The Aug. 8 raid on Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago was a defining moment for the United States. Never before has the home of a former president been searched by federal police. For many Americans, it was the last straw, the act that broke their trust in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI.
As new information trickles in on what was and wasn’t taken from Trump’s property, the 45th president has been sharing updates on his social media platform, Truth Social.
The raid prompted outrage among Trump’s supporters and from some of his detractors as well. On the morning of Aug. 15, Trump said he offered, through his representatives, to work with the DOJ in light of the “tremendous anger in the country—at a level that has never been seen before, other than during very perilous times.”
In the wake of the raid, Republican lawmakers have demanded answers on what prompted the raid, and have vowed to investigate the DOJ and FBI should, as anticipated, the GOP regain control of the House come January.
While the exact justification for the raid remains shrouded in secrecy, many commentators have already settled on the general view that such a step would have only been justifiable if the reason was grave, the timing urgent, and the evidence ironclad. Calls for transparency have come from both sides of the aisle.
Information revealed so far indicates the justification was the FBI’s investigation of potential mishandling of defense information; taking, hiding, or destroying government records; and altering, destroying, or falsifying records in federal investigations. How the statutes were supposedly violated remains unclear.
Presidential RecordsSince Trump left office, National Archives officials have been pressing him to hand over presidential records that were packed up and shipped to his Florida estate. In January, he returned some 15 boxes of documents and other items, but archive officials pushed for more.
“And it was very cordial. Everybody was nice and friendly and very professional. So we had no reason to believe that there was any type of adversarial nature to the discussion. So going from that to a full-blown raid seemed a bit shocking.”
IntrusiveSome lawyers have pointed out that before executing a search warrant, less intrusive means should have been used, such as requests for documents and subpoenas. The DOJ reportedly did issue a subpoena in May, but that still doesn’t necessarily justify a raid, according to constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
Dershowitz and others have pointed out that other officials and former presidents have faced issues over withholding sensitive documents, but none of them have had their homes raided.
The Trump raid appears to display unequal treatment by the DOJ, Dershowitz argues.
“If I had to put a symbol on the Justice Department, it would be, ‘Due process for me but not for thee. Free speech for me but not for thee. Equal protection for me, but not for thee.’ That’s the direction in which the pendulum seems to be swinging today,” he said.
Moreover, he noted, the raid has set a dangerous precedent.
PoliticalTrump has denounced the raid as a part of a “political witch hunt” against him, likening it to the FBI’s ultimately fruitless pursuit of allegations that he colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 election—allegations seeded and spread by operatives of his then-opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
A number of commentators have raised the issue of the FBI going after Trump while he’s the presumptive Republican candidate for the presidency in 2024 and while he’s campaigning for GOP candidates ahead of November’s midterm elections.
Banana RepublicA common analysis of the raid on the conservative side has held it as symbolizing the deterioration of the American justice system.
Conservative filmmaker and author Dinesh D’Souza dove deeper into the analogy:
Moreover, he pointed out, “banana republics do all these things while pretending not to—that’s why they call themselves republics.”
“This is exactly, actually, what you hear from tinpot despots who are flouting the rule of law, even as they pretend to be apostles of it,” D’Souza said.
Former Trump national security official Kash Patel agrees.
“Those are terms we throw around because they used to be a good basis of comparison. It’s scary now that we have become that basis,” he told EpochTV’s Jan Jekielek.
“The American judicial system has been superior because it did not reflect those of other countries where you have a dictator, or you have tyrannical rule, like in Russia, or the Chinese Communist Party, where they suppress due process, and they execute political convictions through their intelligence law enforcement apparatus.”
Future of the FBIThe raid has prompted some commentators to propose a radical reining-in of the federal police force.
Defense lawyer and former FBI agent Stuart Kaplan suggested that the DOJ inspector general may need to take over the FBI.
Historian Victor Davis Hanson went even further, proposing to disband the FBI and transfer its personnel and functions to other federal and local agencies.
“The FBI interferes with and warps national elections. It hires complete frauds as informants who are far worse than its targets. It humiliates or exempts government and elected officials based on their politics. It violates the civil liberties of individual American citizens,” he wrote in a recent op-ed.
“The FBI’s highest officials now routinely mislead Congress. They have erased or altered court and subpoenaed evidence. They illegally leak confidential material to the media. And they have lied under oath to federal investigators.
“The agency has become dangerous to Americans and an existential threat to their democracy and rule of law. The FBI should be dispersing its investigatory responsibilities to other government investigative agencies that have not yet lost the public’s trust.”
Kaplan estimated that the FBI leadership remains “obstinate” in their belief that the “fruits” of their efforts outweigh the risks.
FBI Director Christopher Wray responded to questions about the raid with a statement condemning “unfounded attacks on the integrity of the FBI” as well as “violence and threats against law enforcement, including the FBI.”
A Convenient JudgeMany conservative commentators have argued that the federal magistrate judge who approved the warrant, Bruce Reinhart, should have recused himself. Reinhart stepped aside earlier this year when he was to preside over a racketeering case that Trump brought against Clinton in Florida. He acknowledged at the time he couldn’t be impartial, although it isn’t clear whether his partiality had more to do with Clinton or Trump.
In 2017, the year before he was appointed to the bench by local district judges, Reinhart made comments on social media berating Trump for criticizing Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). Lewis died in 2020.
On Jan. 2, 2008, within days of leaving office, Reinhart began representing multiple Epstein associates and employees in civil cases against Epstein by his alleged victims.