Constitutional Lawyers Argue Mar-a-Lago Warrant Had No Legal Basis

A former president’s right under the Presidential Records Act trumps the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago search, David Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey argued in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

The two constitutional lawyers, who served at the Department of Justice and the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, stressed that the warrant used to search former President Donald Trump’s residence suggests that ”the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.”

This is because Trump’s possession of the documents at his residence is entirely consistent with federal law that gives former presidents access to them, regardless of the statutes the FBI uses as justification in its warrant.

The authors emphasized that nothing in the PRA of 1978 suggests that the former president’s physical custody of his records can be considered unlawful under the statutes on which the Mar-a-Lago warrant is based.

Rivkin and Casey explained that ”in making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified. That was a deliberate choice by Congress, as the existence of highly classified materials at the White House was a given long before 1978, and the statute specifically contemplates that classified materials will be present — making this a basis on which a president can impose a 12-year moratorium on public access.”


Join now!