Tuesday morning’s Here’s What We DoCNN’s fill-in host PoppyHarlow invited Paul Callan, a CNN legal analyst, to discuss the legal implications of Monday’s raid at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach. It is shocking to note that there wasn’t much celebration or chest beating over the FBI searching the personal belongings of former President Trump. There were actually some worries about the move.
Initial reports were that the raid was conducted because of Trump’s apparent taking of presidential documents from the White House in violation of the Presidential Records Act. Harlow was aware of this and asked Callan if it would be considered a Presidential Records Act violation.
Callan replied, “it is not sufficient to justify all of that.” This is an extremely risky and daring move from the Department of Justice in serving a warrant against a former President to search his private residence.
Callan said that it would constitute a huge overreach of both the FBI and Department of Justice. Therefore, Callan felt the Department of Justice had to have “something more than an argument as to what records should be kept for a Presidential Library or Library of Congress in the future.” You must. There is more to it than meets your eye. And I believe there may be something much more grave being withheld from their presidential collection.
Andrew McCabe (ex-FBI deputy director) agreed with Andrew McCabe adding that it was a bold, disruptive and aggressive move. I find it hard to believe that this was done because they didn’t receive the kind of compliance they desired. This seems to indicate that they did. It seems like they could have done more.
ADT Security Services enabled this CNN segment. They are linked.
You can click the “expand” button to see the transcription of this section.
CNN’s Here’s What We Do
September 9, 2022
Eastern, 11:09:32POPPY HEARLOW: The Presidential Records Act is something we’ve been hearing a lot of about and for a long time. Is this enough evidence to make it a Presidential Records Act offense?
PAUL CALAN: This is not sufficient to justify all that. The Department of Justice is making a dangerous and risky move to execute a warrant against a former President, and then to search his private residence. The Department of Justice has to have more to it than just an argument over what records should be kept for the Library of Congress or the presidential library. You must. There is more to it than meets your eye. And I believe there is something much more grave being withheld from their presidential collection.
HARLOW
ANDREW McCABE: We won’t hear from them until they announce something specific, such as an indictment of a crime or a charge. I don’t think that’s possible. It’s possible that they won’t decide to take action, but we don’t know for certain.
However, the Justice Department won’t speak except through any public legal documents that may become available if that investigation proceeds in that direction. Paul made it clear that I fully agree with this action. It is bold, disruptive, and aggressive.
It seems impossible to imagine that they would do such a thing simply for not getting the compliance they wanted out of secure the area with documents. This seems to indicate that they did. It seems like they could have done more.
About Post Author
You may also like
-
What Your Startup Should Know About Using a Local SEO Agency
-
The Importance of Professional Tree Removal
-
From Science to Storytelling: How Sara Winokur Brings Forensic Genetics to Life in Ivory Bones
-
What is an Electronic Flight Certificate? A Clear Explanation
-
Faith and Tattoos: Exploring the Intersection of Belief and Body Art