Share this @internewscast.com
() — Alan Dershowitz says he voted against former President Donald Trump once, and he wants the opportunity to do it again.
That’s why the prominent civil rights attorney is criticizing the Justice Department’s decision to search Mar-a-Lago and defending the “whataboutism” argument that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was treated differently when she was investigated for mishandling classified documents.
Joining “On Balance with Leland Vittert” on Monday night, Dershowitz said the lack of information coming from Attorney General Merrick Garland is raising concerns about the process and the potential ramifications of the investigation. One of the penalties for the crimes being investigated is disqualification from public office.
“I think what we’re seeing here is a misapplication of the principles of equality,” Dershowitz said. “Two wrongs don’t make a right, but if you have two wrongs and they’re treated differently, that’s a third wrong.”
In an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal, Dershowitz argues that “treating like cases alike is crucial to the equal protection of the laws.” Clinton’s treatment, he says, is relevant in determining whether Trump is being subjected to a double standard of justice.
In a news conference last week, Garland said he personally approved the search, and suggested it was a last resort after the FBI sought less intrusive means to get the documents back. Media reports have revealed that the Justice Department issued subpoenas for documents from Mar-a-Lago earlier this summer.
“He should have explained, if you think that we have even-handed justice, why they didn’t enforce the subpoena instead of going on a full-blown search,” Dershowitz said. “Neither side today is elevating principle over partisanship.”
In a court filing Monday, the Justice Department objected to the release of the underlying probable cause affidavit for the search warrant, arguing its release would compromise the investigation.
Dershowitz dismissed the argument as “total nonsense.”
“We know the DOJ can redact,” he said. “We have the right as the public to know what they are looking for.”