
<p>Never in the history of America has an incumbent administration raided the home of an opposition political figure in an effort to find evidence of criminal activities. ; That is usually the actions we associate with authoritarian nations and third-world banana republics.</p>



<p>The question that needs to be resolved is whether the raid was part of a necessary investigation into legitimate criminal charges – or at least the prospect of criminal charges – or political action.</p>



<p>For such a search warrant to be authorized by a federal court, there are a few bridges to be crossed. ; The request for such a warrant must convince a judge that there is a “probability” that a crime has been committed. ; That is a lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt” (as required in criminal cases) or even a “preponderance of evidence” (as required in civil cases).</p>



<p>The request for the warrant must state that the materials sought are likely to be found at the location to be searched. ; And finally, requesting the evidence – or even using a subpoena – will not result in the surrender of the materials sought.</p>



<p>That is how the process works in accordance with the law and the Constitution. ; But that is not always how the process works in reality. ; The lingering question is whether the investigations and legal actions taken against Trump are based on an impartial imposition of justice – or motivated by partisan political considerations. ; ;</p>



<p>The problem is that from the public view, there are good arguments for both cases. ; The issue teeters on the point of “prosecutorial discretion.” ; While we often say that “no man is above the law,” prosecutors are because they can arbitrarily decline prosecution or pursue it with undue and unwarranted aggressiveness.</p>



<p>According to the news reports, the raid on Mar-a-Lago was based on accusations that Trump took classified documents from the White House – documents that are supposed to be stored and preserved by the National Archives. ; Based on an earlier request from the National Archives, Trump provided 15 boxes of documents. ; Apparently, his lawyers were in the midst of discussions regarding the question of additional documents.</p>



<p>Taking government documents home – and outside the wall of security – is a crime, but not a class-A felony. ; In most cases, it is resolved by turning over the documents. ; In a few cases, people have been charged and convicted. ; It can result in a fine or a relatively short jail term.</p>



<p>But this case has a nuance that raises questions about the motivation of the Department of justice. ; According to the law, a person convicted of such a crime may never hold any office again. ; Convicting Trump of a relatively minor crime (yes, I know the left is hyperbolically elevating it to mass murder) and you prevent him from seeking a second term in the White House.</p>



<p>Now even that is not clear. ; Constitutional scholars believe that the law would be declared unconstitutional if challenged in the federal courts. ; That is because the Constitution – and only the Constitution &#8212; establishes the eligibility for running for and holding the Office of President.</p>



<p>The action has set off political hysteria on both sides of the partisan divide. ; There are too many nuances and facets to this – and the broader Trump story – to handle in one commentary. ; Those issues will be more specifically handled in upcoming commentaries.</p>



<p>The raid on Trump’s home raises more questions than it answers. ; It will take weeks and months to get a clearer picture. ; But in the meantime, you can rest assured that the Trump critics will be making the most extreme judgments on their favorite media outlets.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

AG Garland raids Trump residence
