Rob Kelner’s commentary was included in a Washington Post article comparing document mishandling allegations and investigations between former elected officials.
“I really don’t think there’s any plausible comparison between the Trump case and the Hillary Clinton case,” said Rob. “The key difference is that in the Hillary Clinton case, as we learned from the Department of Justice inspector general report, there was no evidence that Hillary Clinton sought to obstruct justice. … The focus of the Trump indictment is on his rather stark effort to obstruct justice. That’s the fundamental difference.”
Rob is critical of how the FBI handled aspects of the Clinton case, arguing that at times, the agency pulled punches when it came to investigating the conduct of some of those around her. But he said those criticisms do not change the fact that Trump appears to have repeatedly tried to keep documents he could not legally have, while Clinton did not.
“They have essentially game, set and match against Trump based on the evidence in the indictment,” he said.
Rob cautioned, however, that he expects Trump’s lawyers will fight hard, potentially trying to convince at least one juror that a former president should not go to prison over the documents case. He said there was “a very real chance Trump’s team could obtain a mistrial, no matter how compelling the evidence.”
Read the full article here.
Back
