One unfortunate result of the relentless 24-hour American news cycle is that it encourages instant conclusions from both journalists and politicians about the long-term meaning of dramatic news events.
That sometimes proves dangerous. After all, breaking news stories don’t always initially provide sufficient details to explain what really happened, increasing the possibility that initial conclusions may ultimately prove wrong.
That has been evident in the controversy stemming from the Aug. 8 FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in what turned out to be the climax of a long-running dispute over his alleged improper removal of classified documents from the White House – and his refusal to return them.
As time has passed, and more information has become public, some initial conclusions have proven to be premature at best and probably wrong.
The initial reaction from most Republicans was that Americans would be outraged by the idea of government agents intruding unannounced into the home of a former president. GOP strategists saw a political plus for the party as a whole and for Trump in particular. And they weren’t the only ones; columnist David Brooks of the New York Times wrote it may have ensured Trump’s return to the presidency two years hence.
In the immediate aftermath, polls showed Trump’s support among Republicans went up as many top party figures joined his strongest adherents in decrying the raid and demanding an explanation.
But even then, there was a notable contrast between the outraged exclamations by his most fervent supporters and the more restrained comments of party leaders.
For example, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell initially dodged a press conference question about the raid. A day later, amid GOP criticism of his silence, he issued a measured statement, saying, “Attorney General (Merrick) Garland and the Department of Justice should already have provided answers to the American people and must do so immediately.”
Garland told reporters in a brief press availability that he took full responsibility for the raid but provided little insight. However, the redacted search warrant affidavit made public last Friday indicated why the FBI felt the search was necessary and the extent to which Trump has kept classified material that the 1978 Presidential Records Act says belongs to the government, not the president.
“There is probable cause to believe that additional documents that contain classified NDI (national defense information) or that are presidential records subject to record retention requirements currently remain at the premises,” the affidavit said. “There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at the premises.”
It detailed the extent of classified material in documents that Trump turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration earlier this year, including highly sensitive information about human intelligence sources.
Though Trump had urged release of the affidavit, his adherents seized on the fact that significant portions were kept secret – to protect intelligence sources and procedures, including informants – and reiterated their criticism of the raid itself.
“This is a grave travesty, and what is unredacted only further supports President Trump’s position, there was NO reason for a raid — it is all politics!” said spokesman Taylor Budowich.
Notably, the outrage came mainly from close Trump allies. There was even less reaction this time from party leaders who have learned over the years that, with Trump, the initial version often isn’t the complete one.
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, appearing on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, mainly questioned the timing of the raid and why congressional intelligence panels weren’t apprised. But the veteran lawmaker avoided any defense of Trump, noting the former president had turned over some of the documents in question but twice adding, “He should have turned over all of them.”
An underlying problem when it comes to any question involving Trump and government documents is that, by many press accounts, his White House’s handling of all official material, classified or not, has been sloppy at best and possibly illegal at worst, including reports of document destruction. That apparently worsened in the administration’s chaotic closing days, as aides rushed to throw materials into boxes for shipment to Mar-a-Lago.
There is also the cavalier attitude that Trump displayed throughout his tenure and after toward the powers of the presidency.
“I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” he said in a 2019 speech, echoing Richard Nixon’s infamous comment, in a post-presidential interview with David Frost, that, “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Finally, and most seriously, there is the question of whether Trump deliberately kept any of the documents – and, if so, why.
Initially, Trump adviser Kash Patel sought to blame the General Services Administration for sending the classified documents to Mar-a-Lago; in fact, Trump aides packed them, and GSA shipped them.
And Patel, among others, claimed, without providing any evidence, that Trump had declassified all of the top-secret materials he retained. But that does not change the requirements of the Presidential Records Act that he surrender possession of them.
In any case, the story has changed dramatically since Aug. 8.
At the outset, Trump’s allies were able to portray the raid as an outrageous intrusion into the former president’s home. Now, with the benefit of three weeks of additional information, the story has become one of yet more potential illegality by the former president.
No wonder most Republicans have clammed up.
