Former federal prosecutors are rebutting claims made by Democrats that the Trump administration breached Justice Department policy by searching the residence of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., shortly before an election.
Jim Trusty, a former federal prosecutor, remarked that it’s hard to ignore the questionable actions of those who decry election interference, referring specifically to former special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump as the 2024 election approaches.
Abhishek Kambil, another former federal prosecutor, echoed this sentiment, stating that it’s difficult for Democrats to argue that the investigation is politically charged given the context of Trump’s presidency.
In a detailed statement, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who serves as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, accused the Justice Department of breaching protocol by undertaking “overt actions in politically-sensitive matters in the 60 days preceding an election.”
Raskin emphasized that with just 22 days until elections, this action could be perceived as a clear attempt to intimidate and disrupt the Congresswoman’s campaign.
However, Kambil noted that the DOJ Manual does not explicitly dictate a 60-day moratorium on investigative actions leading up to elections. “The 60-day requirement isn’t a regulation; rather, it’s more of an unspoken tradition,” he explained.
He added that any actions with potential electoral implications should secure approval from either the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General prior to proceeding. Historically, the Justice Department has adhered to this unwritten “60-day rule,” which advises against politically sensitive investigations close to election dates. This practice was criticized in a 2018 inspector general report focused on former FBI Director James Comey’s controversial decision to inform Congress of developments in the Hillary Clinton email probe just days before the 2016 election.
Kambil clarified that while there’s no prohibition against such actions, there exists a requirement for higher-level consultation before proceeding with them.
Former President Trump has also accused the Justice Department of flouting this 60-day guideline when Smith brought a revised indictment against him merely 70 days before the upcoming 2024 presidential election. Not long after, Smith released a detailed brief presenting evidence in the federal election interference case, which came out just 34 days prior to the election. Trump and other Republicans expressed concerns that Smith was inappropriately influencing the electoral process; however, Smith maintained adherence to DOJ policy.
“For 60 days leading to an election, the Department of Justice is supposed to refrain from actions that might interfere with a case,” Trump declared emphatically on his social media platform, criticizing what he described as the department’s failure to stick to its own timelines.
Returning to the matter involving the search warrant for Omar’s home, Trusty remarked that the Justice Department required a magistrate’s approval in Washington, D.C., before the warrant was executed, indicating there was at least “probable cause” for the search.
He also mentioned that judges in D.C. might not always be favorable towards Trump and his team. “So, it’s notable that a magistrate judge deemed the evidence sufficient to justify the search,” he observed.
A judge can reject a search warrant if the investigators do not substantiate probable cause. However, an approved warrant does not clarify if the execution of the search adhered to the Justice Department’s policies for election years.
Continuing on the subject, Kambil emphasized that the Democrats’ challenges concerning the warrant appear more focused on timing rather than its legitimacy.
The investigation surrounding the Homeland Security Investigations raid relates to immigration documentation completed by Omar’s father during her childhood. Omar, who fled Somalia’s civil conflict, came to the U.S. with her family at age 12 and became a citizen in 2000.
Following the raid, Omar accused Trump of engaging in “political intimidation,” asserting that it represented a significant misuse of power and an alarming escalation in the use of federal law enforcement against political adversaries. “For a decade, Donald Trump has continuously targeted me with harmful rhetoric, repeatedly placing me in danger,” she shared on social media.
Fox News Digital has sought comments from both the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security regarding this issue.
