Why Didn’t The FBI Agents Require Hard Drives In Seizing Digital Devices During The Giuliani Search?

I have been a lengthy critic of Rudy Giuliani years, including interviews and press conferences that I have hailed for creating unsupported statements (as well as remarks inimical to his customer’s interest). However, Giuliani might have a legitimate purpose.  Based on Giuliani, this comprised computers and mobile phones containing digital files. On the other hand, the representatives allegedly refused to carry hard drives which Giuliani said contained material related to Hunter Biden, the son of the President. In the event the warrant did involve the seizure of computer and electronic devices, that makes no sense at all, especially in accepting the term of the target of the search concerning the contents of the devices.  As a defense lawyer, I often question the reach of seizures in such searches too or overly wide. I have not encounter a hunt where representatives refused to take proof that’s ordinarily defined within the scope of the warrant. We have yet to see the warrant itself but this is a curious omission given the seizure of most computers.
Giuliani was about”Tucker Carlson Tonight” Thursday and explained the search of his house at 6 am by seven FBI representatives. He said that the representatives seized laptops and mobile phones in what is believed to be a research into the possible violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). That itself is noteworthy since, until a couple of years before, FARA violations were rarely prosecuted criminally and many violations were treater as civil or administrative steps.
Giuliani denied such violations:”I never represented that a Ukrainian national or official prior to the United States authorities. I have declined it many times.  I have had contracts in nations such as Ukraine. In the contract is a clause which says I won’t participate in lobbying or overseas representation.  I don’t do it because I believed it would be too compromising.”
But it’s this statement that stuck out to me:

“At the conclusion of the hunt, when they’d taken about, I would say, seven or even eight digital items of mine… they weren’t taking the 3 hard drives, which of course, are digital devices.  They simply mimic the pc.  Plus then they said’no, no, no.”

On the other hand, the FBI may assert that they already possess that proof because the laptop was previously seized. But how do they know that hard drives contained the identical information? However, the representatives took his word for what was about the devices? For all the representatives knew, Giuliani could have obtained all his incriminating FARA signs and simply hit a”Hunter Biden Stuff” label on the outside.
Another explanation may be that the search warrant has been written. The Justice Department may exclude hard drives out of concern with privileged communications. However, I haven’t seen that kind of limitations in prior searches.  In prior cases, the Justice Department reduces such searches through filtering teams instead of leaving some storage devices.  It would also make no sense since the recent cellphones or laptops might not have records in the important interval. But how would they know exactly what was to the hard drives?
It is likewise feasible that the FBI may state that Giuliani is lying and there was no such hard drives provided. Yet, if that were the situation, one would expect the representatives to go back for the promised hard drives missed in the search.
I have previously written about the Hunter Biden laptop and the virtual news blackout of this narrative, including the strikingly reluctant coverage following the launch of his book. I honestly do not understand why the FBI would not unwilling to have this proof as it’s likely duplicative of signs already maintained by prosecutors. I am not supposing that this was an effort to shield Biden.  I am simply honestly perplexed with the decision of the representatives if this warrant did call for the seizure of digital devices and material.
Giuliani, who earned well-deserved fame as a mob prosecutor, recounted”I said,’Are you sure that you don’t desire them? I mean the warrant needed them to carry it. ‘No, no, no.’ 1 last time, I said,’Don’t you feel that need to take it’ And they said, ‘No.'” Giuliani added:”But they relied on me, the guy who needed to be raided in the early hours, since — I’m likely to ruin the evidence? I have known about this for a couple of years, Tucker. I could have ruined the evidence. The proof is exculpatory. They are the people who are committing — it’s similar projection. They are committing the offenses.”
This has been an extraordinary search targeting the counsel to the former president.  There were allegedly disagreements from the Justice Department on whether to seek the warrant.  However , the Justice Department persuaded a judge that there was digital evidence and records that needed to be seized to prevent destruction and also to work with on a possible prosecution.
The Justice Department has emphasized the need to acquire hard drives in its training manuals, including the publication Searching and Seizing Computers And Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations:

The typical computer user thinks about the contents of a hard disk in terms of exactly what your computer’s user interface chooses to disclose: folders, files, and applications, all neatly arranged and self-contained. This, however, is merely an abstraction introduced to make the computer easier to work with. That abstraction hides the signs of computer use that contemporary operating systems leave hard drives. As computers run, they leave signs on the hard drive– considerably more evidence than just the files visible to consumers. Remnants of complete or partially deleted documents may still remain on the driveway. Portions of documents which were edited off also might remain. “Metadata” and other artifacts left by the pc can disclose information about what documents have recently been obtained, when a file was made and edited, and sometimes even how it was edited.

The Justice Department defines terms such as”records” to explicitly include hard drives. It promotes another language:

That is why I’m perplexed by this account. I waited to see whether there was an obvious explanation and possibly there is one I am overlooking. I simply discover the account puzzling.
We’ll need to wait to determine if this is truly almost one possible violation of FARA.  But we ought to be able to see the warrant and the FBI should have the ability to describe why it wouldn’t take digital storage devices or why it might take the term of the target in their own content.
Like this:Like Loading…