quote, witnesses with knowledge of the relevant facts. one more sign that the special master he, means business, he is pushing for another judge to help review the thousands of items that were found in trump s home. the former president has claimed he declassified sensitive records that he took from the white house by just thinking about it. last night he told sean hannity that he is able to do that just by thinking. apparently, that was news to some senate republicans. i think there is a process for declassifying documents. and i think it ought to be adhered to and followed. and i think that that should apply to anybody who has access to or deals with classified information. i believe, as i understand the executive branch requirements, there is a process that one must go through. for the committee, we think, because she was involved in helping organize and promote january 6th, coming to the capital pieces of her testimony be referenced or? hearing? it s possib
Thank you, nicolle. We appreciate you. Im ari melber. We begin this broadcast with Breaking News out of the Georgia Rico Case against trump and his aides. Guilty. For the First Time Ever were reporting Tonight A Trump lawyer in the 2020 election case has now pled guilty. Sidney powell, who you may remember from presentations like that one she gave with giuliani after the election, a key coup lawyer. A key player, we should mention. Jack smiths case against trump. And most critically tonight, a rico defendant in that georgia case where she was booked for her mug shot. She was awaiting trial next week. The news tonight . She just pled guilty today, a bid to duck potentially harsher penalties in that criminal case. Unlike the federal case, today the cameras were rolling today in the georgia courtroom. You can see the defendant now convict sitting there this is where a onetime president ial lawyer became a convict. She admitted her guilt in the efforts to overturn trumps loss, and like any
Admitting that these facts were so inextricably intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett, that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpreted his statements. Please to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x. This would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial, we believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the us Supreme Court, that what were talking about is absolute immunity. Yes. But absolute immunity just for a president s official acts in office. I think thats a crucial distinction. And
Im period in question. I thought in many what we did a concession at all was Michael Dreeben essentially admitting the attorney for the special counsels office, essentially admitting that these facts were so inextricably intertwined in a colloquy with justice barrett, that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpret for his statements at least. Well, and to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x this would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial. We believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the
Concession at all. Was Michael Dreeben essentially admitting the attorney for the special counsels office, essentially admitting that these facts were so strikingly intertwined in a colloquy with Justice Barrett that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpreted his statements, at least. Well, and to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x. This would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial. We believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the the us Supreme Court, that what were talking about is ab