The question of whether the U.S. needs a second Trump term has been answered. Thanks to Attorney General

Merrick Garland,

we’re in it—if by a Trump presidency one means investigations of

Donald Trump

that go on and on.

The first Trump presidency began with the never-ending Russian collusion narrative. Now we have its offspring—the classified-documents narrative.

The new narrative shares the old one’s almost daily insinuation that Mr. Trump did something awful. For many, this means hoping God’s justice finally rains down on a serial malefactor. For all, a familiar political drug is back in circulation.

Last Thursday Mr. Garland issued a brief, no-questions-allowed statement about the Mar-a-Lago intervention asserting that “where possible” it is the Justice Department’s practice to “narrowly scope” any search. This week the department returned to Mr. Trump three passports swept up by the FBI in an obviously unlimited raid.

Since last week, the rationale for the raid has divided into separate explanations.

The first, plausible in theory, was that government national-security specialists believed hypersensitive documents were in a room inside Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Fla. The search warrant approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge

Bruce Reinhart

lists “defense information or classified material.”

The crude rationale here would be: They wanted the documents out of that room and they got them. It was short on etiquette, but case closed. Let the Trump and government lawyers fight over the classification rules.

But speculation then morphed into a second, predictable rationale: The purpose of the search was to collect evidence of the possible criminal culpability of Mr. Trump, or his “allies,” related to the Jan. 6 Capitol invasion or laws on the handling of classified material, such as the Espionage Act.

On Thursday, Judge Reinhart is scheduled to hear requests by news outlets to release at least some of the details in the search warrant’s underlying affidavit. The Justice Department opposes the affidavit’s release, arguing that “would compromise future investigative steps.”

See also  Firefighter Tim Brown, a 9-11 Survivor, Shares on the Close Relationship Between First Responders and the Military

Meanwhile, the department is suggesting its investigation could run for months. On cue, Reps.

Adam Schiff

and

Carolyn Maloney

are demanding that Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines provide them with a “damage assessment.”

In other words, Justice, the FBI and Mr. Schiff are opening the possibility of re-creating the atmosphere of the nearly two-year Mueller investigation. Does anyone believe this won’t produce continuous anonymous leaks that will intrude into and distort the November elections and beyond? The answer is yes, one person in the whole country seems to believe this—Attorney General Garland.

According to Jamie Gorelick, who worked in Bill Clinton’s Justice Department, Mr. Garland “appreciates the context in which this is occurring. I don’t think he considers politics at all.” Apparently Ms. Gorelick already owns the Brooklyn Bridge.

Mr. Garland shows no appreciation whatsoever of the broader context of these events.

The U.S. is on edge. At no recent time has its population been more divided or depressed. A Fox News poll reports 75% dissatisfied with the country’s direction, hitting 91% among independent voters. Another Trump investigation, with the likelihood of a conviction years off, will make that worse. Imagine if it goes to court next year or in 2024.

The Homeland Security Department this week reported picking up social-media chatter about “civil war.” Metal barricades have been erected around the FBI’s headquarters in Washington. That’s down the street from the new fence in front of the Supreme Court.

We are at a point where one has to ask: Is this worth it?

See also  Senate Passes Climate Bill. The Rush to Renewable Energy Is On.

It is indisputable that no one is above the law. But there is also the useful notion of prosecutorial discretion, which often is about recognizing a larger public good.

We are going through a kind of referendum on Donald Trump’s future. Resolving that would be better left to voters than to an attorney general already distrusted by about half the population.

In an unusual burst of self-awareness Monday, Mr. Trump told Fox News Digital: “Whatever we can do to help because the temperature has to be brought down in the country. If it isn’t, terrible things are going to happen.”

During his tumultuous presidency, Mr. Trump sometimes said his opponents, not least the media, loved him because he fed their political and economic interests. And his own.

Political retribution has become a business model. On its current, indeterminate course, the Mar-a-Lago investigation is pushing the American politics back to obsessing over Mr. Trump and his endless enemies, such as the primary-election defeat of his Inspector Javert, Wyoming Rep.

Liz Cheney.

A belief seems to exist in some quarters that the U.S.’s appetite and capacity for political rancor is limitless. It is not. What may be good for Donald Trump’s presidential prospects or his cynical adversaries if the Justice Department’s Mar-a-Lago investigation smolders indefinitely will not be good for a country already in extremis.

A prudent attorney general would shut this thing down. Keep the super-secret documents, stay out of Melania’s closets, give the distressed country a chance to focus on what matters, which isn’t this.

Write henninger@wsj.com.

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8


Source link

(This article is generated through the syndicated feeds, Financetin doesn’t own any part of this article)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *