Rand Paul defends Trump after FBI search. With Hillary Clinton, his approach was different

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul slammed the FBI for searching former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate for government documents that didn't belong there, but he reacted differently after the same agency investigated ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for mishandling government emails.

With limited initial details about why the FBI got a court-approved search warrant for Trump's Florida home and what agents found there on Aug. 8, Paul called the legally authorized search "outrageous and unjust."

He speculated that federal law enforcement agents may illegally plant evidence to "entrap" the ex-president − conjecture Trump also deployed, before claiming instead that records the FBI found at Mar-a-Lago were "all declassified." And when the now-public search warrant for Mar-a-Lago indicated the FBI is investigating potential violations of the Espionage Act, Paul called for the law's repeal.

Things were different a little over six years ago, when then-presidential-candidate Clinton was in the hot seat for using private email servers while she was U.S. secretary of state.

More:How Rand Paul went from calling Donald Trump an 'orange windbag' to being a devout disciple

The FBI had been investigating Clinton over her emails, including whether she'd run afoul of the Espionage Act. Its then-director, James Comey, publicly reprimanded Clinton for mishandling classified information but announced in July 2016 the agency recommended against pursuing criminal charges against her.

Paul blasted the FBI then, too, but for a very different reason.

The Kentucky Republican has criticized federal law enforcement's investigation of Trump for taking classified documents. But when Clinton was under agents' microscope for mishandling classified information, the senator called out the FBI for deciding against prosecuting her.

"The FBI showed clearly that Clinton violated classified procedures and carelessly, recklessly endangered national security," he wrote in a July 2016 column for Time magazine. "The FBI then announced she would face no charges. This is an outrage, and the rule of law has been shattered."

Paul even suggested Clinton should be precluded "from ever holding high office again," writing:

"How can we trust someone to be Commander in Chief who would not even qualify for a security clearance if her name weren’t Clinton?"

Paul, who ran for president in the 2016 Republican primary while Clinton was running in the Democratic primary, already had criticized her during the seemingly endless controversy over her emails, long before the FBI concluded its investigation and recommended against criminal charges.

A spokesperson for Paul indicated the senator, who's up for reelection this fall, sees key differences between the Clinton and Trump cases.

"The FBI should treat people equally regardless of party. The FBI chose not to raid Hillary Clinton’s house but chose to raid Trump’s residence with 30 agents," Paul's spokesperson, Kelsey Cooper, said in a statement. "These actions represent a double standard and a politicization of a federal intelligence agency."

When Clinton was under investigation by the FBI, she agreed to turn over her private server to federal authorities.

Cooper suggested another difference between the cases is: There's a lot of available information about Clinton's actions, whereas "we have no evidence of Trump's willful destruction of classified documents."

Multiple news outlets have reported Trump had a habit of destroying government documents when he was president. A New York Times journalist's forthcoming book also says White House staffers believed Trump literally flushed documents down toilets, which Trump has denied.

The FBI is still conducting its investigation concerning Trump's removal of government documents when he left the White House. Federal officials haven't announced if he will face criminal charges.

Publicly released information indicated FBI agents collected 11 sets of records at Mar-a-Lago, which were classified and included items considered 'top secret.'

In recent statements about the FBI investigation, Trump has denied doing anything wrong.

As for Paul's opposition to the Espionage Act, Cooper told The Courier Journal:

"Dr. Paul, like civil libertarians on the left and right, has long argued that the Espionage Act criminalizes speech. Dr. Paul has consistently argued that hyperventilated partisan calls for the death penalty for Edward Snowden under the Espionage Act are despicable."

Paul's opponent in the November election, Democrat Charles Booker, has sharply criticized the senator for what he has said about the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago.

After Paul speculated FBI agents could have planted evidence, Booker said online of his rival: "His 'back the blue' act was always a lie. ... He is actively undermining the law and sowing discord amongst Americans."

More:100 days to election: What's at stake for abortion in Rand Paul vs. Charles Booker race?

He also blasted Paul for suggesting the Espionage Act be repealed.

"Make no mistake about Rand Paul’s newfound position on the Espionage Act: Rand Paul is for Rand Paul,” Booker said Monday in a statement. “Rand Paul doesn’t care about earnest protections of the First Amendment. He doesn’t even care about Donald Trump. If and when it serves him, he will throw him under the bus, too.

"This latest move is a dangerous and dishonest attempt to sow discord and threaten the legitimacy of our government.”

Morgan Watkins is The Courier Journal's chief political reporter. Contact her at mwatkins@courierjournal.com. Follow her on Twitter: @morganwatkins26.

This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: GOP Rand Paul defends Donald Trump where he blasted Democrat Clinton