AS A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
TURNED INTO A POLITICAL WEAPON,
AND IF THEY CAN DO THIS TO
PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHAT YOU THINK
THEY CAN DO TO THE REST OF US?
WE WILL HAVE FULL BREAKING
COVERAGE ON THAT LONG.
HERE NOW WITH MORE, FOX NEWS
LEGAL ANALYST GREGG JARRETT,
HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR
ALAN DERSHOWITZ IS WITH US.
GREGG WE WILL START WITH YOU.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRESENT OF
THE RECORDS ACT, WHICH IS WHAT
WE ARE TOLD THIS IS ALL ABOUT --
I MEAN, I ASSUME THERE’S A
CHANCE THAT MAYBE CLASSIFIED
DOCUMENTS WERE TAKEN TO
MAR-A-LAGO.
I UNDERSTOOD FROM REPORTS THAT
THERE WAS A PROCESS THAT THEY
WERE GOING THROUGH.
THEY SAID THEY WERE WILLING TO
GIVE ALL THOSE THINGS BACK.
WHY DIDN’T THEY JUST SAY CAN WE
COME OVER AND TAKE A LOOK AT
WHAT YOU HAVE AND MAKE SURE THAT
THERE’S NO CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS
OR?
JUST LIKE WHY DIDN’T THEY SAY TO
PETER NAVARRO, HIS ATTORNEY,
HAVE YOUR CLIENT REPORT AT
8:00 A.M. AT THIS LOCATION, OR
PAUL MANAFORT OR ROGER STONE?
WHY THE BIG SHOW ONLY WHEN IT’S
A CONSERVATIVE?
>> BECAUSE IT’S DONALD TRUMP AND
THIS IS THE WEAPONIZATION FOR
POLITICAL PURPOSES BY THE FBI
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
YOU ARE RIGHT, SEAN, WHEN YOU
IDENTIFY THE PRESIDENTIAL
RECORDS ACT OF 1968 -- ’78,
WHICH IS FAR FROM A MODEL OF
CLARITY, AND IN FACT IT’S ONE OF
THE MORE OPAQUE LAWS WILL EVER
READ.
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITHIN IS
THAT IT GIVES DISCRETION AND
AUTHORITY TO THE INCUMBENT
PRESIDENT TO DECIDE WHAT
CONSTITUTES PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS.
HE MAY IDENTIFY, EXCLUDE, AND
DISPOSE OF PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS,
AND YOU POINT OUT THE CLASSIFIED
NATURE, ALLEGEDLY, OF SOME OF
THE DOCUMENTS.
IDENTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL
ARCHIVES.
THEY ARE NOT COMPETENT AGENCY TO
RECOGNIZE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS
BECAUSE A PRESIDENT IS THE
ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IN
DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS.
HE MAY DO SO WITH A WAVE OF HIS
HAND WITHOUT NOTIFICATION TO THE
NATIONAL ARCHIVES.
SO I THINK WHAT YOU’RE REALLY
SEEING HERE IS AN ABUSE OF POWER
BY THE FBI AND ABSOLUTELY BOTH
MERRICK GARLAND, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THE FBI
DIRECTOR FOR CHRISTOPHER WRAY --
>> Sean: THEY WOULD HAVE HAVE
TO HAVE SIGNED OFF ON THIS, YOU
AGREE WITH THAT, CORRECT?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
NO AGENT OR OFFICIAL AT THE FBI
IS GOING TO UNDERTAKE A RATE OF
THIS MAGNITUDE ON A FORMER
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
WITHOUT GOING TO THE INDIVIDUALS
AT THE VERY TOP.
THAT’S GARLAND AND
CHRISTOPHER WRAY.
>> Sean: LET’S TALK ABOUT TWO
OTHER CASES,
PROFESSOR DERSHOWITZ AND I WILL
GET YOUR POINT OF VIEW ON THIS
PARTICULAR RAID.
