DOJ criticizes efforts to reclaim Eastman's cell phone
Latest salvo in federal investigation into former President Donald Trump and his allies regarding efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
US Department of Justice building in Washington, D.C. | Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
On Monday, the Justice Department announced that lawyer John Eastman, a key ally in Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, had his cell phone seized by FBI agents in June. Rejected attempts to get the phone back.
Eastman immediately sued the Justice Department to retrieve his cell phone and filed a barrage of complaints that the Justice Department called "experts" had been cleared of the case. . In it, Eastman claimed he didn't show the search warrant until an FBI agent took his cell phone — a fact the Justice Department said had no legal merit and that Eastman had a concealed cell permit.
"The defendant's rights and privileges do not preclude the government's ability to seize and search his phone to facilitate criminal investigations." No," Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Dorman said in a page 24 Department of Justice filing.
Filings prevent the transfer of power and the State Department's increasingly public efforts to criminally investigate efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election. It's also the latest sign that the Justice Department is making the Eastman issue a top priority. The Justice Department has sent top Trump-related investigators, including Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Windham, to litigate the matter. Last month Windom obtained the Department of Justice's second search warrant against Eastman's phone to control matters that may have been covered by attorney-client privilege. made it clear that
According to the Department of Justice, Eastman's request that the government return his cell phone and destroy all information copied from it "completely removes the document from the government's investigative files." "not only prejudices substantive investigations, but also significantly prevents grand juries from using seized materials in future prosecution decisions. The law does not support such conduct."
Among Eastman's complaints: The seizure of his phone, for which a search warrant was obtained, usually led to the Department of Justice investigating misconduct by department employees. was enabled by the Inspector General of Eastman, on the other hand, is a private attorney. But the ministry said his claims were simply false. The Inspector General has the authority to pursue evidence from private individuals if it relates to potential "criminal conduct adverse to the department."
"As a matter of common sense, he is wrong. Investigations of wrongdoing by one individual routinely involve obtaining evidence from others, especially when conspiracies are involved. is,” he writes Dohrmann.
Eastman also alleged that FBI agents violated their Fifth Amendment rights when they forced facial recognition to unlock their cell phones, but the Justice Department said the agents The warrant authorized them to "obtain the physical characteristics of the suspect." Like Eastman's face, "using their independent knowledge of what characteristics are relevant to gaining access to seized devices." A sharp rebuttal was his complaint that no search warrant had been provided before the cell phone was seized.
"In the opinion of petitioner's professor, he should have been provided with a copy of the warrant prior to execution and apparently given time (minutes? hours?) to read and analyze it. It was able to bring the officer's attention to several constitutional flaws evident on the surface of the warrant, thus preventing an unconstitutional seizure in the first place. I knew it was allowed."
