A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:
Elliot Williams is on the line. He was a deputy assistant attorney general during the Obama administration and has assisted in legislative affairs across three branches of government. He's also a CNN senior legal analyst, Elliot, so we just heard Luke Garrett talk about that 60-day rule. What are the precedents for executing a search like this?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS: Again, to be clear, and Luke had mentioned this, A, they're - the Justice Department is allowed to execute a search warrant whenever they want. There's just a long-standing practice, going back to administrations, Democratic and Republican ones, that in the run-up to election, the Justice Department will hold off on major investigative actions. We're talking about search warrants, arrests of high-profile politicians or whatever else, just to avoid the appearance of putting the thumb on the scale in an upcoming election. And, you know, we've seen here that this administration is just willing to flout that.
MARTÍNEZ: Yeah. And also push norms, right? I mean, because that's one of the things...
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MARTÍNEZ: ...That it seems like the Trump administration, both terms, has done. So then why even have that rule if, you know, law enforcement has a signed warrant? Why wait?
WILLIAMS: Well, because, again, there's nothing precluding it. It is still, in many respects, I think - I haven't seen it - but a legally valid search warrant. It's more that just because you can do something doesn't mean you ought to, and the rules around the Justice Department exist even to ensure that at least it appears that the work they are doing is above board. Much of Justice Department guidelines really rely on the trust and good faith, No. 1, of the people carrying them out, but also of the public to actually believe that they are working effectively on behalf of the American people.
And if we repeatedly are in scenarios in which our investigative and prosecutorial apparatus appears to be trying to influence elections, the entire public loses faith in the process. And so, again, this has nothing to do with who's a Democrat or who's a Republican or who's being investigated. And so, sure, it may not be legally binding. However, it's very, very important for the integrity of the Justice Department that they not be seen as sticking their nose in elections.
MARTÍNEZ: Well, so how do we know? Because you mentioned, you know, a lot of this, you know, hinges on the trust of the people carrying this out. Representative Omar says all this is political. How do you know? How do you figure out if an investigation is legitimate or maybe driven by politics, unless it's maybe obvious to the eye?
WILLIAMS: Sure. Well, you know, courts will - can assess the legitimacy of an election. Now, any indictment or charge or anything like that, a major step has to be vetted by a judge and seen to be appropriate. Now, that person who has investigated can go into court and say, you know, Your Honor, look at the long list of statements that the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States and a host of elected officials have said about me in the run-up to my being charged, and that can often lead to charges being thrown away. And so there are absolutely ways, A, to demonstrate to a court that charges are not above board.
And look, we've seen it over the last several months - Letitia James and Lisa and James Comey, other people have gone to court saying - noting the statements of the president or vice president or others in making the case that their charges were tinged by political bias. So you can expect that Ilhan Omar will do that here because the president's done her work for her with his long list of statements...
MARTÍNEZ: Yeah.
WILLIAMS: ...Almost suggesting that he was going to target her for prosecution.
MARTÍNEZ: Elliot, if I can get you to put on your deputy assistant attorney general hat for a second, what kinds of evidence would DHS be looking for?
WILLIAMS: It's hard to know because, you know, we don't quite know exactly what's being investigated. Now...
MARTÍNEZ: Yeah.
WILLIAMS: ...If it's immigration fraud, that means, I guess, they're looking for misstatements or misrepresentations in the immigration process when she, the congresswoman, or someone else, was seeking immigration benefits. That's just merely, in broad terms, A, what immigration fraud is. I don't know what they're investigating. So, you know, they're probably looking for documents and just trying to marry them with statements that they have in public. But again, it's just - the Justice Department has not done themselves any favors over these last years in making us want to believe that the investigations they're carrying out are actually proper and above board. So, sure, that's what they would be investigating...
MARTÍNEZ: Yeah.
WILLIAMS: ...In a proper world, but I just don't know if we're there.
MARTÍNEZ: Elliot, about 30 seconds left here. I mean, if this had happened the day after Election Day, what kind of a conversation would we be having right now?
WILLIAMS: A very, very different one, A, because, you know, the political stink might have still been there because of the views that they have of Ilhan Omar. But the idea of the Justice Department violating its policies to go after somebody in the run-up to Election Day, that would not be the norm that would be broken. So, yeah, the norms would be broken, but it would still look pretty political.
MARTÍNEZ: Elliot Williams is a former deputy assistant attorney general. Thanks a lot.
WILLIAMS: Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
