Front Burner - What we’ve learned since the FBI raided Trump’s Florida home

Episode Date: August 17, 2022

In the wake of the FBI raid on former U.S. president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida earlier this month, more details have emerged about what federal agents are investigating, including potential violations of three different federal laws, one of which is the Espionage Act. One unsealed document shows that the FBI seized 11 sets of classified documents, including some with the special designation of “sensitive compartmented information,” a category meant to protect the country’s most important secrets. Today, we’re speaking to Aaron Blake, senior political reporter for the Washington Post, about what we’ve learned since the law enforcement agency's search, and what we still don’t know.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. You hear that sound? It is the sound of the police. The FBI has executed an unprecedented search warrant at President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate. They even broke into my safe. What is the difference between this and Watergate where operatives broke into the... So as I'm sure you have most definitely heard, last Monday, the FBI

raided Mar-a-Lago and removed several boxes of documents. It was the first time agents have ever raided a former president's home. And it raised big questions about what could concern the U.S. Department of Justice enough to ask for this extraordinary warrant. Today, I'm joined by Aaron Blake. He's a senior political reporter for The Washington Post, and we're going to talk about what we've learned since the stunning search of the former president's home. home. Hey, Aaron, thank you so much for being here. Thank you for having me. So we all know, of course, of course, that the former president's Mar-a-Lago home was raided by the FBI last week, really quite shocking. But at the time, we didn't really know why, right? And so let's talk about what we've learned since. What do we know now about what the FBI took, actually took in this

raid? Well, we know that there were 11 boxes of documents that were taken that apparently the government had been interested in retrieving before, but there had been kind of a lengthy back and forth over this, dating back to at least June. We know that there's been a subpoena involved in this. So, you know, it wasn't just a matter of the FBI deciding one day to show up to Mar-a-Lago and try to get these documents. You know, as there often is, there was a lengthy backstory involved here. The problem is we don't know a whole lot about that lengthy backstory quite yet beyond some of the kind of piecemeal reports that we've seen. And so we're starting to get a little bit more information, including

the search warrant last week. We've learned what kinds of laws they were investigating here. But beyond that, there's just going to be so much more that we'll have to ultimately evaluate this highly unprecedented decision by the FBI and the Justice Department. Tell me a little bit more about what we know about why the Justice Department wanted to get their hands on these documents. Yeah, so like I said, there's a process here that includes a subpoena for these documents. There seemed to have been a reluctance to turn over everything that Trump had. There was, according to the New York Times, a situation in which a Trump lawyer had said that all classified information had been returned during one of these previous discussions.

That apparently has turned out to not be the case, which increases questions about how this all went down. Basically, there was some kind of immediacy, it seemed, at least according to the FBI, that required them taking this very unorthodox step. And precisely why the immediacy was there, why they need to go this far, as opposed to fighting these things out in court, for example, is something that we're going to fighting these things out in court, for example, is something that we're going to have to learn about in the near future here. I've read reports that some of those documents could be related to some of the country's closest held secrets, like classified documents related to nuclear weapons. And what do you make of that reporting so far? Well, the nuclear reporting is actually from my colleagues here at the

Washington Post. And as with much of this, we don't know a whole lot beyond that there is a document or some documents in there that have something to do with nuclear weapons. We don't know what that is. We don't know if this is nuclear codes that we're talking about. We don't know if this is the location of nuclear weapons or even necessarily something about America's nuclear weapons. It could be something that talks about the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump pulled out of. It could be something about negotiations with North Korea. It's just something that we don't know a whole lot about, but I think that it's something that reinforces the potential gravity of this situation.

We do know that these documents were sensitive. We know that they were classified. And even more than that, we know that they were something that's known as special compartmented documents, which is kind of the highest of the high when it comes to classified documents. So there was an impetus here. Whether that impetus was sufficient for this kind of search is something that's going to have to be judged later on. I think you said that the laws that the FBI was investigating Trump under were in the search warrant document, right?

