answering questions. and then far be it for me to correct the new york times. the question of need is something that can overcome executive privilege. the prosecutors need for information, would not overcome attorney client privilege if it s applied. but here, there is no attorney client privilege because these lawyers did not represent donald trump personally. they represented the office of the white house. and so they really shouldn t be an attorney client issue. i fully expect that the chief judge, barrel howell, has made pretty sure the short work of this, that this could be very straightforward issues. popular, what do you see has the value that you can get from these witnesses? so these two lawyers were in the room when the fake elector scheme was hatched up. they had conversations with people who are clearly targets like john eastman. the d. c. appeals court has a case pending right now about trump s ability to make attorney-client arguments or public argument an executive
privilege shortwave attorney client privilege. so they needed a judge to say yes you can and must answer these questions. and so i don t think you are going to see these long appeals. they are just seeking court permission so that they don t get an ethical trouble for answering questions. and then far be it for me to correct the new york times. the question of need is something that can overcome executive privilege. the prosecutors need for information, would not overcome attorney client privilege if it s applied. but here, there is no attorney client privilege because these lawyers did not represent donald trump personally. they represented the office of the white house. and so they really shouldn t be an attorney client issue. i fully expect that the chief judge, barrel howell, has made pretty sure the short work of this, that this could be very straightforward issues. popular, what do you see has the value that you can get from
all of that is somewhat less important in terms of big picture. let s just turn to the key here, which is that the department got approval from the d.c. chief judge barrel howell to review some grand jury information. and they do. they also go ahead i don t know what that means. so, goods to interrupt me. grand jury material is protected by a rule that the government normally is not allowed to share grand jury material. so for instance, a grand jury subpoena is not something that the government can usually just go ahead and reveal. well, it s attached here to this filing to help explain the timeline and what it is that donald trump received, what it is that he was told he legally had to produce and they got permission from the chief judge
not so in a federal grand jury. there s a robust vehicle to test someone s absorption of privilege. you know what we do if a witness assert privilege in a grand jury? we package up the information and we go see the chief judge, barrel how in federal district court in d.c. and we litigate the privilege. they don t have the opportunity to do that at the j six committee if somebody asserts privilege. and i have to say, nobody knows for sure but when that privilege is litigated in the event pat cipollone tries to assert executive privilege in the grand jury barrel howell could very well say no because one it s not donald trump s privilege to invoke anymore it s joe biden s and he seems entirely willing to waive the privilege into we have this little thing called the crime fraud exception. so they re sort of built in suspenders. two reasons to deny an assertion of executive privilege. so now the information is going to start tumbling out in a way
resolution. the judge, chief judge barrel howell said wrong under the law. i ve been saying all along, richard, the state of our judiciary is strong and judge howell just proved that once again with this really thorough, authoritative, 75-page order. one of those statements, not a long sentence, she says, doj is wrong. in three words, no more than that. natalie, if you look at the headline coming out of that particular opinion and also what leanne was telling us as reeker is on the hill, does this empower the democrats leading the inquiry, adam schiff, the chair at the moment, might we expect a pickup in depositions that he might be requesting after this opinion comes down came down i should say? well, democrats are certainly celebrating their victories. i think every time nancy pelosi has spoken publicly, she has mentioned their victories in court as a sign that the judiciary is on their side, as