents appear to be at the center of the document case.
Of course, there are varying levels of classification, but beyond that, the general agreement is that the government classifies far too many papers.
Leaks claim that Trump mismanaged the most secret papers the government has, making his violation, memento-collecting, look as terrible as possible.
Some of Trump’s papers were rumored to be “secret materials linked to nuclear weapons,” as described by the Washington Post, as well as documents concerning covert human sources who could risk death or jail in foreign places if their names were revealed through Trump’s acts.
The Washington Post said that the intelligence community was “distraught” due to the existence of papers that “may divulge closely guarded secrets about U.S. intelligence-gathering procedures.”
According to the Washington Post, “at least one of the documents acquired by the FBI outlines Iran’s missile program.”
According to “other documents,” “compassionate intelligence work aimed at China” was mentioned. This, then, is the issue.
The attorney general claims that the probe serves the “public interest,” although the documents’ contents remain unknown.
The general public does not understand what they are other than what has been reported in vague terms based on leaks.
The DOJ did, in fact, issue a staged photo showing a pile of documents with cover sheets marked “TOP SECRET/SCI” laying on a carpet at Mar-a-Lago, but no one outside of government or law enforcement has any idea what they are.
No member of the public can assess the validity of the claims. The Department of Justice is even hoarding Trump’s defence team’s evidence.
Recent court filings show that the former president’s legal team has argued that they should not be obliged to provide a declaration regarding the government’s inventory of seized materials because they do not have access to those documents.
“As to the documents that the government says have a classification marking, the government has not allowed [the Trump team] to study these items,” the team continued.
Obviously, the prosecution would say that the DOJ has no responsibility to disclose anything because no one has been charged in the investigation.
Prosecutors are likely to try to keep a lot of the evidence secret even if they decide to charge Trump.
Perhaps doing so is mandatory for the safety of the country. Keep in mind, though, what Garland had to say about the case’s popularity.
Trump is running for president as prosecutors working for Joe Biden, Trump’s possible Democratic opponent, are weighing whether or not to file criminal charges.
The media has given this case much attention, with the usual anti-Trump bias. Which documents lie at the bottom of the case, and what do they reveal?
The general population is in the dark. Without evidence, people will make up their own minds. That’s what happens when a major case is shrouded in mystery.
As a result, people are free to make wild assumptions without knowing the whole truth of the inquiry (if you don’t believe me, simply turn on MSNBC).
Without understanding the details of the case, the general public already has formed an opinion regarding guilt or innocence, in this case, Trump’s responsibility.
Trump has been caught lying before. Not very long ago, he was the target of charges, often dramatic accusations like the idea that he was a Kremlin asset based on unseeable information that the talking heads insisted was reliable but that no one in the public could judge. That time has come once more.
Source: Washington Examiner
