Greta Van Susteren Shares What You Must Know About FBI Raid on Trump

Many questions stay unanswered because the FBI’s Aug. 8 raid on the Florida house of former President Donald Trump.

“To begin with, make no mistake about it. There are guidelines that the president will not be supposed to maintain data,” veteran journalist and lawyer Greta Van Susteren says. “The general public data—I’m speaking concerning the non-classified ones—do belong for probably the most half to the American folks, so that they must be turned over to the [National Archives]. Often, when a president leaves workplace, they’re sorted by they usually resolve what’s the president ought to have, what shouldn’t have.”

“That’s one group of paperwork. The second are our categorised paperwork,” Van Susteren provides. “And the query is, does [Trump] have categorised paperwork? Clearly, he’s not alleged to have categorised paperwork. He’s now not in workplace. You must make sure that categorised paperwork are in very secured locations.”

Van Susteren joins “The Day by day Sign Podcast” to dissect the FBI raid and the polarization surrounding it, China’s rising aggression, and her new present, “The Document with Greta Van Susteren,” on Newsmax TV.

Hearken to the podcast beneath or learn the evenly edited transcript.

Samantha Renck: Greta Van Susteren is becoming a member of the podcast right this moment. She is the host of “The Document with Greta Van Susteren” on Newsmax TV. Greta, thanks a lot for becoming a member of us right this moment.

Greta Van Susteren: I’m very comfortable to be right here. Thanks for asking me.

Renck: In fact. Now, firstly, are you able to inform us a bit of bit about your new present and your return to cable TV?

Van Susteren: Effectively, in some ways, it’s the identical present I’ve ever had, whether or not it was at CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Voice of America, [or] Grey Media, as a result of I have a look at information by a authorized lens.

Now, I don’t imply it’s a authorized present. It’s not that in any respect. However if you go to legislation college, they train you tips on how to search for info. In reality, you are taking a course known as “Proof,” which is simply all about info and about what might be proven. And that’s the best way I strategy journalism … I search for the info, no matter they could be, and I strive to not inform the viewers what to suppose. I simply say, “Listed below are the info. You provide you with your individual ideas and opinion.”

Now that’s to not say that opinion exhibits are usually not necessary. They’re extraordinarily necessary as a result of it’s good to have a sturdy debate and have opinions. However my objective right here is to proceed simply to [say], “Nonetheless the chips could fall, they could fall. Inform me the info, and that’s what I’m occupied with.” In order that’s how I might describe the present.

Renck: Completely. And as you recognize, there was no scarcity of reports to cowl. I need to begin with the raid that occurred final week on President Donald Trump’s Florida house, Mar-a-Lago. … There’s a variety of questions that stay unanswered.

The political divide relating to approval of the raid was fairly vital. A survey from Politico/Morning Seek the advice of discovered that 84% of Democrats permitted, whereas solely 15% of Republicans mentioned they permitted. What do you consider this partisan divide? And do you suppose that the FBI must launch extra particulars concerning the raid to settle any fears that it was politically motivated?

Van Susteren: All proper. Effectively, you’ve bought about 15 questions right here, so let me attempt to take them aside, and re-ask if I neglect one among them.

Renck: Sure, after all.

Van Susteren: All proper. To begin with is that, regrettably, we’ve gotten to the purpose on this nation the place we don’t anticipate the info. As a substitute, we take sides. So I’m not stunned by these numbers, as a result of President Trump is a Republican. I’m really anticipating Republicans to be extra supportive of him, and the Democrats [to be] not supportive of him. So these numbers don’t shock me in in the least. I count on these.

The second factor is that, look, it is a creating story, and we’re going to be taught new info each single day this week and subsequent week. A brand new truth might change if somebody who’s it pretty, and never by a political lens and taking sides, may consider of what’s happening. In order that’s an necessary consideration, is to acknowledge that we don’t have all of the info.

In reality, Friday evening, The Washington Submit reported one thing like they thought that [the] nuclear code was concerned … [and] that went throughout Twitter like a wildfire. Effectively, I don’t suppose the nuclear code was concerned. And secondly, … I do know or suspect that they modified the nuclear code on a regular basis. In order that was simply one thing that was electrifying, set folks on hearth, and solely fueled the divide on this nation between Republicans and Democrats.

