The Daily Signal - Greta Van Susteren Shares What You Need to Know About FBI Raid on Trump

Episode Date: August 16, 2022

Many questions remain unanswered since the FBI's Aug. 8 raid on the Florida home of former President Donald Trump.  "First of all, make no mistake about it. There are rules that the president is not supposed to keep records," veteran journalist and lawyer Greta Van Susteren says. "The public records—I'm talking about the non-classified ones—do belong for the most part to the American people, so they have to be turned over to the [National Archives]. Usually, when a president leaves office, they're sorted through and they decide what's the president should have, what shouldn't have." "That's one group of documents. The second are our classified documents," Van Susteren adds. "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." Van Susteren joins "The Daily Signal Podcast" to dissect the FBI raid and the polarization surrounding it, China's growing aggression, and her new show, "The Record with Greta Van Susteren," on Newsmax TV.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Snap up Ancestry DNA's lowest price ever in our incredible cyber sale. With 50% off Ancestry DNA kits, it's the perfect time to help a loved one unwrap the past. And with their latest update, they'll discover their family origins like never before. With even more precise regions and new and exclusive features. Their best gift, our lowest price. 50% off Ancestry DNA, only until December 2nd. Visit Ancestry.ca for more details. Terms apply.

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Tuesday, August 16th, on Samantha Rank. It's been a little over a week since the FBI raided former President Donald Trump's home in Mar-Lago, and many questions remain unanswered. Greta Van Sustrin joins the Daily Signal podcast to break down the raid, her new show on Newsmax, and China's rising aggression. But before we get to my conversation with Greta, we have an important announcement to share with all of you. We are taking a break from reporting headlines on the show for the next couple of weeks. We always aim to be improving and making the show more beneficial for you, our listeners.

So if you're a fan of the interview-only show, let us know. Or if you miss headlines at the top of every show and want them back, then we want to hear from you. Let us know your thoughts by sending an email to Letters at DailySignal.com. Your feedback will help us determine whether or not we bring headlines back to the Daily. Signal podcast. Now we'll get to my conversation with Greta Van Sustrin after this. At the Heritage Foundation, we believe that every single policy issue discussed in D.C. tells a story. So we want to tell it well. On the Heritage Explains podcast, co-host Tim Decher and Michelle Cordero, take one policy issue a week, mix in a creative blend of clips,

narration, and hard-hitting interviews to equip you on crucial issues in under 20 minutes. So get your story straight. Subscribe to Heritage Explains wherever you listen to podcasts. Greta Van Sestrin is joining the podcast today. She is the host of the record with Greta Van Sestrin on Newsmax. Greta, thank you so much for joining us today. I'm very happy to be here. Thank you for asking me.

Of course. Now, first and foremost, can you tell us a little bit about your new show and your return to cable TV? Well, in many ways, it's the same show I've ever. had, whether it's at CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Voice of America, gray media. Because I look at news through a legal lens. Now, I don't mean it's a legal show. It's not that at all. But when you go to law school, they tell you, you teach you how to look for facts. In fact, you take a course called evidence, which is just all about facts and about what can be shown. And that's the way I approach journalism. I look for the facts, whatever they may be. And I

try not to tell the viewers what to think. I just say, here are the facts. You come up with your own thoughts and opinions. Now, that's not to say that opinion shows are not important. They are extremely important because it's good to have a robust debate and have opinions. But my goal here is to continue just however the chips may fall, they may fall, tell me the facts, and that's what I'm interested in. So that's the way I, that's how I would describe the show. Absolutely. And as you know, there has been no shortage of news to cover. I want to start with the raid that happened last week on President Donald Trump's home in Mar-Lago. And, you know, as I mentioned, there was this raid last week at his home in Florida. There's a lot of

questions that remain unanswered. The political divide regarding the approval of the raid was pretty significant. A survey from Politico slash morning consult found that 84% of Democrats approved, whereas only 15% of Republicans said that they approved. What do you think of this partisan divide? And do you think that the FBI needs to release any more details about the raid to settle any fears that it was politically motivated? All right. Well, you've got about 15 questions there.

