that some years down the road. i mean the reason you might buy tomorrow s paper is if the world doesn t collapse into ash by then your grandkids grandkids someday are going to look at that old physical newspaper you were able to save from august 9, 2022, and they are going to goggle at the thought of what your life must have been like. they re going to goggle at what it must have been like for you to see this happening in your lifetime, for the time in american history knowing how idea how it would play out. nothing like this has ever happened before, and we don t know how it ends. tonight s news that the fbi raided the home of the president of the united states. before republican donald j. trump we ve never had a president impeached twice in a single term. we ve never had members his own party vote not only to remove him from office but remove him from office again. we ve never before had a president summon his followers to a violent insurrection at the u.s. capitol to try t
folded carefully, maybe put it in a little archival paper or parchment if you don t have that. put it away someday, you might depending on how saucy you are feeling, you might want to note in archival ink in the margin of tomorrow s paper note, anniversary of richard nixon s resignation as president. people will get a kick out of that some years down the road. the reason you might buy tomorrow s paper is if the world doesn t collapse into ash by then, your grandkids some day will look at that old physical paper that you were able to say from august 9th, 2022 and they are going to google at the thought of what your life must be like. they will goggle at the thought of what it must be like to see something like this happening in your lifetime in realtime for the first time ever in american history, having no idea how it would play out. nothing like this has ever happened before and we don t know how this ends. tonight the news that the fbi has raided the home of the past pres
yeah, it s a great question. and i apologize to you for making you ask me twice. i failed to answer it previously. so, yes, if you are lawfully present in the home and you are because a judge authorized the search warrant and you re lawfully taking documents because it s listed in the search warrant as being potential evidence of the crime that you re investigating, then sure it s all fair game. there are a number of doctrines that apply once you re lawfully in a home. now, this is an outlandish example but if they saw a sawed-off shotgun or meth on the kitchen table in distribution amounts, you can seize it because it s in plain view. but more reasonably and more rationally if you find other documents that lead you to other investigations or avenues and they re lawfully seized by lawfully present agents, yes, rachel, fair game. chuck rosenberg, former senior fbi official and justice department official, chuck, thank you very much for your time this evening. invaluable as always bu
particularly tonight on this historic night. thank you. my pleasure. when this news broke tonight one of the other people i immediately wanted to speak with is a colleague who is on vacation. i, however, am i a cool and unusual colleague who decided i would pursue her anyway even though she s not supposed to be working tonight simply because i must hear her reaction to this news. she is nicolle wallace, the host of deadline white house. my friend and a person being very kind to me taking this call even though ayou re not supposed to be working tonight. thank you. well, it is an act of god you are anchoring tonight. i think i speak for all of us. i m very glad that you are. you know, just building on what chuck rosenberg said, i mean the crown jewel of our democracy is the transfer of power. and the electoral count act is a law, too. so is obstructing an official proceeding. and i think the tsunami of questions far outweigh the revelations on a night like
the most affidavit in the history of the department of justice and then approval by a federal judge. chuck, i started making calls and texting people as soon as the news broke tonight. and in addition to yourself i spoke to another former very high ranking doj official who told me a couple of things i just wanted to run by you. and this is a person not comfortable being identified publicly but was willing to let me characterize their remarks in terms of framing their understanding of what happened here. and the first comment i got from this person drives a little bit of what you just said, that attorney general merrick garland himself would have had to approve this personally. and the official i spoke with also pointed out that attorney general garland approving this as a search rather than as a subpoena may be significant in that it may mean that the attorney general was convinced that these documents in question were at risk of being destroyed