Can you tell me a bit more about what these laws are? Sure. Well, I think so there were three laws that were outlined as kind of being the ones that the FBI was investigating. One of them was the Espionage Act. One was basically obstruction of justice. And then there's one that's more of kind of a general classified document protection. I think it's important when we say espionage act. That sounds so serious, right?

Right, right. It's an act that includes lots of different statutes within it. So it's not necessarily them saying, we're investigating the former president for being a spy. It's about the protection of documents. And there's a lot of stuff in there that is similar to what's in these other laws. But the fact that it's underneath that heading of the Espionage Act obviously makes it sound like this is a very big deal. And it might turn out to be. But basically, I think the major takeaway from the three laws that were laid out in the search warrant is that this is not just about the possession of classified documents. These three laws are not just about that. It's about what was done with them, the back and forth, maybe something that the FBI feared was about to

happen. And so when we have this discussion about whether these documents were classified or not, which is a big focal point of the former president and his team, that seems to be somewhat, at least somewhat, beside the point right now. Picking up on what you just said, whether or not these documents are classified, like, tell me, tell me more about that. This is like one of the responses that Trump and his team have had to this raid, right? They're like, oh, they oh, we declassified them. Right, right. This is from President Trump's office. It just came in a few minutes ago.

President Trump often took documents, including classified documents, to the residents. He had a standing order. There's the word I've been looking for. That documents removed from the Oval Office and taken to the residents were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them. And that's the defense that we would expect them to make, because that's where this really began. But like I said, those three laws don't really have any regard for whether documents are classified. They deal with the idea that documents are sensitive.

And so a document can be unclassified, but it can be sensitive. It can be a situation in which information is being shared in a way that's that doesn't comport with the law. And so I think that's what we're going to keep coming back to is the president has very broad authority to declassify documents. That is a big power that the president has a sweeping power to declassify documents. That is a big power that the president has, a sweeping power to declassify. But there are also regulations that have to, a process has to take place. It's not like you wave a wand and say all of these boxes are declassified. So there's a paper trail and specifics to that.

Whether or not that was actually done in this case, and I should say that we still haven't seen evidence that Trump actually did it with these documents when he had that power, when he was still in office, this is going to go beyond that. So this is something that's kind of advantageous for the president's team to focus on, but maybe may wind up being kind of neither here nor there. Got you. Okay. That clarification was very helpful for me. Thank you. It's not just about the documents itself,

but it's also about potential worries about how the information in the documents could have potentially been used, whether they were declassified or not. What else is Trump and his team saying about all of this? Well, the arguments have certainly shifted a lot. They've often kind of been undermined by disclosures that we see later on. Initially, the argument was that the Trump team had been cooperating with the FBI

and basically that this amounted to some kind of an ambush. Trump's attorney, Christina Bob, tells a very different story to NewsNation, saying that they complied with everything the DOJ asked for. President Trump himself stopped by and said, you know, whatever you want to see, let us know. We're happy to facilitate it. And we did everything we could to be cooperative. Former President Trump released a statement saying in part they didn't have to, quote, seize anything they could have had at any time they wanted to without playing politics and breaking into Mar-a-Lago. Of course, we know that there was a... Well, we later learned from the New York Times reporting that a Trump lawyer had said that all the classified documents had been turned over and that maybe didn't turn out to be true. The next argument that emerged was suggestions based

upon nothing that we can tell that information might have been planted during this search by FBI agents, again, based on absolutely nothing. I mean, who is to say in this kind of case that some of the documents supposedly seized were not planted there to begin with? For example, do I know that the boxes of material they took from Mar-a-Lago, that they won't put things in those boxes to entrap him? How do we know? And quite honestly, I'm concerned that they may have planted something. You know, at this point, who knows?

I don't trust that. I don't necessarily think that they would even go to the extent of trying to plant information. I think they just make stuff up. And then the last one is that Trump declassified this information, which, as we've discussed, is not strictly relevant when it comes to the laws that are being discussed here, even though as it may be relevant in certain narrower ways when it comes to the political fallout from all this. And so I think that the president's many different defenses here, he often does this where he throws out a whole bunch of stuff and kind of sees what sticks. But it really depends upon what this ultimately, what we ultimately find is behind the search, which of those

defenses is going to be the one that's going to be operative. And we'll see where we go from there. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix.