JAMES COMEY WAS ACCUSED PRETTY
MUCH OF SOME OF THE SIMILAR.
IF YOU REMEMBER THE CASE OF
SANDY BERGER.
WENT INTO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES,
HE LITERALLY SHOVED DOCUMENTS
DOWN INTO HIS CROTCH, IN HIS
BACKSIDE, INTO HIS SOCKS, AND
WALKED OUT WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS.
WITHIN EVERY BUDDY IN THE MEDIA,
EVERY DEMOCRAT THAT SHE WAS JUST
SLOPPY, VERY SLOPPY AS HE SHOVED
IT DOWN HIS PANTS.
HE WAS SLOPPY, HE DIDN’T MEAN TO
TAKE THEM WITH HIM.
AND EVERYBODY BOUGHT THAT EXCUSE
EXCUSE.
SO THIS THEREIN BRINGS UP A
DOUBLE STANDARD ISSUE.
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?
>> WELL DEFINITELY THERE IS A
DOUBLE STANDARD.
WE’VE SEEN SO MANY INSTANCES OF
ALLEGEDLY CLASSIFIED MATERIAL
BEING COMPROMISED.
THE KEY POINT THAT EVERYBODY IS
MISSING HERE IS THAT
DONALD TRUMP WAS NOT AT
MAR-A-LAGO, SO THERE WAS NO
REASON NOT TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA.
RETURNABLE TOMORROW.
SO THAT THERE’S NO CLAIM CLAIM
THAT TRUMP COULD HAVE DESTROYED
ANYTHING.
THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A
SUBPOENA, NOT A SEARCH WARRANT.
IF IT IS A SEARCH WARRANT, IT
HAS TO HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF
CAUSE DEMONSTRATING THAT THE
EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN
DESTROYED.
NOT ONLY THAT, BUT UNDER THE LAW
LAW, IF HE SEES A SAFE, YOU
DON’T GO INTO THE SAFE, YOU HAVE
TO GET A SPECIAL WARRANT TO GET
INTO THE SAFE, AND YOU HAVE TO
PROVE THAT THE MATERIAL IN A
LOCKED SAFE WOULD HAVE BEEN
DESTROYED, SO IT SEEMS TO MEAN
THAT THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE
RULES OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT,
THEY HAVE GONE AFTER BOTH A
FORMER PRESIDENT AND FUTURE
CANDIDATE AND THEY DARN WELL
BETTER HAVE SMOKING GUN PROOF,
WHICH I DON’T SEE HAPPENING, AND
CLEARLY THERE’S BEEN A DOUBLE
STANDARD HERE BUT EVEN IF IT WAS
A SINGLE STANDARD, IT’S NOT GOOD
ENOUGH.
YOU DON’T GET A WARRANT UNLESS A
SUBPOENA WON’T SUFFICE.
IN A DEMOCRATIC RULE OF LAW
COUNTRY, YOU DO IT LEGITIMATELY,
YOU GO TO THE LAWYER, YOU SAY
TOMORROW I WANT THAT SAFE
DELIVERED TO THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT.
I WANT THESE DOCUMENTS TURNED
OVER AND UNLESS YOU CAN
DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WAS A
VERY SUBSTANTIAL CHANCE THEY
WOULD HAVE BEEN MALICIOUSLY
DESTROYED, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN
A SERIOUS, SERIOUS CRIME.
I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE A SERIOUS
CRIME.
THAT’S NIXON AND THERE’S NO
EVIDENCE THAT THAT HAPPENED HERE
HERE.
