Agree. @TwiceHorn is exposing the gaps that should be strengthened and providing efficient avenues for attaining a conviction.
My problem with the Judge’s order was her use of her equitable powers in a criminal investigation requested by a party with unclean hands. I do not believe the court had equitable jurisdiction here.
First, principles of equity generally forbid use of equitable powers in criminal proceedings. The Younger decision is a limiting instruction on when equity can be used, not a broad loophole for a court
Second, those requesting equitable relief must have clean hands. The former President’s are unclean (and tiny). Intermingling these classified documents with personal effects bars the use of the court’s equitable power as that act is illegal.
Third, the former President must possess a property interest in the Presidential documents seized to have standing to request equitable relief. If there is substantial doubt on whether he has a property right, the court should not use its equitable powers. There is certainly substantial doubt whether the former President has any property right in the seized classified materials. The commingling of classified material with personal items is one of the crimes under investigation. The seizure of those personal items was allowed under the search warrant and a element of the commingling crime.
tldr: the court did not have jurisdiction to use its equitable powers to fashion a remedy in this proceeding. Law, not equity, runs the show in criminal investigations.