f you re going to pointy, the finger at anybody here pointed at garland, not at rhinehart, that s my view. i think they had enough to get probable cause, but they shouldn t have sought warr a warrant in the first place.anf and if they did seek a warrant, it should have been narrower.shv there s no justificatione be for searching the closet of mrs. trump or even for going into i didn t see any pause for that. but general probable cause existed. greg. greg, why why didn t this judgea take l a look at the warrant w th this is a general searcha generh warrant. warrant. that s a direct violation ofthaa the fourth amendment to the constitution, whiche requires specificity, particularly describedtion documents to be seized at particular locations. none of that is in thishave e warrant. so a good judge would have seena through this sham and would have said, wait a minute,n off n i m not going to sign off on something like this. it s a violaf a target scons constitutional righttis. ons
attorney. i want to start with you will starti cannot get past thet because i just can t get pasthet the fact that a judge less thang two months ago had to recusew w, themselves. we don t know exactly what happened, had to recus he himsef from a trump issue.p and then less than two months later, he s making this ruling. i just don t get how that . jason , if the recusal came l as a result of the political connection between this judgehim and hillary clinton, which itos most likely was then really itts really is outrageous that he would not again recuserecuse h a when the main political adversary of hillary clintoin n, the obama biden,iden anyone on the left is former president donald trump. you would have thought that itht would have applied also in iial a circumstance, especially inin the criminal law, when there s t more on the line and in craig, i love the piece you n wrote on fox news.com, but essentially they were givene to a fishing license to go to town there on donald trump s
what s your reaction to that?s n to that? this is not a normal case.s no this is not a standard case. it s one in which the president clearly can possess classifiedy documents. en the president also has the the unfettered ability the supreme court tellscourt te us maybe the egen that he canusc declassified documentsuments. and so without the judge being informed properly of that, you don t have a basis in judges in reinhart s position to understand whether or not you h truly have a statute that applies in this circumstance. a statut in thatso the professob be accurate, but we don e t know ye dt. we don t know whether or not there was the the of that portion. i m going to give you the last word here. buo t i want youkeep i to keep f that a president of the united y states always in perpetuity has the highest classifieds perpeti is possible. and to suggest that they r e not in the securus, to suggest that they re not in a secure situation when they re on whereprotected by the secret
have declassified them. their second mistake is theythe. automatically assume that these three statutes, criminal statutest th, general statutes t they cite as authority, it give s them probable cause to go into trump s home is the control law. ey never they never considered that it s pres the presidential records act. it is a specific statute that takes precedence over the general statutes. and it does give a former president a measure and a right of control and custody access and possession. but they never consider that and neither, by the way, do the magistrate when he signemad off on this. is now, professor dershowitz, n a lot of cases in your time. cases in what do you make of this of h this situationis? d is well, i disagree with youru two previous speakers. t reinhardt did the right thing by signing the search warrant. every single judge
the unredacted part explicitly - indicate a back and forth dialog. ue it. reads m more likeor a civil youdispu. know, a civil dispute. t and let meel tell you, jason , f you have to take convince a judge that there s probable cause, you may have a problem with your case. look, probable cause is an extremely low standard.em warrants are given out likely le christmas gifts. this judge did a much betterthis job than most did. judge most judges would nos t have issued the affidavit that evencs with redactions, this judge had. i don t no choice. i don t believe there s a judge in the country who would not have issue hissued ad a search d yes, some of them may ask some hard questions, but the judge s job is different from the attorney general.th gel the judge has to look at the evidence that s in the affidavit and make a legal vit andecision. make a discretionary decision and he has to abide by justice department standards. so i