Raiding Trunp's home in Florida was an own-goal by the DoJ. The least it could do was give a reason why it was necessary.
On August 8th the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) searched former president Donald Trump’s house in Florida to find allegedly withheld classified documents. All the commentators I’ve read and listened to have agreed that it makes sense to start with the assumption that the evidence suggesting Trump has these documents is strong, it would be monumentally foolish to go after such a politically influential figure as Trump without solid evidence. I don’t know much about the legality of keeping classified documents after leaving office, and I am generally much less interested in the merits of the case than the politics of it. Classified documents seems like a mundane issue for such a dramatic move from the Department of Justice’s (DoJ) side. I’m sure it’s an important issue with potential national security implications but I don’t understand why the department felt that it couldn’t just ask Trump for the documents. More than anyone else the DoJ is sure to know the legality in question but I wonder if it considered the politics enough.
Washington bureaucrats would undoubtedly have an eloquent answer to why these documents are so important, but that seems like a hard sell for the average voter; just physically having documents is a victimless crime. And while I’m sure there are good reasons why taking classified documents with you when you leave office is illegal it hardly provokes a visceral response in voters the way a violent crime, sexual misconduct, or base corruption would. It would be easy to characterise the crime, were Trump to be proven guilty of it, as akin to stealing pens from work, technically illegal but mundane and not worth being upset over. Risking provoking president Biden’s political rivals over such a mundane crime seems like poor politics to me.
Another interesting aspect of the situation is the lack of solid information so far: no major news organisation seems to have the exact details on what specific crime or crimes Trump is under suspicion for. A surprise raid might well be good police work, signaling that a search is coming gives the suspect time to get rid of evidence, but it’s poor politics. If the DoJ had publicly confronted Trump about the documents and he had refused the raid would have looked more reasonable to third party observers. Now that the raid was executed transparency the public has to make up its own mind as to whether it was justified or not, and by not giving its side of the story the DoJ has left the field open for Trump and his political allies to shape the narrative about the event. A narrative that is unsurprisingly based on the idea that Democrats have gone after Trump for entirely political reasons. The longer the DoJ takes to make public its reasons for the raid the more time Trump’s version of events have time to gain a foothold.
It’s funny to me how little the DoJ has said publicly about the raid. The Economist’s story about it says: “The inquiry apparently involves documents Mr Trump may have illegally brought with him from the White House to Florida after leaving office. It appears to be separate from a host of other legal tangles he faces”, Michael Beschloss is quoted in a New York Times piece as saying: “And therefore the criminal suspicions — we don’t know yet exactly what they are — they have to be fairly serious.” The Washington Post published an opinion piece by Hugh Hewitt which argues that Trump should make the search warrant public saying: “Citizens need to know whether this a reasonable search based on probable cause of some crime by someone with access to Mar-a-Lago — as a judge has clearly decided there is probable cause to conclude — or yet another unmerited strike at the 45th president by the latest in the long line of former federal officials who have tried to take Donald Trump down a peg, or behind bars, and failed.” It’s astonishing that the DoJ felt comfortable taking such high-profile action against someone so influential without feeling the need to justify why it was necessary.
Personally I think the DoJ has good reasons to investigate Trump, he’s proven time and again that his moral character leaves something to be desired, but I can’t help but feel that the accusations that the DoJ has acted in a nakedly partisan way has a point. Trump often claims that he is the target of politically motivated investigations and bureaucratic attacks, and by playing into that narrative the DoJ is at great risk of being seen as a partisan actor. Faith in legal institutions isn’t only undermined when they act politically, but also when they appear to act politically, and the DoJ’s recent actions sure does make it appear to act politically in the eyes of Trump’s supporters.
Irrespective of how the potential criminal case against Trump goes, the DoJ’s actions in the Mar-a-Lago incident were not politically savvy and it opened itself up to a lot of both baseless and valid criticism. Faith in institutions is decided more by appearances than by intentions, and it was always going to be controversial for the DoJ to raid Trump in such a politically fraught moment. Let’s hope they learn from this incident to avoid playing into Trump’s hands like that again in the future.
If you liked this post you can read a previous post about Russian sanctions here or the rest of my writings here. It would mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Sources:
Cover photo by Mikhail Nilov from Pexels, edited by Karl Johansson
Comments