Let me try to take them apart and re-ask if I forget one of them. Yes, of course. First of all is that regrettably, we've gotten to the point in this country where we don't wait for the facts instead of. we take sides. So I'm not surprised by those numbers because President Trump as Republicans and naturally expect Republicans to be more supportive of him and the Democrats not supportive of them. So those numbers don't surprise me in the least bit. I expect those. The second question, the second thing is that, look, this is a developing story. And we're going to learn new facts

every single day this week and next week. And a new fact could change what someone is someone who is looking at it fairly and not through a political lens and taking sides might think of what's going on. So that's an important consideration is to recognize that we don't have all the facts. In fact, Friday night, the Washington Post reported something like that they thought the nuclear code was involved. When that went all over Twitter like a wildfire, well, I don't think nuclear code was involved. And secondly, that I do know or suspect that they changed the nuclear code all the time.

So that that was just sort of something that was electrifying, set people. on fire and only fueled sort of the divide in this country between Republicans and Democrats. Now let's go to what happened. First of all, make no mistake about it. There are rules. The president's not supposed to keep records. The public records, I'm talking about the non-classified ones, do belong, for the most part, to the American people. So they have to be turned over to the archive.

Usually when a president leaves the office are sorted through and they decide what, you know, what presidents should have, what shouldn't have. That's one group of documents. The second are classified documents. And the question is, you know, what does he have classified documents? Clearly, he's not supposed to have classified documents. He's no longer in office. And you have to make sure classified documents are in very secured places. Now let's look at the process.

I don't care if it's President Trump, President Biden, President Obama, President Bush. The process should be the same and level-handed for all. And this is the way these things are obviously every, story is different, every factual situation, but they subpoenaed the documents from him in June, and 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, is that what would happen is that the Department of Justice would take that subpoena to court, and they presented to the judge and say, Judge, we have a lawful subpoena, and the president

hasn't complied. The president would then have opportunity, through his lawyers, to say, look, we did comply or the subpoenas 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. And so both sides would have an opportunity to work it up. That didn't happen. What did happen instead was that the Justice Department made a giant leap and waited about eight weeks and went to get a search warrant. And that's something very different than the subpoena.

And with the search warrant, it's a one-sided. deal done all the time. It's nothing illegal about search warrant, but this is the process. And they went into court and they said, we need to get a search warrant. And the president's not there to say, look, you know, 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. And a subpoena is generally issued when there's an emergency. And you see them often like in drug cases when there's a pile of cocaine on a kitchen table. And you have to hurry and get a search warrant because you can't litigate. the subpoena because by the time you litigate the subpoena, the cocaine has been snorted up someone's

notes. So they get the subpoena on Friday, one-sided, they say it's an emergency and they say what they want. 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? If you thought, and 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. So that's the problem, is that it becomes looking very heavy-handed on the part of the Department of Justice. They should have litigated in June, the subpoena they chose not to. 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? And that's what, and that's the whole issue of process and what gets people, you know, a lot of people very ad-shed. It doesn't mean President Trump should keep documents or have documents. I don't even know what he has or doesn't have. But the process, when the process is heavy-handed in one direction, it will create all sorts of problems with people looking at it. And we don't, and it will create all sorts of suspicions and people will be pointing fingers.

And that's what I think is the mistake the Justice Department did, is that it looks like they didn't treat him fairly. They should have litigated the subpoena in June. Yes. And I wanted to ask, over the last few years, the trust in the FBI has suffered. And in light of what happened last week and what you were just talking about, how can trust be restored for the FBI in the FBI? Well, first of all, I work with FBI agents on cases and stories all the time. They are unbelievable thousands of very good men and women do it every single day working really hard to do their good job and do a fair one and keep us protected and self-crime.

