Those militant uncompromising fighters for their class – the capitalist class – are not happy. Yes, I’m talking about the editorial board of the Wall St. Journal. They have several complaints, criticisms and threats regarding the search of Mar-a-Lago. They complain that the issue of Trump’s illegal seizure of government documents should have been settled by negotiations, which was what was happening — for nearly 2 years. What’s to negotiate, especially considering that he’d apparently tried to flush other documents down the toilet when he was in office?

Then they say “The FBI search may be a fishing expedition to find evidence related to Jan. 6.” Yes, it “may” have been. But where is the evidence for that? (See full text of editorial below)

Then they say ” the burden of proof is especially high for indicting a former President, all the more so for an Administration of the opposition party. “. In the first place, a warrant and a search is not an indictment. Second, What those fighters for the unchecked power of their class neglect to point out, the Democratic controlled Justice Department did not unilaterally decide to execute a search; they got the approval of a judge and, Republican or Democrat, that judge would not have given approval if there weren’t ample legal justification, Not for a search of an ex-president.

Then they go to the threats. “Millions of his supporters will see this as vindication of his charges against the “deep state,” and who knows how they will respond. Has Mr. Garland considered all of this?…. Worse in the long term is the precedent being set and the payback it is likely to inspire. Once the Rubicon of prosecuting a former President has been crossed—especially if the alleged offense and evidence are less than compelling—every future President will be a target.” In other words, the first threat is a riot or terrorist act or acts by the Trumpeteers. The second threat is “payback” if and when the Republicans take power. But the Democrats simply would not overthrow bourgeois democracy as the Republicans are trying to do. They base their very existence on it.

The WSJ editors are sick and tired of Trump because he’s screwing up the Republicans’ chances. He did it by helping get two Democratic senators elected in Georgia in 2021, for example. Many of his candidates this fall are playing right into the Democrats’ hands (for example Oz and and Mastriano). But whatever his incompetence, Trump is for their class and the WSJ editors will defend him.

This is not to say the Democrats represent the working class. They do not, but at least the stand on capitalist democracy rather than outright one person rule.

Full editorial:

Monday’s unannounced Federal Bureau of Investigation search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home isn’t a moment for anyone to cheer. The Justice Department is unleashing political furies it can’t control and may not understand, and the risks for the department and the country are as great as they are for Mr. Trump. As everyone knows by now, an FBI law-enforcement action of this kind against a former American President is unprecedented. Monday’s search needed a judicial warrant in service of probable cause in a criminal probe. The Justice Department has provided few details beyond what has been leaked to reporters, so it is hard to judge what the FBI was looking for.

The media leaks say the search is related to potential mishandling of classified documents or violations of the Presidential Records Act. If that is true, then the raid looks like prosecutorial overkill and a bad mistake. Document disputes are typically settled in negotiation, and that is how Mr. Trump’s disagreement with the National Archives had been proceeding.

Mr. Trump has already returned 15 boxes of documents, but the National Archives wants to know if the former President retained classified material he shouldn’t have. This is what appears to have triggered the FBI search, but it’s far from clear why this couldn’t be settled cooperatively, or at most with a subpoena.

As everyone knows by now, an FBI law-enforcement action of this kind against a former American President is unprecedented. Monday’s search needed a judicial warrant in service of probable cause in a criminal probe. The Justice Department has provided few details beyond what has been leaked to reporters, so it is hard to judge what the FBI was looking for.

The media leaks say the search is related to potential mishandling of classified documents or violations of the Presidential Records Act. If that is true, then the raid looks like prosecutorial overkill and a bad mistake. Document disputes are typically settled in negotiation, and that is how Mr. Trump’s disagreement with the National Archives had been proceeding.

This may not be the full FBI story. Multiple media reports suggest that Justice has opened a grand jury probe into the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and Mr. Trump may be a target of that investigation. The House committee investigating Jan. 6 has been cheering for a prosecution, and the political and media pressure is intense on Attorney General Merrick Garland to indict Mr. Trump. The FBI search may be a fishing expedition to find evidence related to Jan. 6.

On the public evidence so far, a Jan. 6 indictment would be a legal stretch. Political responsibility isn’t the same as criminal liability. In our view, the evidence would have to show that Mr. Trump was criminally complicit in that day’s violence at the Capitol.

Given its inherently political nature, the burden of proof is especially high for indicting a former President, all the more so for an Administration of the opposition party. The evidence had better be overwhelming—not merely enough to convince a 12-person jury in the District of Columbia, but enough to convince a majority of the American public.

Then there is the fraught history between Mr. Trump and the FBI and Justice. The Russia collusion probe was a fiasco of FBI abuse of process and public deception. Current FBI director Christopher Wray was Mr. Trump’s choice to succeed the disastrous James Comey, but the bureau still has a serious credibility problem.

That the Mar-a-Lago raid occurred only about 90 days from a national election also increases the political suspicion. Democrats want to keep Mr. Trump front and center in the midterm campaign, which is why the Jan. 6 committee is continuing into the autumn.

Anyone who thinks an indictment and trial of Mr. Trump would go smoothly is in for a rude surprise. Millions of his supporters will see this as vindication of his charges against the “deep state,” and who knows how they will respond. Has Mr. Garland considered all of this?

***

Worse in the long term is the precedent being set and the payback it is likely to inspire. Once the Rubicon of prosecuting a former President has been crossed—especially if the alleged offense and evidence are less than compelling—every future President will be a target. William Barr, Mr. Trump’s second AG, wisely resisted pressure to indict political actors without a very strong case. The next Republican AG will not be as scrupulous.

Democrats may also be wrong in their calculation about how a prosecution would affect Mr. Trump’s future. The FBI search alone makes it more likely that Mr. Trump will run again for President, if only to vindicate himself. He will run as a martyr, and even Republicans who want to turn the page on the former President may be repelled by what they see as a political prosecution.

All of this risks compounding the baleful pattern of the last six years. Mr. Trump is accused of violating political norms—sometimes fairly, sometimes not—and the left violates norms in response. Polarization increases, and public faith in institutions and the peaceful settlement of political difference erodes further.

The FBI search on Mr. Trump suggests that Mr. Garland may be committed to pursuing and indicting Mr. Trump. If so, he is taking the country on a perilous road. There is much ruin in a nation, but no one should want to test the limits of that ruin in America. 

NOTE: We are collecting more material for a second article. This will include further examples of the far right reaction.