Post from Truth Social

Now, to make matters even worse, similar to Trump, Joe Biden is now under investigation for his mishandling of documents for decades. Biden left a trail of classified material in multiple locations, including multiple private offices in a cardboard box in his garage. But as far as we know, the DOJ has not even convened a grand jury against Joe. That case appears to be going nowhere. Now, here with reaction, all of this is author of the bestseller trial of the century. Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett, also bestselling author of the book, Get Trump, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. And professor, I mean, you know, if this is true, in other words, that this indictment is coming, I'm going to bet every dollar that I have that this is not going to be an indictment about classified material, because the immediate comparisons will be about Hillary Clinton and the July 2016 press conference of Jim Comey. And he said no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. And she did have top secret classified information. We have no doubt Joe Biden had it at four separate locations, as I recall. So they'd make that comparison. So it seems to me that it won't be about classified documents, which means that in the process of investigating this, some process crime probably came up in their minds and they went forward with that. That's my guess. You're the legal professor. I'm not. You're a great guesser. A plus in my book, Get Trump, exactly that, that they would not go after him on the possession of classified material, but they would try to concoct some process crime, obstruction of justice. But let's remember that citizens of the United States are not obliged to cooperate with investigations that are designed to get them. They can do everything in that power through their lawyers to obstruct. That is to plead the fifth amendment, to plead this privilege, that privilege, to make a motion to suppress material. They cannot, however, cross the line from legal obstruction to illegal obstruction. Now that line is very vague. It talks about corrupt intent. And it's so easy for a partisan prosecutor to say that legitimate fifth, sixth, fourth amendment defenses that are supposed to be raised by defendants have morphed into illegal obstruction of justice. This sounds to me like it may be another brag indictment, another indictment that doesn't pass the shoe on the other foot test that would never, never be directed against a political friend, but only a political enemy. And it really endangers our system of justice, which is supposed to be politically neutral, not politically motivated. So I fear for our system of law enforcement, I fear for it as a liberal Democrat who voted against President Trump. I don't care about politics. I care about the Constitution and that's being violated. So we can't get you on, on the crime that we think that you're guilty of, Greg Jarrett, but we're going to go after the fact that you might have obstructed in our investigation. Now, let me ask you when Hillary Clinton deleted those 33,000 emails with bleach bit and then remove SIM cards and then had blackberries and iPhones destroyed with hammers, wouldn't that be the very definition of obstruction to you? It was the P it's absolutely obstruction. Yeah, sure. It's obstruction of justice. And she skated thanks to James Comey. But this is a consistent pattern. The left has weaponized the legal system and their current avatar is Merrick Garland, you know, scorned as a Supreme Court justice. He launches a vengeance campaign against Donald Trump whom he blames. And I, you know, I think that Garland is the most partisan attorney general in history who corrupted the Biden DOJ and the FBI selective prosecution to punish political enemies, but he runs a protection racket for Joe Biden and his son. You know, Garland has taken a dispute over documents that's governed exclusively by a civil statute, the Presidential Records Act, and Garland has decided, oh, I'm going to criminalize it by contorting the law. But then he discovers, oh gee, Joe Biden did my boss did the same thing. Okay. Now I'm going to shift to obstruction claiming that Trump wasn't cooperative. The professor is absolutely right. He doesn't have to be cooperative under the law, especially Sean, since it was the stated opinion of the DOJ that a former president could take whatever he wants under the records act for 10 years. That was the standard endorsed by a federal judge in Washington, but Garland abandoned it because it's Donald Trump. His problem is that obstruction requires a corrupt purpose. The Supreme Court has defined that immoral, depraved or evil intent. Well, where the hell is that evidence? I mean, if Trump honestly believed he was entitled to the documents under the act, there is no corrupt purpose, no obstruction. And if we look at the, you know, professor, if we look at, you know, the possible or pending indictment of Hunter on issues involving taxes and lying on a gun application, that is a far cry from what is truly being alleged, isn't it? And that is, uh, whether or not there were, go ahead. Yes, sir. Whether or not there was pay to play or good. Yeah, that's clearly correct. There certainly is today enough probable cause so that if there were a Republican attorney general who as, as political as this justice department, there would certainly be an investigation based on probable cause of deep corruption by Hunter Biden. Now, whether it involves his father or not is an investigative matter. You don't believe sources to prosecute. You believe them to open an investigation and there should be an investigation. There's enough smoke there to justify the belief that there could be fire, but let's not jump the conclusions either way. I don't believe in weaponizing the justice system either against Republicans or Democrats, but there's certainly enough for weaponization either professor. I want equal justice. I want equal application and I don't see that here. I agree with you. I agree with you. Yeah. Greg, I'll give you the last word on this. What they're talking about involving Hunter is the low hanging fruit. These were the easy indictments they could have had, you know, two years ago, but they didn't go there. And now maybe do they use, you know, low hanging fruit for Hunter to kind of mitigate the fact that they're going after Donald Trump, the leading Republican candidate for the, for the, for the presidency. Yeah. I mean, that's the inexorable conclusion from any reasonable person who's been paying somewhat attention, a five year long investigation and no criminal charges. You know, there is political protection and partisan influence being exerted here, I think by the FBI, as well as the department of justice. If Hunter Biden is charged at all, and I am skeptical, uh, it'll be relatively minor and it will ignore his larger suspected influence peddling schemes that implicate Joe Biden as complicit. I mean, you outline some of it in your monologue. Just look at the laptop documents that incriminate Joe Biden as an active participant, as well as a beneficiary. Yeah. But as I said before, they are both protected while Trump is targeting.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.