The problem is that the high-profile ones that go skew like this one naturally poison everybody or a good portion of the population against the FBI. We look at the arrest of Peter Navarro a couple weeks ago, the President Trump's former advisor. He tends to be obnoxious in dealing with law enforcement. And law enforcement sometimes will give you a little harder time when you're obnoxious. But he was charged with two counts misdemeanors of obstruction of Congress. Those are misdemeanors. He lives across the street from the FBI. They could have gone over and knocked it on his door.

Instead, he was at Reagan National Airport across the river, not the international airport, which might suggest he was fleeing, but at Reagan to fly down to, I think, Memphis to do a TV show with Mike Huckabee. And they show up like gangbusters at Reagan Airport, and they put handcuffs on them and leg cuffs on them for two misdemeanors. I practiced law in this community for many years as a criminal defense training. Nobody gets that from a misdemeanor. Nobody even gets time for a misdemeanor. I mean, the whole thing was it, but why did they do that overkill? And that's the problem is that they should have first tried to get him at his house and see if he'd volunteer. I mean, and these are misdemeas.

These are not felonies. This is not armed robbery. But when you have high-profile people like Peter and Borough treated like that, people begin to think that it's the entire FBI. That is not true. That is some people, some decisions, but it's not the entire FBI. I said, I work with some really good smart FBI people who are devoted to protecting and helping us. And I want to shift topics a little bit to the China thread. A little over two weeks ago,

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan. There's also a group of five U.S. lawmakers that arrived in Taiwan over the weekend between Speaker Pelosi's visit and this new group of lawmakers that were in Taiwan. We've seen China really ramp up their aggression toward Taiwan. First and foremost, what is your number one concern regarding the Chinese Communist Party? War. War in Taiwan. Also, they cut off the supply chain to generic drugs for heart medication here in the country. There was a shorter day.

This was not a deliberate thing, but they had a shutdown in Shanghai recently because of COVID. And it created in this country. I don't know if you were aware of it, but they created a, a shortage of the CT scan contrast die, and there were hospitals that were short of the contrast die and had to figure out which CT scans they were going to do, which ones they weren't. Now, if you have a stroke, you need one right away, and you need that die. If you need a stint, you need one right away. Some of the other CT scans you don't need, and they were delayed.

But the mere fact that all the contrast die, or most of it is made by an American company in Shanghai, is that if they cut off our supply, if they cut off that production, is that it hurts every single American in this country who might face a health crisis. So you've also got it. So, yes, I worry about war, but I worry about the economic implications because we have gotten so overly dependent on China for things that we don't even realize. I mean, contrast, you think you can walk into a hospital and get a CT scan, well, maybe there isn't enough die.

And what's even more shocking, I did a story on this, which is why I know. know this is that most people weren't even paying attention. You'll have to Google this to find out this story. This one got buried. But I talked to doctors at hospitals, and I said, yeah, where we see a shortage of this because they have had to shut down Shanghai because of COVID. Here's another problem. This is another thing that's just so stunning to me is that everybody knows that

that fentanyl is poisoning and killing people and streets all across the country. And China is one of the major. suppliers through Mexico of the components for fentanyl. And so, and so, you know, they're just poisonous. So, you know, it's endless. So what I, I don't know what I fear the most with China. I suppose I fear war less because it seems somewhat contained. But when you start destroying the economy and our health through fentanyl and not having CT scan contrast die, that's the kind that we don't even notice until it's right upon us. And we're not equipped, we're not equipped to do, at least in a military sense, we have fighter planes and naval ships.

But if we don't have any contrast die for CT scan, we're in trouble. If we don't have semiconductors coming out of Taiwan because we don't make them here in the United States, we're in trouble. Your toaster won't even work. Yeah, it's absolutely frightening. And it's really eye-opening, I think, coming off of, you know, two and a half years since the start of the pandemic and just realizing how reliant we have been on China for so many years and whether or not that will change on that's yet to be seen.

