Popular on eTradeWire

Similar on eTradeWire

Hur's Report Undercuts Similar Charges Against Trump

eTradeWire News/10759969
Hur's Absolution of Biden May Require Withdrawal or Dismissal

WASHINGTON - eTradeWire -- The report of special counsel Robert Hur, concluding that President Joe Biden should not be charged with Willful Retention of National Defense Information under 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), may pressure or even require the Department of Justice [DoJ] to withdraw most of the charges against former president Donald Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

If these 32 charges against Trump are not voluntarily withdrawn, they may have to be dismissed by the federal judge, predicts public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

Also, if these charges are not withdrawn from the current indictment by special counsel Jack Smith, that failure would only greatly strengthen the claim by Trump and others of selective prosecution, a "two-tiered system of justice," and perhaps even some evidence of a "dark state."

Biden and his many defenders charge that the secret documents cases against Biden and Trump are not only legally distinguishable but also fundamentally different because Biden cooperated and Trump obstructed.

More on eTradeWire News
While this is indeed an important difference, this simplistic distinction between the two federal secret-documents cases overlooks the fact that most of the charges now pending against Trump are the same as the charges which were determined by Hur not to warrant criminal charges against Biden: Willful Retention of National Defense Information.

More precisely, of the 42 charges in the SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT, 32 are for the same criminal charge for which Hur absolved Biden.

But it would be both remarkable and reprehensible for such an important decision to be left to a jury of 12 laymen who would then have to decide whether or not to convict Trump for a crime not charged against Biden, based upon which of the men who served as our president is more addle minded and scatterbrained - or, more precisely, suffers from "diminished faculties" and "significant limitations" on his memory - argues Banzhaf.

If it did, then in the words of Charles Dickens, "the law is a ass - a idiot."

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf

GW Law

Source: Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf
Filed Under: Legal

Show All News | Report Violation


Latest on eTradeWire News