Cronkite school of journalism at
Arizona state university.
>> 2.5 weeks after the FBI
searched Donald Trump's home in
Florida, federal magistrate
judge ordered that the --
ordered the department of
justice must release a redacted
document that justify the
search.
Reporter: It is not clear how
much of that document we will
see after the red actions but
more information about the
classified documents that Donald
Trump took with him to
mar-a-lago emerged this week.
An attorney that focuses on
national security issues is with
us.
Given the information the
magistrate judge said needs to
be protected, including the
investigations strategy, scope,
sources and methods, how much
are we likely to see of this
document?
Could we still glean some clues
from it?
>> The general public based on
what you described from the
order to be unsealed will
probably be disappointed in what
is in this partially unredacted
affidavit.
I am hopeful that those of us
that have experience with
classified information and the
like may be able to glean some
nuances from it.
It is probably going to reflect
more about the information that
has already been released such
as in the acting are could -- to
the lawyers that was released
earlier this week that gives us
a chronological understanding of
the discussions that happened
between the trump team and the
justice department and the
national archives.
Reporter: I want to ask you
about the letter.
It was disclosed that some 700
pages of classified documents,
some as high as top-secret, were
returned to the archives from
mar-a-lago in January.
What context does that give to
that FBI search?
>> Well, there are two things --
one, the letter that was
released by the trump team, the
supportive team, was quite
damming to him.
It showed the efforts that the
U.S. Government underwent to
bend over backwards, to be
patient with the trump team
about gaining access to the
documents.
And that was harmful to Donald
Trump's interests and their
legal argument.
The search and seizure itself
which was able to retrieve yet
additional, multiple boxes of
classified information up to
what we call the ts/sci level,
of sources and methods and
agents and analysis of
operations, that that showed
right there that the search
warrant application was
justified.
I think the more information
that comes out, contrary to what
the trump team is saying and
encouraging it to happen is
undermining their own legal
arguments and public-policy
posture.
Reporter: Trump allies say the
-- these are personal papers.
>> We do not know exactly what
is in there and I'm not gong to
say there might not be some
personal paper of a doodle the
president did but he has a
former president no executive
privilege to continue to search.
That is held by the current
administration.
And if any information is
classified, he has no authority
to retain that information and
he might not even have had as
president the authority to
declassify it if it dealt with
information classified under the
atomic energy act.
I can understand they may have
some legal differences to make
later on especially if a
criminal case transpires but at
this stage, the basis was to get
the documents back to the U.S.
Government and as is in the
acting archivist letter, the
trump team has the ability if
they can get clear personnel --
cleared personnel like I am to
go in and review what was
seized.
Reporter: We also got the
unredacted report that was sent
to then attorney general William
Barr that led him to the
conclusion that there was no
evidence of obstruction of
justice in the Mueller report.
What did we learn from that?
>> That was a document that is
absolutely favorable to the
president and his allies.
It is a legal analysis.
When I -- I litigate cases
against the federal government
all of the time.
I file a brief and say this is
what I think.
Office of legal counsel and the
justice department sets policies
for the U.S. Government but
their lawyers are aggie -- art
arguing.
What lawyers are going to now
have to do is analyze the legal
analysis to see if they believe
it is of something different but
if the attorney general wants
the reverse, he certainly has
the ability to do so but it was
basically a legal document that
made the decisions that there
was no basis for prosecution at
least under obstruction of
justice.
Reporter: Mark zaid, thank you
very much.