that was produced by the white house situation room. this set of actions underscored to me that white house officials understood the gravity of what had transpired on the call. white house officials told me they were directed by white house lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer testimony in which such transcripts are stored. instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate system otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective. and then in what was initially described as a classified appendix, the whistleblower elaborates in a few more sentences which would be like the car movie chase scene exciting music part of this spy movie, again, from the originally classified appendix to the complaint, according to multiple white house officials,
prosecution is moving quickly. what do we expect next of after all of this computer testimony? reporter: once we wrap up the computer testimony they re going to move to a counter computer terrorism analyst talking about what the material means. they had directions for how to make a boehm, another document called join the caravan. so you had the fbi agent who talked about how the items were recover. you ll have the expert talking about the significance of these various documents. beyond that we ll understand that we ll next move to the ballistic evidence, we re talking specifically about the bullets that were recovered at the mit campus after the officer was found shot to death. the prosecution the going to link that to the .millimeter ruger. certainly a lot of evidence there to cape track of. thank you. up next, prosecutors say he s a flight risk. the defense say he s very sick.
science and i think some of the defense testimony put the lie to some of this computer testimony we ve already heard. the oak ridge testimony with this smell-o-vision, this smell-o-meter, this labrador device, that s not peer reviewed science. that s never been in a court of law in the united states. that s not mandatory, it s admissible. it s mandatory when it goes to appeals court in the state of florida a couple years from now. and i say if she s convict $, i believe a likelihood convicted at this point based on her not testifying, there is a good chance that that testimony will be thrown out and this conviction will be thrown out based on a whole panoply of junk science not peer-reviewed science. in my heart do i feel perhaps she s guilty? yes. what does the evidence show, that s what america is about. and the scientific testimony, although it may not be peer-proven, it goes to the weight not the admissibility,