>> The FBI's move to execute a warrant at voting offices in Fulton county, Georgia to seize records from the 2020 election - - and the presence of national security director Tulsi gabbard on the ground there -- has ignited a fierce debate over election security and federal authority.

Joining us to discuss some of these issues is Rick Hasen, professor of law and political science at UCLA and author of "A real right to vote."

Thanks for being with us.

What legitimate legal purpose could this raid served at this stage more than five years after the election?

>> It is really hard to say.

We have seen the search warrant that does suggest the potential for criminal charges with interfering with an election as well as destroying documents.

It would a clear these claims would be beyond the statute of limitations.

This seems to be potentially and maybe this is the most optimistic reading, just trying to indulge in the president statements about him being concerned that the 2020 election was stolen and just perpetuating the look by the government and the others into the election.

Not even the last presidential election, but the one before this one.

>> The president continues to suggest that prosecutions are coming.

Based on what we know, how plausible are federal charges?

>> With the statute of limitations likely having run without any wrongdoing, there has been a lot of investigation not just of 2020 generally, but of Fulton county Georgia in particular.

They have been investigated by the secretary of state who is a Republican even though Fulton county is a democratic county.

A much more worried about the signal this sentence to election administrators and others for 2026 and looking forward than I am about what might happen to those looking backward.

>> Another flashpoint is the presence of the director of national intelligence Tulsi gabbard.

Today they said it was consistent with her job.

>> I think her presence shouldn't be, there shouldn't be questions.

That is such a big part of her job.

The fact that she was present in Atlanta that day, it is something that shouldn't surprise anybody.

>> Why would the dni be involved in a local election matter.

Is there any reason for her to have been there?

>> The director of national intelligence should be looking at problems coming from outside the United States.

To the extent they want to claim something is happening outside the United States, that's possible but there was reporting in the Wall Street journal that'll see Gabbert has been put in charge of the administrations look into voter fraud.

It may be that regardless of the portfolio she has that this is something she will be moving forward with in the future.

She was supposed to appear before secretaries of state today and address a skeptical crowd from what I understand and she was a no-show.

She had a scheduling conflict at the last minute.

Geoff: Could all of this function as a precedent or rehearsal for what could come in the 2026 midterms?

More aggressive federal involvement?

>> I'm very concerned about the future.

There are extensive chain of custody requirements to make sure nobody tampers with balance and what happens if the FBI tries to go when while they are still tabulating votes during the midterm elections.

I thickly have to be very proactive thinking about steps states and localities might have to take to protect the integrity of their elections from the federal government and the idea that we have to do that tells you how far things have deteriorated with democracy in the United States.

>> Are states prepared?

>> I think it varies based on the state and I think some people don't realize how far things could go.

Right now it is not just the states and local election administrators.

It has to involve courts and the people being prepared to stand up to make sure we can have free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028.

Geoff: Thanks as always for your input.

>> Thank you.

♪ ♪