DW Phillips

Aug 22, 2025

Last year, I was part of a team of attorneys who successfully defended a client—ultimately winning a not guilty verdict on all counts—after the Biden Administration’s DOJ and ATF targeted him unjustly. That case was a textbook example of governmental overreach. My conviction then, as now, is that no administration—Republican or Democrat—should ever wield the power of the state as a weapon of vendetta or political convenience.

This morning, I woke to news that President Trump’s former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, was the target of a DOJ and FBI raid at his home and office. Bolton has long been a thorn in Trump’s side. The two men dislike each other. In 2020, Trump accused Bolton of leaking classified information tied to the release of his memoir; the courts found no wrongdoing.

Now, we learn that Bondi and Patel have reopened the matter, revoked Bolton’s security clearance, and are moving toward a potential indictment.

The public does not yet know all the facts, and I will not speculate about the unknown. But it is worth clarifying the legal issues at stake in such a raid.
Let us recall the Republican outrage over the FBI’s unprecedented raid on Mar-a-Lago, and remember that opposing “lawfare” was a core promise of the MAGA platform during the 2024 elections.

The issue is personal to me. Not only as an American who believes in due process, but as a friend to those who have been injured by government overreach. Over the last twenty years, I’ve had three friends subjected to FBI raids. All were later cleared of wrongdoing—yet the reputations, finances, and lives of two were destroyed in the process. In all cases, the raids turned out to have been driven by revenge and misinformation, not justice. My third friend fought back and won.

John Bolton is a former National Security Advisor, not a street-level criminal. He has counsel, he is a public figure, and he would normally be expected to cooperate in any matter involving classified documents.

Standard practice in such cases—when the documents in question are years old—is to work through attorneys, not storm a home at dawn.

For the FBI to justify a no-knock, morning raid, they must obtain a court-approved warrant based on probable cause and show specific reasons why a routine search is insufficient.

These include:
A credible risk of evidence destruction.
A credible flight risk.
Anticipated danger to agents.
A clear record of prior noncompliance (ignoring subpoenas or refusing cooperation).

It is difficult to see how #2, #3, or #4 apply here. Bolton has not resisted subpoenas. He poses no threat to agents. And it strains belief that, five years after the events in question, the FBI suddenly has evidence that he is secretly destroying material. The required element of exigency simply does not appear to be present.

In sum: this raid smells like political retribution—an abuse of process rather than a pursuit of justice.