Depends on what the end game is or what threat they're trying to mitigate by doing it...
Thus far, they've been pretty tight-lipped about what their purpose is for it.
If they can demonstrate some sort of tangible or compelling reason for doing so, and that it's not simply some sort of fishing expedition that's just "looking for a reason", then by all means, use the enforcement arm of the law to punish wrongdoing.
There has been some doubt cast on his account that "they took all of the electronics, but refused to take the ones that they knew belonged to Hunter"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ves-that-he-previously-said-they-already-had/
Now, if what he's saying ends up being true, then that should raise some eyebrows...
If, during the federal raid and seizures of Jared Fogle's electronic devices (when he was suspected of possessing illegal inappropriate contentography), Jared had said "these particular 3 hard drives belong to someone else" and as a result, the feds declined to take them, that would leave some people scratching their heads... if it were that easy to get law enforcement not to take certain hard drives during a raid, then literally every pedophile who gets raided would be using that line. Typically a raid with the intent of "seizing all electronic devices" from a residence means just that, ALL electronic devices.
Here's why I have some doubts about Giuliani's account of what happened.
1) The reason I mentioned above...I'm not aware of anyone getting the feds to not take a particular hard drive by claiming it was someone else's. As noted, if it were that easy, every cyber-criminal would simply claim, during the raid, that all hard drives (that contained damning material) "aren't mine, those are someone else's", and they'd be off the hook
2) His claim doesn't line up with what he's previously stated...according to his earlier accounts, he'd already shared those digital materials (pertaining to Hunter) with investigators - including the FBI.
3) If he's as shrewd of a legal mind as he claims to be and had doubts as to whether or not they would want to see Hunter Biden evidence, and wanted to "force" the FBI to confront certain materials pertaining to Hunter, he would've kept his mouth shut during the raid and allowed them to think the alleged hard drives his, which means they would've taken them with the rest of the stuff, and then came across the Hunter materials via
inadvertent discovery when reviewing the drives.
Now, it's entirely possible that Rudy's account is true, but in order for it to be true, it would've meant that a couple of very unlikely things would have to be true.
- He had other hard drives, in addition to the ones he claimed the Feds already had back in October...and if he did have additional hard drives, with tangible dirt on Hunter, he would've had to been good about "keeping it to himself and not telling everyone" (not one of his strong suits over the past few years"
- The federal agents involved would've had to have been so sloppy, that didn't take a particular hard drive because the person simply said it wasn't theirs. (as noted above, not likely...if it were that easy, every cyber-criminal would use that line the moment they were raided)
All that being said, it's still quite possible that the whole thing is a politically motivated fishing expedition...or potentially a PR hit (as when feds raid someone, it's not a good public look...nobody ever remembers the 3 months after when they said "yeah, we didn't find anything", they remember the optics of police going in and walking out with boxes of stuff)
However, Rudy being Rudy, rather than just keeping his mouth shut about it and letting evidence (or lack of) speak for itself, opts to spin another tale that definitely sounds like another conspiracy theory.