I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people, and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast,

just search for Money for Couples. A former president being investigated under the Espionage Act and these other laws, like, has anything like this ever happened before? and these other laws. Has anything like this ever happened before? Well, the short answer is no, it doesn't appear to, with the knowledge that sometimes we don't learn about everything that the federal government is investigating. They like to keep those things quiet for a reason. But obviously, it's a very unusual set of circumstances, especially when you're looking at this specific law. There is a precedent for the federal government under the opposite party investigating a president of the other party. And it happened after Bill Clinton's term in 2001, where there was an investigation for four years of the pardon that

he had given a fugitive financier named Mark Rich. Rich had been living in Switzerland to avoid charges of breaking U.S. sanctions by selling Iranian oil to, among others, the apartheid regime in South Africa. He was also accused of massive tax evasion and a whole raft of other white-collar crimes. Under threat of a life sentence in a U.S. jail, Rich was pardoned by President Bill Clinton, a move that provoked moral outrage. Clinton later said that he regretted the pardon. There is some precedent for an investigation of a former president, but obviously the search takes things to another level. And the question from there is, is that because of the things that Trump did, which it seems like there's certainly evidence of, or is it for some other reason, which is certainly the

argument that Trump and his team are making? How is the Republican Party responding to this? You know, it's been remarkable because they really threw in with him almost immediately on Monday night, the Monday night of the search, when this news broke. The FBI raid of President Trump is a complete abuse and overreach of its authority. I think every Republican believes that the FBI, when it comes to Trump and other organizations, have lost their mind. They're enforcing the law based on who they like and who they don't like. We now find that justice in America is not equal.

It's determined upon whether you want to go after a political person or not. And you go after your political foes, I think that's wrong. It's unprecedented that you would go into a... They did so, they pointed to the idea that the FBI had been weaponized. They basically offered a full-throated defense of Trump. And they did so without us knowing basically anything about what was sought in the search, what was obtained, or what the evidence that was presented to get the search warrant was. And so his party has really put themselves in a position of vouching for whatever comes out of this, because they have staked out a very firm position on this. And as we've learned new details, I think we've seen a little bit of a, not necessarily

walking back, but adding a little bit of nuance to the initial defenses of Trump. But I think it's worth coming back to the idea that they invested a tremendous amount of faith that this is not going to turn up something that's going to make those initial defenses look very bad. And what about Trump's supporters? I'm going to guess they've thrown in too, right? The Biden administration, the Democrats are weaponizing the FBI and it has to stop. In my own opinion, I think it's another unjust made up thing like the impeachment hoaxes. And same with the January 6th.

They have stood by him through a number of other controversies, scandals, investigations. Before, nothing seems to have moved the needle, even when Trump's close allies were convicted of crimes, when there was pretty compelling evidence laid out in the Russia investigation, not just of obstruction of justice, but also of coordination between certain Trump campaign advisors and a Russian intelligence agent, according to the U.S. government. I think that what we have seen since Trump left office is maybe the party flirting a little bit with moving on, at least politically, maybe going with a different nominee in 2024. And I think that becomes a little bit with moving on, at least politically, maybe going with a different nominee in 2024. And I think that becomes a little bit easier than when he's incumbent president to move on. But the fact remains that the primary season and plenty of other things this year have shown

that the majority of the party is very much still in his camp. And everybody knows that running afoul of Trump is just not something you could do in today's Republican Party. And so I think that accounts for a lot of the very knee-jerk initial reactions standing by him. In the aftermath of all this, there's been this spike in threats towards law enforcement, right? The FBI. And can you tell me a bit about that? I mean, Trump always talked about the importance of law and order. He was very pro-law enforcement.