Now let’s go to what occurred. To begin with, make no mistake about it: There are guidelines that the president will not be supposed to maintain data. The general public data—I’m speaking concerning the nonclassified ones—do belong for probably the most half to the American folks, so that they must be turned over to the archive. Often, when a president leaves workplace, they’re sorted by they usually resolve what the president ought to have, what he shouldn’t have. That’s one group of paperwork.

See also  Home Democrats Block Probe of Biden Household Enterprise Offers, Ask: What About Trump?

The second are our categorised paperwork. And the query is: Does [Trump] have categorised paperwork? Clearly, he’s not alleged to have categorised paperwork. He’s now not in workplace. You must make sure that categorised paperwork are in very secured locations.

Now let’s have a look at the method. I don’t care if it’s President Trump, President [Joe] Biden, President [Barack] Obama, [or] President [George W.] Bush, the method needs to be the identical and level-handed for all. That is the best way these items are.

Clearly, each story is totally different, each factual scenario, however they subpoenaed the paperwork from [Trump] in June. They bought data, and the Division of Justice wasn’t glad. They thought that the president didn’t comply, or there have been extra data, or they’re hidden or partial, no matter. What would occur is that the Division of Justice would take that subpoena to court docket, they usually current it to the choose to say, “Choose, we’ve a lawful subpoena, and the president hasn’t complied.”

The president would then have alternative to his attorneys to say, “Look, we did comply,” or, “The subpoena’s overly broad,” or, “We don’t have the paperwork,” or no matter.

And the choose would type by it and resolve the dispute at that time. So each side would have a chance to work it out. That didn’t occur.

What did occur as a substitute was that the Justice Division made a large leap and waited about eight weeks and went to get a search warrant. And that’s one thing very totally different than the subpoena. And with the search warrant, it’s a one-sided deal. Carried out on a regular basis, there’s nothing unlawful a couple of search warrant. However that is the method.

They went into court docket they usually mentioned, “We have to get a search warrant.” And the president’s not there to say, “Look, I’ve given you every part.” He’s not there to say, “The data aren’t there.” He’s not there to litigate, it’s one-sided.

A subpoena is usually issued when there’s an emergency. You see them typically in drug circumstances, when there’s a pile of cocaine on a kitchen desk and it’s important to hurry and get a search warrant as a result of you possibly can’t litigate the subpoena. As a result of by the point you litigate the subpoena, the cocaine has been snorted up somebody’s nostril.

So that they get the subpoena on Friday, one-sided; they are saying it’s an emergency they usually say what they need. And so they then wait from Friday till Monday to execute it. And that’s the place all of the attorneys 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 suppose the president was going to destroy paperwork? Effectively, should you did, he ought to have carried out it on Friday.”

In order that’s the issue, is that it turns into wanting very heavy-handed on the a part of the Division of Justice.

They need to have litigated the subpoena in June. They selected to not. They jumped to a search warrant 5 or 6 weeks later. After which as soon as they get the search warrant about midday on Friday, they don’t trouble to execute it till Monday. So what was the urgency?

And that’s the entire problem of course of and what will get lots of people very agitated. It doesn’t imply President Trump ought to preserve paperwork or have paperwork. I don’t even know what he has or doesn’t have, however the course of, when the method is heavy-handed in a single path, it’ll create all kinds of issues with folks it and it’ll create all kinds of suspicions, and folks will likely be pointing fingers.

And that’s what I believe is the error the Justice Division did, is that it appears to be like like they didn’t deal with him pretty. They need to have litigated the subpoena in June.

Renck: Over the previous couple of years, belief within the FBI has suffered. And in mild of what occurred final week and what you have been simply speaking about, how can belief be restored n the FBI?

Van Susteren: To begin with, I work with FBI brokers on circumstances and tales on a regular basis. They’re unbelievable— hundreds of excellent women and men each single day working actually onerous to do a great job and do a good one and preserve us protected and to unravel crime.

The issue is that the high-profile ones that go askew, like this one, naturally poison all people—or a great portion of the inhabitants—towards the FBI. We have a look at the arrest of Peter Navarro a pair weeks in the past, President Trump’s former adviser. He tends to be obnoxious in coping with legislation enforcement, and legislation enforcement typically will provide you with a bit of more durable time if you’re obnoxious, however he was charged with two counts of obstruction of Congress. These are misdemeanors.

