Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart will hold a hearing today on a motion by conservative activist groups and liberal media outlets seeking to make public the sworn affidavit the FBI filed to justify the search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.
While not every detail in the affidavit needs to be revealed, shining light on a contentious debate, which has been made more divisive by the Department of Justice’s secrecy on the matter, could calm emotions and restore credibility to institutions that have recently made significant errors in judgment.
No one is above the law, but prosecution also needs to be tempered with judgment. On immigration, to take one glaring example, the Biden administration has chosen to ignore lawbreaking by literally millions of migrants. Each of these decisions not to enforce the law is a political one. Voters can decide if Biden’s judgment about which infractions to prosecute and which to ignore is appropriate.
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s unprecedented decision to authorize a search warrant application for the residence of a former president who may soon again be a political opponent of Biden’s is saturated with political implications. Voters must judge the details of what was taken, what was done with it, and how cooperative Trump was with government agents.
Let’s stipulate that Trump mishandled classified materials in violation of federal law. Even if Trump meant to declassify everything he took, it is highly likely that he ignored proper procedures for doing so.
The nature of what Trump is alleged to have taken is highly important. There is bipartisan consensus that our intelligence agencies classify too much material. Are the documents Trump took already available to the public? Or do they contain real secrets such as data on the nuclear capabilities of an ally or foe? Or the intercepted communications of the French president?
If the information sought by Garland would truly harm national security if it fell into the wrong hands, then his decision looks more justified. If the information is harmless or could be obtained through open sources, the decision was unwise and perhaps reckless.
Additionally, what did Trump do with these materials? Were they merely unsafely stored? Or were classified markings removed? Did Trump alter or destroy materials? If Trump was just unsafely storing something, why the sudden rush? If he was altering documents, that’s different.
Finally, to what extent was Trump cooperating with federal authorities? We know federal agents removed about a dozen boxes in January and that talks with Trump’s lawyers about additional materials were ongoing. Why were those talks short-circuited?
The DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General has identified significant lapses of judgment by the department in its investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia. Trump and his supporters have every right to be suspicious that lapses are occurring again.
Reinhart has it in his power to answer many of these questions, settle many debates, and, one hopes, calm the contentious atmosphere surrounding the Mar-a-Lago search. Redactions should be made to protect witnesses and sources, but to the widest extent possible, Reinhart should make the rest of the affidavit public.
