Member-only story
About that Affidavit
Avoiding a Comey Moment
The talking heads (media pundits, not David Byrne & Co.) say that the public “needs” to see the affidavit to prove that the Justice Department is acting in good faith. Those talking heads are wrong at best, dishonest at worst.
When Jim Comey announced that he was not going to recommend criminal charges against Hillary, he tarred her reputation without giving her a day in court. Should the DOJ do the same for Trump if he is not indicted? Absent a criminal charge, the affidavit, even with names and national secrets redacted, would do to Trump what Jim Comey did to Hillary. Should the A.G. describe all the things said by informants and all the evidence recovered and then leave the ex-President hanging? Certainly, the DOJ could say about Trump everything Comey said about Hillary. Hillary’s fans didn’t like what Comey did. Why should we expect Trump’s fans to like A.G. Garland doing the same thing to Trump by releasing the meat of the search warrant affidavit?
Demands for the full affidavit insist that the DOJ prove its good faith by breaking protocol, which is exactly the wrong thing to do. The DOJ proves its good faith by sticking to protocol. The search was made necessary by Trump’s refusal to turn over documents. The DOJ did not publicize the search; Trump did. The Department wouldn’t have commented on the search if…