See also  Trump Pleads the Fifth in New York Lawyer Basic Deposition

Navarro lives throughout the road from the FBI. They might have gone over and knocked on his door. As a substitute, he was at Reagan Nationwide Airport throughout the river, not the worldwide airport which could counsel he was fleeing, however at Reagan to fly right down to, I believe, Memphis to do a TV present with Mike Huckabee.

They present up like gangbusters at Reagan Airport, they usually put handcuffs on him and leg cuffs on him for 2 misdemeanors. I practiced legislation on this group for a few years as a prison protection legal professional— no person will get that from a misdemeanor. No person even will get time from a misdemeanor.

… Why did they try this overkill? And that’s the issue, is that they need to have first tried to get [Navarro] at his home and see if he’d volunteer. I imply, these are misdemeanors. These are usually not felonies. This isn’t armed theft.

However when you’ve high-profile folks like Peter Navarro handled like that, folks start to suppose that it’s the complete FBI. That isn’t true. That’s some folks, some selections, nevertheless it’s not the complete FBI. Like I mentioned, I work with some actually good, good FBI people who find themselves dedicated to defending and serving to us.

Renck: I need to shift matters a bit of bit to the China risk. Somewhat over two weeks in the past, Home Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan. There’s additionally a bunch of 5 US lawmakers that arrived in Taiwan over the weekend. Between Speaker Pelosi’s go to and this new group of lawmakers who have been in Taiwan, we’ve seen China actually ramp up their aggression towards Taiwan. Firstly, what’s your primary concern relating to the Chinese language Communist Social gathering?

Van Susteren: Warfare. … This was not a deliberate factor, however they’d a shutdown in Shanghai not too long ago due to COVID. And it created on this nation, I don’t know should you have been conscious of it, however they created a scarcity of the CT scan distinction dye.

There have been hospitals that have been in need of the distinction dye and had to determine which CT scans they have been going to do and which of them they weren’t. Now, when you have a stroke, you want one immediately and also you want that dye. For those who want a stent, you want one immediately. A number of the different CT scans, you don’t want, they usually have been delayed.

However the mere truth that every one the distinction dye, or most of it, is made by an American firm in Shanghai [means] that in the event that they minimize off our provide, in the event that they minimize off that that manufacturing … it hurts each single American on this nation who may face a well being disaster.

So, sure, I fear about struggle. However I fear concerning the financial implications as a result of we’ve gotten so overly depending on China for issues that we don’t even understand. I imply, distinction dye, you’d suppose you possibly can stroll right into a hospital and get a CT scan. Effectively, perhaps there isn’t sufficient dye.

And what’s much more surprising—I did a narrative on this which is why I do know this—is that most individuals weren’t even paying consideration. You’ll must Google this to search out out this story. This one bought buried. However I talked to medical doctors at hospitals and I mentioned, “Yeah, we see a scarcity of this as a result of they’ve needed to shut down Shanghai due to COVID.”

Right here’s one other drawback. That is one other factor that’s beautiful to me, is that everyone is aware of that fentanyl is poisoning and killing folks in streets all throughout the nation. And China’s one of many main suppliers by Mexico of the elements for fentanyl. They’re simply toxic. It’s countless.

So I don’t know what I worry probably the most with China. I suppose I worry struggle much less as a result of it appears considerably contained, however if you begin destroying the economic system and our well being by fentanyl and never having CT scan distinction dye, that’s the sort [of thing] that we don’t even discover till it’s proper upon us, and we’re not outfitted to deal.

Not less than within the army sense, we’ve fighter planes and naval ships. But when we don’t have any distinction dye for CT scans, we’re in bother. If we don’t have semiconductors popping out of Taiwan, as a result of we don’t make them right here in the US, we’re in bother. Your toaster gained’t even work.

Renck: It’s completely horrifying. It’s actually eye opening, I believe, coming off of two and a half years because the begin of the COVID-19 pandemic and simply realizing how reliant we’ve been on China for therefore a few years. And whether or not or not that can change, that’s but to be seen.

