Legal analyst Steve Vladeck wrote an opinion piece for MSNBC criticizing former President Donald Trump’s lawyers’ recent motion in his Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Trump’s lawyers argue that a Chinese immigrant’s 1886 Supreme Court case sets a precedent for dismissing Trump’s charges due to “selective prosecution.” In the case, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lee Yick, an immigrant convicted of operating an unlicensed laundry, stating that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was violated. However, Vladeck believes that Trump’s lawyers will struggle to convince the judge that Trump’s situation is comparable to Yick’s.
Vladeck argues that Trump’s selective prosecution claim is unlikely to succeed, given the stringent standards set by the Supreme Court for proving such claims. He points out that Trump’s behavior in the Mar-a-Lago case is unprecedented and makes him a poor candidate to bring a selective prosecution claim. Trump’s lawyers cite instances involving President Joe Biden, former Vice President Mike Pence, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to argue that Trump’s rivals engaged in similar conduct but were not prosecuted. However, Vladeck asserts that the alleged conduct in Trump’s case far exceeds that of the other officials, making his argument weak.
The trial date for the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case has not been finalized, but it is expected to be postponed from the scheduled start date of May 20. Vladeck identifies two “fatal problems” with Trump’s motion filed by his lawyers. Firstly, the Supreme Court has set high standards for proving selective prosecution claims, making it challenging for Trump to succeed. Secondly, Trump’s unprecedented conduct in the Mar-a-Lago case undermines his claim. The motion lists various government officials, including President Biden, Vice President Pence, and Secretary Clinton, to argue for selective prosecution, but Vladeck contends that Trump’s conduct far surpasses that of the other officials.
Trump’s attorneys argue that Biden, Pence, and Clinton engaged in similar conduct as Trump regarding classified documents but were not prosecuted. They claim that Trump was unfairly targeted by the government, while his rivals were not held accountable for their actions. However, Vladeck refutes this argument by highlighting the significant differences in the conduct of Trump and the other officials mentioned. He emphasizes that Trump’s behavior in the Mar-a-Lago case stands out as particularly egregious, making his selective prosecution claim weak and unlikely to succeed in court.
In conclusion, Vladeck asserts that Trump’s selective prosecution argument in the Mar-a-Lago case is doomed to fail due to the unique circumstances surrounding Trump’s conduct. Despite Trump’s attempts to compare his situation to that of other officials, Vladeck argues that the severity and unprecedented nature of Trump’s actions make his claim untenable. The legal analyst maintains that Trump’s behavior in retaining classified documents and obstructing the federal authorities is significantly more egregious than that of his rivals, rendering his selective prosecution argument unconvincing in the eyes of the law.
