October 1, 2022

The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis – WSJ

A former president’s rights under the Presidential Records Act trump the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid

Opinion | The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis

Was the Federal Bureau of Investigation justified in searching Donald Trump ‘s residence at Mar-a-Lago? The judge who issued the warrant for Mar-a-Lago has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting it. But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no-the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.

Was the Federal Bureau of Investigation justified in searching Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago? The judge who issued the warrant for Mar-a-Lago has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting it. But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no—the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.

The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519” (emphasis added). These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.

The materials to be seized included “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021”—i.e., during Mr. Trump’s term of office. Virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category. Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them. His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant.

Those statutes are general in their text and application. But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.

More at:

www.wsj.com


Leahy: ‘I Don’t Know’ What to Tell People Who Paid off Loans or Didn’t Go to College about Loan Forgiveness

On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Special Report,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) stated that he’s already hearing from people who paid off their student loans or didn’t go to college wondering why we should forgive student loans, “And I don’t know what the answer is.”