Not getting the headlines the Mar-a-Lago search warrant is, but the FBI activity also involved having Congressman Scott Perry cell phone seized.
The Department of Justice is bearing down on former President Donald Trump and his inner circle.
FBI agents seized the phone of Rep. Scott Perry on Tuesday, the Pennsylvania Republican told Fox News in a statement. This came just a day after the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home.
Perry, chair of the hardline conservative House Freedom Caucus, is a Trump ally who played a prominent role in the former president’s failed attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Here’s Perry to Fox News:
“This morning, while traveling with my family, 3 FBI agents visited me and seized my cell phone. They made no attempt to contact my lawyer, who would have made arrangements for them to have my phone if that was their wish. I’m outraged – though not surprised – that the FBI under the direction of Merrick Garland’s DOJ, would seize the phone of a sitting Member of Congress.”
Perry, first elected to Congress in 2012, sought a pardon from Trump over his role in the events leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection, according to the select committee investigating the Capitol attack. Perry was subpoenaed by the panel in May, but he refused to testify.
According to the Jan. 6 committee, Perry was “directly involved with efforts to corrupt the Department of Justice and install Jeffrey Clark as acting Attorney General. In addition, Mr. Perry had various communications with the White House about a number of matters relevant to the Select Committee’s investigation, including allegations that Dominion voting machines had been corrupted.”
On Tuesday, Perry tried to link his case to the Trump raid, although it’s not clear that the two are connected.
The Justice Department has stepped up its criminal investigation into the Jan. 6 insurrection in recent months, including empaneling a federal grand jury to hear testimony. The New York Times noted that Perry “is not the only ally of Mr. Trump whose phone has been seized in recent weeks. In June, federal agents seized the phone of John Eastman, the conservative lawyer who advised Mr. Trump on strategies to overturn the election.” Clark, the former DOJ official who Perry pushed for AG, had his home searched in late June.
Yet the revelation about Perry comes as Republicans demand information from DOJ, the FBI and Attorney General Merrick Garland over the search of Trump’s residence. Trump’s lawyers suggested the Mar-a-Lago search was related to the former president’s failure to turn over documents – some reportedly classified – to the National Archives and Records Administration.
Important to note that while the Mar-a-Lago search was reportedly over classified documents, having Scott Perry cell phone seized appears to be directly related to the DOJ’s January 6th investigation.
If only there were precedents . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimesReport
Is it customary for the FBI or other LEO to alert subjects of search warrants? On the one hand, obviously doing things with a level of collaboration is better than not having that. On the other, that’s basically asking the guy to delete anything potentially incriminating off the device.
But I’m less concerned with whether politicians have committed crimes and more concerned with “precedent” in terms of how such searches are typically handled. If this guy wanted special treatment because he’s a Congressman, he can kick rocks.Report
The few LEOs I know – and the even fewer feds – always say surprise is your friend with a search warrant. I have never heard any of them describe any sort of warning, but it’s a very small sample size.
We know from media reports the FBI told the secret service they were coming to Mar A Lago but I suspect that’s a professional courtesy to avoid a gun battle.
My gut is this guy, like Trump, believes his office affords him some sort of special deference. For which I too believe he can pound sand.Report
If the FBI can do this to Trump or Perry, then they can do it to me!
What? . . . They can do it to me? . . . And always could?
Never mind.Report