Why Does The FBI Agents Require Hard Drives In Seizing Digital Devices During The Giuliani Look?

I’ve been a lengthy critic of Rudy Giuliani going back years, such as interviews and press conferences that I have hailed for creating unsupported statements (as well as remarks inimical to his customer’s interest). However, Giuliani may have a valid point.  Based on Giuliani, this included computers and cell phones comprising digital files. On the other hand, the agents allegedly refused to carry hard drives that Giuliani said included substance associated with Hunter Biden, the son of our President. If the warrant did call for the seizure of electronic and computer devices, making no sense whatsoever, especially in accepting the term of the target of their search concerning the contents of their apparatus.  As a defense lawyer, I often wonder the reach of seizures in these searches too or too wide. I’ve not ever run into a search where agents refused to take proof that’s ordinarily defined within the scope of the warrant. We’ve yet to observe the warrant itself but this is a curious omission given the seizure of most computers.

Giuliani was about”Tucker Carlson Tonight” Thursday and described the look of his residence at 6 am by seven FBI agents. He said that the agents captured laptops and cell phones in what’s believed to be an investigation into the possible breach of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). That itself is noteworthy since, until a couple of decades back, FARA violations were rarely prosecuted criminally and many violations were treater as civil or administrative measures.
Giuliani denied these violations:”I never represented a Ukrainian official or national prior to the United States government. I’ve declined it several times.  I’ve had contracts in countries such as Ukraine. In the contract is a clause that says I won’t engage in lobbying or foreign representation.  I don’t do it because I believed it could be too compromising.”
However, it is this statement that stuck out for me:

“By the end of the search, when they had taken around, I’d say, seven or eight electronic items of mine… they weren’t taking the three hard drives, that naturally, are electronic devices.  They simply mimic the pc.  And they said,’Which are they?  Plus then they said’no, no, no”

On one hand, the FBI could assert that they have that proof because the notebook was previously captured. However, how do they realize that hard drives included the exact identical info? Yet, the agents took his word for that which was about the apparatus? For all of the agents knew, Giuliani could have obtained all his incriminating FARA signs and simply hit a”Hunter Biden Stuff” tag on the exterior.
Another explanation might be that the search warrant was written. The Justice Department may exclude hard drives out of concern with privileged communications. However, I haven’t seen that type of constraints in previous searches.  In previous cases, the Justice Department reduces such searches through filtering teams instead of leaving any storage apparatus.  It would also make no sense since the recent cellphones or laptops may not have records from the important interval. However, how would they know exactly what was to the hard drives?
It is also feasible that the FBI might say that Giuliani has been lying and there wasn’t any such hard drives offered. However, if that were the situation, an individual would expect the agents to go back for the promised hard drives missed from the search.
I’ve already written about the Hunter Biden notebook and the digital news blackout of this narrative, such as the strikingly reluctant coverage following the launch of the book. I honestly do not understand why the FBI would not unwilling to get this proof as it is possible duplicative of proof already maintained by prosecutors. I am not supposing that this was an effort to protect Biden.  I am simply honestly confused by the decision of the agents if this warrant did call because of the seizure of electronic devices and substance.
Giuliani, who made well-deserved fame as a mob prosecutor, recounted”I said,’Are you really sure you don’t desire them? I mean the warrant required them to shoot it. ‘No, no.’ One last time, ” I said,’Don’t you think that should take it?’ Giuliani included:”However they depended to me, the man who had to be slaughtered at the morning, as — I’m going to destroy the evidence? I’ve known about this for a couple of decades, Tucker. I could have ruined the evidence. The proof is exculpatory. They are the ones that are committing — it’s like projection. They are committing the crimes.”
This has been an extraordinary search targeting the counselor to the former president.  There were allegedly disagreements from the Justice Department on whether to seek out the warrant.  However , the Justice Department convinced a judge that there was electronic evidence and records that had to be captured to stop destruction and also to work with on a possible prosecution.

The normal computer user thinks about the contents of a hard drive in terms of exactly what your computer’s user interface selects to disclose: files, folders, and applications, all neatly arranged and self-contained. This, however, is merely an abstraction introduced to make the computer easier to use. That abstraction hides the proof of computer use that contemporary operating systems depart on hard drives. As computers operate, they leave signs on the hard drive– considerably more evidence than only the files visible to customers. Remnants of complete or partially deleted files can still remain on the drive. Portions of files that were edited also might remain. “Metadata” and other artifacts left from the pc can reveal information about what files have lately been obtained, when a document was made and edited, and sometimes even how it had been edited.

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

The terms”records” and”information” include all the foregoing items of evidence in whatever form and by whatever means that they may have been made or stored, including any form of electronic or computer storage (like hard discs or other media that could save information ); any handmade form (such as writing, drawing, painting); almost virtually any mechanical form (for example, scanning or printing ); and any photographic form (such as microfilm, microfiche, prints, and slides, negatives, videotapes, motion pictures, photocopies).

This is the reason I am confused by this account. I would like to see if there was an obvious explanation and perhaps there is one I am overlooking. I simply find the account puzzling.
We will need to wait to determine if this is truly more or less one possible breach of FARA.  However, we should be able to observe the warrant and the FBI should be able to describe why it wouldn’t take electronic storage apparatus or why it might choose the term of their target in their content.