Van Susteren: However it gained’t as a result of I imply, look, it’s prime to backside. Have a look at Hollywood. Hollywood will do a film that completely trashes the US and has full safety within the First Modification. And I help their potential to try this. I’m an enormous proponent of the First Modification. They make blockbuster {dollars} right here in the US doing it, however that’s OK.

See also  ‘Nation Desires Completely different Course From Home,’ Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs Says of Bid for Speaker

The minute they do a film in China the place there’s an enormous amount of cash for motion pictures, they must get the Communist Social gathering to agree, and they’re going to make changes to the flicks so it doesn’t insult China, in order that they’ll promote their motion pictures abroad there. I imply, it’s simply this sense of greed and wanting that additional greenback and [being] keen to sacrifice our values it doesn’t matter what. It’s not only one particular person. It’s not only one political get together.

Renck: What are your ideas on President Biden and his administration, their dealing with of this potential disaster that would occur in Taiwan and their angle towards China?

Van Susteren: Once you speak about questions of struggle, you don’t know if it’s dealt with proper till it’s over. That’s the issue. Speaker Pelosi poked a stick within the eye of President Xi [Jinping] of China by going there. On the one hand, you could possibly say that it exhibits nice power and nice braveness, and that we stand with Taiwan. Republicans and Democrats each right here in the US supported her. Though President Biden didn’t need her to do it at first, they supported her.

However now we’ve bought one other group going. Is that the best factor to do? I don’t know, however I’ll let you know that my intestine response [is that] I don’t suppose you must poke a stick in Xi’s eye as a result of I’d somewhat have him contained in the tent than exterior the tent. And I don’t suppose we should always put him ready the place he’s humiliated with their nation.

When Pelosi introduced the journey, [the Chinese] mentioned that first they have been going to shoot flares, then they have been going to do maneuvers to attempt to get her aircraft astray, after which they have been going to shoot her down. Effectively, they didn’t do any of these issues. So as soon as she went there, was there, [she] did her journey, bought safely out of there.

Now what’s occurred is we’ve humiliated President Xi. He appears to be like weak in his personal nation. He’s making an attempt to hold on to energy in his nation. And proper now, it appears to be like like he’s weak vis-à-vis the US.

Now, with somebody whose finger is on the nuclear bomb over there and with somebody who’s bought all that financial energy, does it actually make sense to poke him within the eye and humiliate him? I believe no.

Lots of people, Republicans and Democrats, suppose it’s higher to point out power. I believe we present power by stopping being so economically depending on letting him stay his personal life. However that was a choice that was made by many individuals. I don’t suppose we’ll know if it was the best resolution or whether or not I’m proper till 5 years from now.

Renck: Lastly, Greta, are there any necessary factors that you simply suppose are being missed within the media protection of the China risk that People ought to be mindful going ahead?

Van Susteren: I believe there’s not sufficient protection. For those who’ve watched my present since we launched … I’ve carried out a China section each single evening. I’ve even had the overseas minister of Taiwan on my present. I’m hoping to place the highlight on it. I don’t know what all people else is doing as a result of I’m so consumed.

Particularly with a brand new present, you’re actually busy, you simply don’t have time to look at the opposite exhibits. The one factor I see is throughout time after I kind of thumb by Twitter, after I see what’s happening Twitter. I don’t know what others are doing, and it’s not as a result of I’m making an attempt to behave like I don’t watch different TV exhibits. It’s solely as a result of I don’t have the time. These are all my mates. I’ve been in each community, so these are my mates. I simply don’t have the time. I’m so consumed with making an attempt to get my present up and operating.

Renck: Greta, thanks a lot for becoming a member of us right this moment. It was such a pleasure to have you ever on. I simply need to make sure that our viewers is conscious that your present is on Newsmax TV weekdays at 6 p.m., “The Document with Greta Van Susteren.”

Van Susteren: I hope folks watch it as a result of I believe, if nothing else, I need folks to say it’s truthful, factual, informative, by no means excellent. However I’m at all times striving to get it proper. That’s my objective, is to attempt to get it proper.

Renck: Completely. Thanks a lot.

Susteren: Thanks.

Have an opinion about this text? To hold forth, please e-mail [email protected] and we’ll take into account publishing your edited remarks in our common “We Hear You” function. Bear in mind to incorporate the URL or headline of the article plus your title and city and/or state.