(Liberty Bell) – There are still many questions regarding the FBI’s Aug. 8 raid on President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, but some in the media have actually been paying attention and are able to shed some light on the reality of what took place.
Former Fox News’ host Greta Van Susteren is a former attorney and knows a thing or two about the way the judicial system is supposed to work. She sat down with “The Daily Signal Podcast” host Samantha Renck to discuss the raid along with many of the important issues facing our country.
Renck asked Susteren, the current host of Newsmax TV’s “The Record with Greta Van Susteren,” if the FBI needs to do more to try to calm concerns that the raid was politically motivated.
Susteren responded by first explaining how America has reached a point where people don’t wait for facts, “we take sides,” and said she isn’t surprised by recent polling that shows 84% of Democrats approve of the raid while only 15% of Republicans approve.
While she makes a valid point it also seems as though the Democrats have become so predictable. We all know they are desperate to stop Trump from running for president again. The Jan. 6 sham committee is evidence of this and now the FBI raid on his residence.
It’s easy to forego facts when it seems the Democrats are continually taking plays out of the same playbook, over and over again.
Susteren went on to explain that the Mar-a-Lago raid is a “developing story” and that “we’re going to learn new facts every single day this week and next week.” She noted how with news facts people’s perceptions might change and that we don’t yet have all the facts.
That’s only because the DOJ and the FBI have been careful to withhold crucial facts from the American people in an effort to control the narrative.
She continued, pointing out how the mainstream media manipulates information to cause people to get excited and worked up.
She said, “…Friday night, The Washington Post reported something like they thought that [the] nuclear code was involved … [and] that went all over Twitter like a wildfire. Well, I don’t think the nuclear code was involved. And secondly, … I do know or suspect that they change the nuclear code all the time. So that was just something that was electrifying, set people on fire, and only fueled the divide in this country between Republicans and Democrats.”
Susteren then got into the details of the raid itself. First, she acknowledged that “There are rules that the president is not supposed to keep records” and that the nonclassified documents belong to the American people and therefore must be turned over to the archive.
She further explained, “Usually, when a president leaves office, they’re sorted through and they decide what the president should have, what he shouldn’t have. That’s one group of documents.”
“The second are our classified documents. And the question is: Does [Trump] have classified documents? Clearly, he’s not supposed to have classified documents. He’s no longer in office. You have to make sure classified documents are in very secured places.”
She said that no matter who the president is the “process should be the same and level-handed for all.”
“Obviously, every story is different, every factual situation, but they subpoenaed the documents from [Trump] in June. They got records, and the Department of Justice wasn’t satisfied. They thought that the president didn’t comply, or there were more records, or they’re hidden or partial, whatever. What would happen is that the Department of Justice would take that subpoena to court, and they present it to the judge to say, ‘Judge, we have a lawful subpoena, and the president hasn’t complied.’”
She continued, “The president would then have opportunity to his lawyers to say, ‘Look, we did comply,’ or, ‘The subpoena’s overly broad,’ or, ‘We don’t have the documents,’ or ‘whatever’.”
“And the judge would sort through it and resolve the dispute at that point. So both sides would have an opportunity to work it out. That didn’t happen.”
Susteren noted that instead what happened was the DOJ waited 8 weeks and got a search warrant, which she called a “one-sided deal.”
“They went into court and they said, ‘We need to get a search warrant.’ And the president’s not there to say, ‘Look, I’ve given you everything.’ He’s not there to say, ‘The records aren’t there.’ He’s not there to litigate, it’s one-sided.”
She pointed out search warrants are “issued when there’s an emergency” and the subpoena can’t be litigated. That was not the case in this situation. The DOJ never gave Trump the opportunity to litigate the subpoena.
“So they get the search warrant on Friday, one-sided; they say it’s an emergency and they say what they want. And they then wait from Friday until Monday to execute it. And that’s where all the lawyers say, ‘Wait a second. If it was such an emergency, why didn’t you do it on Friday? What makes it an emergency? Did you think the president was going to destroy documents? Well, if you did, he should have done it on Friday.’”
She noted that the problem is that the entire thing looks “very heavy-handed on the part of the Department of Justice.”
“They should have litigated the subpoena in June. They chose not to,” Susteren asserted, adding, “They jumped to a search warrant five or six weeks later. And then once they get the search warrant about noon on Friday, they don’t bother to execute it until Monday. So what was the urgency?”
She concluded that the process was too heavy-handed and that’s what “gets a lot of people very agitated.” The problem is also that the process is only heavy-handed for some and basically non-existent for others (Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden).
Susteren has a good take on the entire situation but it still remains pretty clear to most Americans that the DOJ and FBI have a political vendetta against Trump and their actions are motivated by that and that alone.
Copyright 2022. LibertyBell.com