The 1600: No One Above the Law?

Opinion | Newsletter

Editor’s note: Carlo Versano will return next week. This week’s newsletter is authored by Isaac Saul. Saul is the author and founder of the non-partisan, independent newsletter Tangle, which summarizes the best arguments from the right and left on the big political news of the day. To check out his newsletter, click here.

Good morning,

On Friday, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents raided the Maryland home and Washington, D.C. office of John Bolton, former national security adviser during President Donald Trump’s first term. According to a senior U.S. official, the search was connected to an investigation into Bolton’s possible use of a private email server to share classified documents with his wife and daughter while he was working in the White House. Bolton was not detained and has not been charged with any crimes.

Vice President JD Vance confirmed that the administration was in “the very early stages” of an investigation into Bolton, adding that “if [the Justice Department] ultimately bring[s] a case, it will be because they determine that he has broken the law.” Vance rejected the notion that Bolton was being targeted because of his criticism of the president.

There’s plenty of cause for concern here, but I have to concede: In the last few years, I began subscribing to a “prosecute them all” mentality.

I was moved by the arguments of writers like Jonathan Katz, who have essentially made the case that it’s a good thing if the powerful believed they would face accountability. That applies to President Trump, who was prosecuted for mishandling classified documents and trying to overthrow an election (among other cases); it’s true of Bill Clinton, who has been credibly accused of rape; it’s true of Hillary Clinton, who mishandled classified documents; it’s true of Barack Obama and George W. Bush, whom many people wanted to see prosecuted for war crimes and torture. No one is above the law, all the way up to the president, despite how disruptive holding them accountable can be.

Of course, it’s easy to hold this principle in a vacuum; it’s harder to hold it in the real world, where even legitimate prosecutions can compel political reaction, especially when accusations end without convictions. As for John Bolton, I have a hard time shedding any tears for him — a certified warmonger who has regularly ensured that U.S. diplomatic efforts fail in favor of exercising military strength. He is a prototypical swamp creature who can do untold amounts of damage from an untouchable perch in Washington, D.C.. During his 17-month stint as national security advisor in Trump’s first term, Bolton helped tank diplomacy that could have led to disarming North Korea, publicly called for regime change in Venezuela, and nearly sent us into an all-out war with Iran (just a few years after his New York Times op-ed “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran”).

These aren’t crimes, of course. An infatuation with war is not the same as being guilty of mishandling classified information. Bolton’s hawkish advocacy is only evidence of how someone can be so consistently and dangerously wrong and fail forward in our nation’s capital. Which is all just to say: I may not want Bolton anywhere near the White House, but I’d also like to see some evidence that he deserved to have his home raided by the FBI.

Many of Trump’s supporters are now justifying the raid against Bolton without even suggesting any criminality on Bolton’s part, but instead adopting a “the swamp came from Trump, now Trump’s coming for them” mentality.

This reaction to the Bolton raid is omnipresent in right-wing circles, and a fear of tit-for-tat reprisals was a valid concern when the DOJ began prosecuting Trump under Biden. It’s also a valid counter-argument to the “prosecute them all” approach. Whether or not you believed Trump deserved to face various criminal charges, the genie was out of the bottle — and the repercussions of crossing the Rubicon were impossible to anticipate. To me, this was not a reason to drop the Trump cases but to ensure any charges brought against him would be airtight, because opening the door to the appearance of political persecution would do untold long-term damage to our institutions and faith in our legal system. Quite unfortunately, the charges were often far from airtight.

Now, is the investigation into Bolton simply retribution for his public break with Trump, or is it also airtight? We don’t know. We have no evidence (yet) to assess; the DOJ hasn’t even announced specific allegations beyond reports alluding to mishandling of classified information. Trump is harboring an obvious political grudge against Bolton, one that started with revoking his security clearance and Secret Service detail immediately after taking office (even though credible threats against Bolton’s life have been publicly reported).

I’ve written a lot about the ways Trump 2.0 is similar to Trump 1.0, but the biggest difference between Trump’s second term and his first term is how much this one seems motivated by revenge. Here’s one of the concerns I voiced following Trump’s re-election in 2024: “He’s vindictive, aging, and unbound by any need to get re-elected. He’s easily consumed by grievance and his campaign is staffed with charlatans — and if he’s surrounded by yes men affirming his worst instincts, we could be in for some very scary times.” Part of Trump’s appeal in 2016 was his campaign for the forgotten men and women of America; whether you believed him or not, he grew enormously popular exactly because he was focusing on the grievances of a class of people now so regularly ignored.

In 2024, Trump’s campaign was all about his personal enemies and what “they” did to him — and Bolton is one of the people Trump loathed. It’s impossible not to immediately think this raid is an example of Trump getting his revenge, rather than any genuine legal concern about how classified information was handled.

Yet for all the talk of this being creeping authoritarianism or a personal vendetta, it turns out a federal judge in Maryland signed off on the search at Bolton’s home, and a separate federal magistrate judge signed off on the search of his downtown office. Now, depending on your level of skepticism toward the government and our legal system, this could mean a lot or a little. To me, it suggests there is probably a decent amount of evidence (that we haven’t seen yet) that Bolton did something wrong. The search is obviously extremely sensitive and politically charged, and that the Trump administration could get two separate judges to authorize raids against this backdrop is, to me, pretty reassuring. It’s not as if Bolton is squeaky clean on these matters, either; his memoir raised some serious red flags, and a federal judge who reviewed the evidence in 2020 believed he disclosed classified information in his manuscript while violating a nondisclosure agreement.

So: Just as we shouldn’t presume that Bolton is guilty of a crime until seeing the evidence, we shouldn’t presume Trump is guilty of a political hit job until seeing the evidence. Without an indictment, and the evidence supporting it, we’re left with little more than presumptions. Seeing Bolton’s home get raided certainly got my attention, but I’m going to reserve as much judgment as I can until I have more information — and so should everyone else.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Attorney Declares Victory As Deportation Temporarily Blocked

Kilmar Abrego Garcia was detained by U.S. immigration officials Monday morning after reporting to ICE’s Baltimore field office for a scheduled check-in. The arrest follows his release from criminal custody last week. It intensifies a legal battle over his potential deportation to Uganda—a country his attorneys argue poses serious risks to his safety. Here’s the latest.

Also happening:

• Trump’s crime crackdown: The National Guard troops deployed to Washington, D.C., began carrying weapons on Sunday evening, officials said, just two days after given authorization by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. A Joint Task Force-DC spokesperson told Newsweek that service members were cleared to start carrying their service-issue weapons, and that they were to only use them “as a last resort and solely in response to an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.” Read more.

• U.S.-China: Chinese companies and investors purchasing land in New Hampshire have drawn attention from some politicians concerned about proximity to military installations and a “Trojan horse takeover.” Two politicians spoke to Newsweek about their worries over three major purchases in New Hampshire in the last decade, including the most recent one in January when Nongfu Spring, China’s largest beverage company, bought land near Nashua’s Pennichuck water system. Read more.

This is a preview of The 1600—Tap here to get this newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.