President Trump’s 14th Modification rights are being trampled on. No, we’re not speaking concerning the “revolt” clause that the highly-partisan “Jan 6 Committee” of Pelosi’s 116th Congress likes to tout as an inhibition in opposition to President Trump with the ability to search re-election, though no Jan 6 defendant has been as a lot as charged, none the much less convicted, with 18 USC 2383.
That is, as an alternative, a reference to Part 1 of the 14th Modification, which states “…nor deny any particular person inside its jurisdiction the equal safety of the legal guidelines.”
Based on Cornell Law School:
Equal Safety refers to the concept that a governmental physique could not deny folks equal safety of its governing laws. The governing physique state should deal with a person in the identical method as others in comparable circumstances and circumstances.
The Fifth Modification’s Due Course of Clause requires the US authorities to observe equal safety. The Fourteenth Modification’s Equal Safety Clause requires states to observe equal safety.
Equal safety forces a state to manipulate impartially—not draw distinctions between people solely on variations which can be irrelevant to a reputable governmental goal. Thus, the equal safety clause is essential to the safety of civil rights.
On your personal evaluation as as to whether or not President Trump’s 14th Modification rights are being violated, here’s a side-by-side comparability of the Trump indictment and the Comey report on Hillary Clinton’s non-public electronic mail servers. Bear in mind: Hillary’s aides took a hammer to their mobile units and “bleached” their emails, deleting 33,000 public data, after the paperwork had been subpoenaed.
Here is a comparability of two categorized doc conditions.
Trump versus Clinton.
I will not debate over whether or not Trump was justified (he was), however I’ll present the hypocrisy in bringing costs in opposition to Trump.
That is the two-tier system of justice.
— Jon Herold (@patel_patriot) June 13, 2023
Yesterday, in one other seeming acknowledgment that it is a weaponized DOJ prosecuting a political rival, Michael Besheka wrote a damning opinion in the Wall Street Journal. Why is Michael Besheka’s opinion on this so related to President Trump’s indictment? Nicely, he was the lawyer who litigated and misplaced the “Socks Case” involving Invoice Clinton holding tapes in his sock drawer after leaving the White Home.
Though the indictment in opposition to Donald Trump doesn’t cite the Presidential Data Act, the costs are predicated on the regulation. The indictment took place solely as a result of the federal government thought Mr. Trump took data that didn’t belong to him, and the federal government raided his home to seek out any such data.
This could by no means have occurred. The Presidential Data Act permits the president to resolve what data to return and what data to maintain on the finish of his presidency. And the Nationwide Archives and Data Administration can’t do something about it. I do know as a result of I’m the lawyer who misplaced the “Clinton sock drawer” case.
The case Bekesha unsuccessfully litigated on behalf of Judicial Watch in 2012 concerned eight years’ value of conversations recorded by then-President Invoice Clinton, along with the White Home, from 1993 to 2001. Based on the guide “The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling Historical past With the President” by historian Taylor Department, “the audiotapes preserved not solely Mr. Clinton’s ideas on points he confronted whereas president, but in addition some precise occasions, akin to cellphone conversations.”
The Wall Road Journal opinion piece goes on to quote a number of examples the general public would seemingly need to learn about together with Clinton’s reasoning for becoming a member of the North American Free Commerce Settlement (NAFTA) and “Mr. Clinton’s aspect of a cellphone dialog with Secretary of State Warren Christopher a few diplomatic deadlock over Bosnia.”
Bekesha goes on to debate the arguments made within the case. Contemplate how the opinion of the Division of Justice has modified from their arguments in 2012 in comparison with their persecution of President Trump:
In defending NARA, the Justice Division argued that NARA doesn’t have “an obligation to have interaction in a unending seek for potential presidential data” that weren’t offered to NARA by the president on the finish of his time period. Nor, the division asserted, does the Presidential Data Act require NARA to acceptable potential presidential data forcibly. The federal government’s place was that Congress had determined that the president and the president alone decides what’s a presidential report and what isn’t. He could take with him no matter data he chooses on the finish of his time period.
So the Division of Justice has gone from “NARA doesn’t have an obligation to seek for data” to “let’s raid the previous President and main Republican nominee” in report time! It’s additionally value noting that the DOJ selected to make the most of the Washington Subject Workplace as an alternative of the Miami Subject Workplace, which was already actively working with President Trump concerning the paperwork.
And in what must be the proverbial “nail within the coffin” within the U.S. v. Trump case, Decide Amy Berman Jackson writes:
“Because the President is totally entrusted with the administration and even the disposal of Presidential data throughout his time in workplace, it could be troublesome for this Court docket to conclude that Congress meant that he would have much less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his private data.”
These are two clear violations of President Trump’s “Equal Safety” rights. And each contain the identify Clinton. There’s extra examples, for certain. However these two are essentially the most egregious.
Bekesha concludes his article with the one logical assertion: “The federal government ought to lose U.S. v. Trump. If the courts resolve in any other case, I would like these Clinton tapes.”