But it will, because, you know, I mean, look, I mean, this is, and it's top to bottom. Look at Hollywood. Hollywood will do a movie that totally trashes the United States and has complete protection of the First Amendment. And I support their ability to do that. I'm a big proponent of the First Amendment. And they make, you know, they make blockbuster dollars here in the United States doing it. But, you know, it's good.

the minute they do a movie in China where there's a huge amount of money for movies, they have to have the movies go through China. They have to get the Communist Party to agree it. And they will make adjustments to the movies so it doesn't insult China so that they can sell their movies overseas there. So, I mean, it's this sense of greed and wanting that extra dollar and being willing to sacrifice our values no matter what. You know, it's not just one person. It's not just one political party. And what are your thoughts on President Biden and his administration?

They're handling of this, you know, potential crisis that could happen in Taiwan and their attitude toward China. When you talk about questions of war, you don't know if it's handled right until it's over. That's the problem. Speaker Pelosi poked a stick in the eye of President Xi of China by going there. on the one hand you could say that it shows great strength and great courage and that we stand with Taiwan and Republicans and Democrats both here in the United States supported her although President Biden didn't want her to do it at first they supported her but now we've got another group going is that the right thing to do I don't know but I will tell you that my gut reaction I wouldn't have I don't think you should poke a stick in she's eye because I'd rather have him inside the tent than outside the tent.

And I don't think we should put him in a position where he is humiliated with their country. When Pelosi announced the trip, they said that at first they're going to shoot flares, then they were going to do maneuvers to try to get her plane off course, and then they were going to shoot her down. Well, they didn't do any of those things. So once she went there, was there, did her trip, got safely out of there. Now what's happened is we've humiliated President Xi. He looks weak in his own country.

He's trying to hang on to power in his country. And right now it looks like he's weak vis-a-vis the United States. Now, with someone whose finger is on a nuclear bomb over there, and someone who's got all that economic power, does it really make sense to Polkman and I and humiliate him? I think no. You know, a lot of people, Republicans and Democrats, think it's better to show strength.

I think we show strength through, you know, stop being so economically dependent on, let him live his own life. But, you know, that was a decision. that was made by many people. I don't think we'll know if it was the right decision or whether I'm right until, you know, five years from now. And finally, Greta, are there any important points

that you think are being missed in the media coverage of the China threat that Americans should keep in mind going forward? I think there's not enough coverage. If you've watched my show since we launched January 14th, I've done a China segment every single night. I've even been the foreign minister of Taiwan on my show. I'm hoping to put the spotlight on it. I don't know what everybody else is doing because I'm so consumed,

especially with a new show, you're really busy, you just don't have time to watch the other shows. The only thing I see is during time when I sort of thumb through Twitter, when I see what's going on Twitter, I don't know what others are doing. And it's not because I'm trying to act like I don't watch other TV shows. It's only because I don't know the time. These are all my friends.

I've been in every network, so these are my friends. I just don't have the time. I'm so consumed with trying to get my show up and running. Well, Greta, thank you so much for joining us today. It was such a pleasure to have you on. I just want to make sure our audience is aware that your show is on Newsmax weekdays at 6 p.m. The Record with Greta Rand Sustrin.

Thank you so much for joining us. Yeah, I hope people watch it because I think, you know, if nothing else, I want people to say it's fair, factual, informative, never perfect, but I'm always striving to get it right. You know, it's like, you know, that's my goal is to try to get it right. Absolutely. Thank you so much. Thank you.

And that'll do it for today's episode. Thank you for listening to the Daily Signal podcast. If you have not done so already, be sure to subscribe to the Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcast, Spotify, IHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcast. and please leave us a review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Thanks again for listening and we'll be back with you all tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. The executive producers are Rob Blewey and Kate Trinko.

Producers are Virginia Allen, Doug Blair, and Samantha Rank. Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.