let's bring in a legal defense attorney thomas Farinella thomas,
thank you for joining us this morning on on what is a potentially historic day,
we know that this is a big deal,
it's probably gonna be a big deal today and for some time.
But let's break it down, how significant is an FBI raid of a former President's home?
Have we seen anything like this before?
The only thing I can think of top of mind is, you know, Nixon Watergate era,
but still nothing quite the same.
You're absolutely right. And I think it is in fact unprecedented.
I'm not aware of any other time in history when when such a raid took place.
But I'll tell you one thing, if the federal,
if the FBI in their search warrant doesn't demonstrate
they actually had probable cause to conduct this rate,
it's gonna be major blowback.
100%.
And to that point, given how significant this rate is,
walk us through the process for investigators to actually
secure a search warrant for a former president's home,
you know, who had to approve this on what grounds?
Well,
the the standard for uh for a court
approving a search warrant would be probable cause.
So they would have had to establish that there was a reasonable basis to believe
that there was a crime committed or uh and or the place where they're about,
where they were searching uh contained contained evidence of a crime,
I would imagine that that's that's the legal
standard when you're dealing with the former President.
Do you think there was a higher level of scrutiny,
maybe that a judge um you know gave to this particular case?
If two to the point where they had to sign
off on this warrant warrant for a former president.
Well, it may just be a cliche or a model.
But no, no american citizen, even the former President's above above the law.
And the legal standard applies just as even as it would any other citizens.
But I would think that that the the judge who signed this
warrant uh wanted to would want to ensure that all all the,
you know, the I's are dotted and a tease across because again, yes,
the implications of the FBI going into the former President's home to search it.
Uh and that search warrant being issued is astronomical. Yeah.
Any judge anywhere would know. This is going to be major news.
There's gonna be a high level of scrutiny.
So you have to imagine that to be the case,
but we'll find out right for the days to come.
That will be the story that people are gonna be digging
into to find out what was the muster of scrutiny,
you know, on on this actual search warrant.
Let's just skip forward a little bit and think about the consequences here.
What could the consequences be for former President trump?
If in fact it is found there were classified documents or
highly classified documents found in the rate at mar a Lago.
Well, that's an interesting question because I think it's probably,
it's a unique situation.
The closest situation I can recall is when Sandy Berger was found to have
been smuggling out documents in preparation for
his 9-11 testimony on Capitol Hill and and
the National Archives officer observed this and followed him.
He was in fact indicted and he was,
he did plead guilty to a number of felonies because he did destroy these,
these government records and took them out of the archives.
Now, whether or not,
uh, the there's a distinction because the documents weren't at the archives first,
that may that that may be in play depends on what type of documents the president has.
So, again, this is, uh, as with it seems with trump.
This is a very unique circumstance in which it, you know,
more information will actually be, You know, we'll tell, we'll tell the story.
I'm curious then,
if you had to speculate and I know we're playing in a speculative space right now,
what a possible defense could be here.
Again, if in fact we find or or, you know,
the FBI finds highly classified documents in his possession at his,
at his personal home.
What could the defense be?
Could it be something you just mentioned a moment ago in terms of?
Well, they weren't at the archives yet. So the legal standard is a little different.
Well, absolutely.
I remember this is the same FBI that essentially was
determined to have uh started the Russia investigation uh,
with early on in trump's presidency where it was determined that there was there was
a lot of political motivation behind the investigation
and the various agents were politically motivated.
Uh and so there, you know, the other defense absolutely is is that, you know,
this is something that's routinely done
and you know, presidents have documents that they're determined they determine,
you know, are are part of the act, aren't part of the act.
This is nothing unusual.
And this is just another political witch hunt that, you know,
right within the scope of this 90 day moratorium that that the you know,
the doJ generally uh invokes near near elections.
To your point there,
that seems to be the position of GOP is already kind of taking right,
some GOP lawmakers are already calling the move quote
alarming and even weaponizing of the Justice Department.
We actually have a tweet from florida governor,
Ron de Santis a close kind of trump ally on the
screen right now talking about about this being a rate of mao
it's another escalation of weaponizing the federal agencies
in your view,
is the government potentially overstepping in the pursuit of these documents
that were in trump's possession or is there no way to really know that right now,
given that we don't understand what the potential documents were there seeking.
Well, I I think that that's the key.
Um whether or not they overstepped, you know, listen, what I always say, you know,
for some reason people think that if you stand up and you think that an individual,
even someone like trump deserves due process, you know, you're,
you're in support of him.
We need to always be measured in how we exercise, you know,
the law and how how the government operates
in terms of of his investigative agencies like
the FBI and the Department of Justice.
Because the problem is, is that this can be this type of technique.
If it is in fact, the political motive can be applied to the ordinary citizens.
So we don't, we want, we want as a criminal defense Attorney,
I always try to try to be very mindful of the fact that the
government's conduct could be chilling not just
for the person that's happening too,
but the average ordinary person that may not necessarily
have the means or the resources to defend themselves.
To that point, there is a bit of a tricky balance here.
I want to point to this hours after the raid
Minority leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted out that Attorney General Garland,
um, preserve your documents and clear your calendar,
vowing to investigate the Justice Department.
Should republicans take back the house.
Um, this fall, which is by many accounts potentially expected here.
What could an all out investigation of the doj
look like and what does that mean to eroding
the faith, so to speak in the Department of Justice because on one hand, you know,
if there is a legal muster here and a valid warrant for this warrant,
the doj has to do what it has to do because no other citizen, no citizen is above,
you know, another so to speak, not even the former president, but on the other hand,
if it's weaponizing, you know, the doj, that,
that that's that's a tear on on the doj as well, what is all this potentially,
how concerning is this to you?
Well, it's a good question.
It's quite concerning because what's happened here is trump has gone from
a private citizen to to an elected official and you know,
there are certain responsibilities that come with that.
And Department of Justice has also been, you know,
there have been accusations that that trump may have used the Justice Department,
you know, as a
weapon.
So if political parties are weaponizing the Justice Department, you're right.
It does sort of a road, any sort of faith or trust that that again,
the ordinary citizen would have and it it
really is a very important balance because it's,
it's evident with the 9 11 hearing committee.
Uh, you know, going prime time with,
with jerry Nadler trying to say that he impeached Bush twice at his debate,
which when he met trump, you know, they are using it as a selling point.
They're using as a marketing, you know, a reason why they, you know,
the democrats should should stay in power.
And I think that they, you know, there better be something that the search warrant,
otherwise it's gonna be extraordinarily bad.
And I was in Washington for seven years.
I know how the system works, I know what goes on there. And so, you know, you're right.
The balance, there better have been a fair balance and there better be something,
otherwise it's gonna, it's gonna be, you know, bad news.
I know every journalist out there is at this very moment, you know,
not only covering this, but digging into that's something to see exactly what it is.
Um, you know, if, if it meets the muster and if it does,
what's the degree of concern in terms of the trouble the
former president
could face
thomas, really appreciate your time and your insight, thomas.
Farinella, legal defense attorney.