Comparing searches for the documents of Donald Trump and Hillary,
invoking聽dicey doctrines such as聽whataboutism,
induces me to jest, while 聽being Jack and Jillery
about bread cast on troubled聽waters of Trumpistic doubtism,

The doctrine surely was endorsed ecclesiastically
by a PC Preacher who was called Qohelet,
but since it鈥檚 problematic it鈥檚 one I can鈥檛 enthusiastically
endorse, although Qohelet聽never managed to expel it.

In the 8/14/22 WSJ,聽Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of 鈥淭he Price of Principle: Why Integrity Is Worth the Consequences,鈥� 聽writes,

Attorney General Merrick Garland is a decent man, and he said the right things in his statement regarding the search of Donald Trump鈥檚 residence at Mar-a-Lago: 鈥淎ll Americans are entitled to the evenhanded application of the law, to due process of the law, and to the presumption of innocence.鈥�
It is what he didn鈥檛 say that raises disturbing questions about the process. Why didn鈥檛 the Justice Department seek to enforce the subpoena it apparently had issued, rather than seek a search warrant? Was this consistent with the 鈥渟tandard practice鈥� Mr. Garland articulated in his statement鈥斺�渢o seek less intrusive alternatives to a search鈥� whenever possible?
Why was the matter handled so differently from the prior investigations of Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton, who were also suspected of mishandling classified material? Mrs. Clinton herself mocked that question by sporting a baseball cap with the logo 鈥淏ut her emails.鈥�
Her hat is intended to deride the argument made by Trump supporters and some civil libertarians that the investigation of Mr. Trump鈥檚 alleged security breaches should be evaluated against the way in which earlier cases were handled. Berger and Mrs. Clinton were suspected of mishandling confidential materials鈥攈e by removing them from the National Archives in 2005, she by transmitting them over her private email server while serving as secretary of state. Berger was administratively fined, and Mrs. Clinton was rebuked by James Comey, then director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which might have cost her the 2016 election. But neither was subjected to broad search warrants or criminal prosecution.
Those who reject this comparison accuse those who make it of 鈥渨hataboutism.鈥� But treating like cases alike is crucial to the equal protection of the laws. The way in which Berger and Mrs. Clinton were treated is highly relevant in determining whether Mr. Trump is being subjected to a double standard of justice.

The facts, especially the degrees of culpability, may be different; and if so, that would provide a good answer to the 鈥渨hat about鈥� question. But if the facts are similar and the treatment is different, Americans are entitled to ask whether this constitutes the even application of the law that Mr. Garland promised. The shoe must fit comfortably on the other foot if justice is to be done and seen to be done. There can鈥檛 be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans鈥�..

鈥淲hataboutism鈥� is a new word for an old idea. There鈥檚 a 19th-century Yiddish expression: 鈥渁 for-instance is not an argument.鈥� Yet sometimes it is. If a pattern of nonenforcement can be demonstrated鈥攁s with the Logan Act, under which nobody has been prosecuted since 1852鈥攊t will be difficult to prove equal justice if it is suddenly and selectively invoked to target a political enemy. If, on the other hand, violation of the Classification or Records Acts were routinely prosecuted and alleged violators subject to a search warrant, then the case for equal application of the law will have been made.

Qoh. 11:1 states:
讗 聽砖讈址诇旨址讞 诇址讞职诪职讱指, 注址诇-驻旨职谞值讬 讛址诪旨指讬执诐: 聽讻旨执讬-讘职专止讘 讛址讬旨指诪执讬诐, 转旨执诪职爪指讗侄谞旨讜旨. 1 Cast thy bread upon the waters, for thou shalt find it after many days.