Yeah, it's been something that has certainly caused certain members of his party heartburn. There are Republicans in Congress who are talking about defunding the FBI. Representative Paul Gosar from Arizona said we must destroy the FBI. Marjorie Taylor Greene, not only tweeting that we have to defund the FBI, but also going on on a real when you're accusing people baselessly of potentially planting evidence, that's going to have an effect on how people view things. And so we did see an attack on an FBI office in Cincinnati, an attempted attack with a nail gun by a man who, as it happened, had been present during the January 6th insurrection. An armed man tried to enter a field office in Cincinnati with a nail gun and a rifle. The suspect was in the end killed by police and has been identified as 42-year-old Ricky Schiffer. One of Schiffer's social media posts appeared to have been sent after he tried to breach the FBI office.

It said, quote, if you don't hear from me, it's true. I tried attacking the FBI. The man fled the scene and led law enforcement on a highway chase before eventually barricading himself in a standoff with officers. On Monday, we also saw the indictment of a man in Pennsylvania who had made online threats. Investigators say that Adam Bice posted a message on a conservative social media site that said, if you work for the FBI, then you deserve to die. said, if you work for the FBI, then you deserve to die. Then there's a former FBI agent who now serves as a member of Congress, a Republican from Pennsylvania, Brian Fitzpatrick, who says that he has received threats for perhaps not sufficiently towing Trump's lion on this. He's been a little bit more

nuanced than some other Republicans have been. And so I think it all, you know, you can oversell anecdotes and threats that are made to lawmakers and other people because they're kind of ever present in politics these days. But it is evident that, you know, there is a base of supporters that was radicalized back on January 6th. That base is very much there. And this was kind of throwing fuel on the fire when it came to some of them. I know there were reports that someone close to Trump reached out to Attorney General Merrick Garland about what Trump could do to, like I get a quote, reduce the heat. And I wonder what you make of that. heat. And I wonder what you make of that. Yeah, it was reported in a New York Times story this weekend that his emissary for Trump had reached out to Garland and asked

if he could do anything to help turn down the temperature. I think it's worth noting that even that story regarded that with some skepticism because it was only a day later that Donald Trump was again talking about planting evidence. We've seen his rhetoric basically continue in the same vein in recent days. He's talking about how the FBI was, quote, stealing his passports. He's been talking about how this is a witch hunt and the worst thing that's ever happened to any political figure in American history. And his supporters have kept up many of the same arguments before. They're using war metaphors. They're talking about the possibility that Trump could be assassinated by the deep state.

So we haven't seen any real tamping down of the rhetoric among his supporters. And so I think it's pretty evident that this was a bit of a ploy by him to make it at least look like he was interested in that without any real follow-through. So this is all happening, this investigation into these documents and the use of these documents, it's all happening in this context where it seems like there are a series of other legal troubles, civil and criminal, that seem to be closing in on the former president. Like from where I'm sitting, it feels like there's some new update every day, either from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office or some investigation out of Georgia. And I wonder

you could just, if you could just give me like a Coles notes version of what else is happening that you're really looking out for in terms of Trump's legal troubles. And in addition to, to this, what we've been talking about. Yeah. I mean, there are so many fronts here. I think this is, they're, they're all, you know, they're all distinct in their own ways, but they're all kind of related as well. We have a, both a civil and a criminal investigation in New York that has to do with his business practices. We have federal investigation with regard to January 6th and the quote unquote fake electors that were, that he tried to use on that day to get Vice

President Pence to overturn the election. That's similar to what's happening in Georgia, although the Georgia investigation is, of course, more focused on what happened in Georgia. And then we see this retrieval of documents from Mar-a-Lago, which could be pertinent to what we're seeing in the January 6th investigation, but we just don't know at this point. And so, you know, all these things are kind of converging around him and you're kind of waiting to see what the first shoe that's going to drop is going to be. I think it was really significant this week when we found out that his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, he's been named a target of the investigation in Georgia. That's a very significant development for the potential legal jeopardy there.

And some are suggesting that that should mean that Trump might be a target himself in the Georgia investigation. So, you know, we don't know which one is going to lead where and how soon that's going to be. But it's clear that there are a number of different fronts that could all lead to something significant happening in the relatively near future. Okay. Aaron, thank you. Thank you so much for this. This was really, really great. Thank you. I hope so. Thank you for having me. All right. That is all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening, and we will talk to you tomorrow.

Thank you.