Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
Without knowing what the Department of Justice has learned about former President Donald Trump's conduct, it's impossible to say whether searching his home in Mar-a-Lago was justified. Before all the facts are in, however, it's crucial to understand that the verdict on this action and what follows can't rest only on what the law says.
Attorney General Merrick Garland and his officials also had to be sure that they were acting — and would in due course be seen as having acted — in the public interest.
Assuming they had solid legal grounds for doing what they did, this second test is still extremely demanding. I'm hoping it wasn't just ignored.
You might well ask: How can investigation and prosecution of crimes ever fail to be in the public interest? Very easily.
A conscientious effort to prosecute every crime to the fullest extent of the law might leave surprisingly few Americans at liberty. This country has built such a vast constellation of criminal offenses that prosecutorial discretion — that is, often choosing not to prosecute — is not so much a function of limited resources as something that justice actually requires.
According to reports, the crimes Trump possibly committed might include such heinous acts as keeping a letter former President Barack Obama left for him in the Oval Office. No doubt that's multiple counts of something all by itself.