>> Sean: IT ISN’T -- I GUESS
WHAT EVERYBODY’S WONDERING,
ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE
WENT THROUGH FOR THREE YEARS,
GREG, AT SOME .1 DO YOU SAY THE
ABUSE OF POWER, THE CORRUPTION,
THE WITCH HUNT, TO QUOTE A
FAMOUS BEST-SELLING BOOK, THAT
THIS IS FOCUSED ON ONE MAN AND
ONE MAN ONLY AND A WHOLE DOUBLE
STANDARD EXISTS AND NOBODY ELSE
IS EVER HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR
EITHER THE EXACT LAW, SIMILAR
SETS OF CIRCUMSTANCES -- I KNOW
IT WAS DIFFERENT WITH COMEY, BUT
SIMILAR.
THE SAME WITH HILLARY, THE
33,000 EMAILS, THE DIRTY
DOSSIER, THE FISA APPLICATIONS,
SANDY BERGER.
YOU RUN THROUGH THE LIST.
AND NOTHING EVER HAPPENS IF
YOU’RE NOT A CONSERVATIVE OR A
REPUBLICAN OR A TRUMP SUPPORTER.
>> LET’S JUST TAKE ONE OF THOSE
EXAMPLES, HILLARY CLINTON, HER
HOME WAS NEVER RATED, EVEN
THOUGH SHE MAINTAINED A PRIVATE
SERVER THERE.
UPON WHICH SHE DOWNLOADED
CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS,
THEREBY JEOPARDIZING NATIONAL
SECURITY AND VIOLATING THE
ESPIONAGE NOT ONCE OR TEN TIMES,
BUT ROUGHLY 100 TIMES ACCOUNTING
FOR THE NUMBER OF CLASSIFIED
DOCUMENTS THAT SHE ESSENTIALLY
STOLE, AND AS I SAY, JEOPARDIZED
NATIONAL SECURITY TO HACKS, AND
WE IN FACT EVERY SOLID EVIDENCE
THAT HER SERVER WAS HACKED AND
FOREIGN AGENCIES RETRIEVED
AMERICAN TOP-SECRET DOCUMENTS
BECAUSE OF HER ACTIONS.
WAS SHE EVER PROSECUTED?
NO.
JAMES COMEY STOOD IN FRONT OF
TELEVISION CAMERAS AND HE
IDENTIFIED ALL THE CRIMES SHE
COMMITTED AND THEN DID APPEAR
WET IN THE COURSE OF FIVE
SECONDS AND SAID BUT NO
REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD EVER
BRING SUCH A CASE.
THOUSANDS OF REASONABLE
PROSECUTOR’S WOULD HAVE LOVED TO
HAVE BROUGHT THAT CASE, AND
BESIDES, JAMES COMEY ISN’T THE
PROSECUTING AUTHORITY.
HE USURPED THE POWER OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
THAT’S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THE
DOUBLE STANDARD THAT EXISTS WITH
DONALD TRUMP.
>> Sean: STAY THERE, GREAT.
GO AHEAD, PROFESSOR.
>> I DON’T THINK YOU USE SEARCH
WARRANTS AND PROSECUTIONS TO GO
AFTER POLITICAL ENEMIES.
I’VE JUST WRITTEN A WHOLE BOOK
ON THAT CALLED "THE PRICE OF
PRINCIPLE" WHERE I GO INTO THE
WHOLE ISSUE OF WHY YOU DON’T USE
PARTISAN CONSIDERATIONS TO GO
AFTER POLITICAL ENEMIES.
THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS IN
BANANA REPUBLIC’S.
THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS IN THIRD
WORLD COUNTRIES.
THAT’S NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN IN
THE UNITED STATES.
IT WAS RIGHT NOT TO GO AFTER
HILLARY CLINTON, BECAUSE SHE WAS
A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.
UNIT A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD, BUT
YOU CAN’T APPLY ONE STANDARD TO
HILLARY CLINTON AND ANOTHER
STANDARD TO DONALD TRUMP.
THAT IS IMPERMISSIBLE IN A
DEMOCRACY.
>> IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A
POLITICAL PURSUIT AGAINST JOEY
QUENTIN BECAUSE IT OCCURRED
DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THERE.
SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED