law stipulates. if donald trump were convicted of it, he would not be able to run for president again. that s a big deal, in addition to the other potential consequences. but really, what everyone right now in our political culture and around the country is wondering is, what happens now about january 6th? and that makes everybody very much and rightly focused on merrick garland, who has been delphic, saying the things you expect him to say, but everyone s looking for a tell. does this guy have, i ll say the way someone would say it, does this guy have the stones? does this guy have the guts, the appetite for taking on a big fight that s going to be incredibly political, incredibly polarizing, and many democrats are afraid he doesn t. up until yesterday, many democrats, they said, oh no, he s this is a guy, if you listen to his words, he s telling you, and the only way he can, he s ready for this fight. i mean, he just only cares about the law, and if there s been a law broken, he ll
that there s a kind of common sense fear on the part at this point, this late stage, as frank just said, it s been going on for a long time, that the fbi and doj are like, if we don t go down there and do this search and get these documents we want, they re going to end up down a toilet or on fire in a fireplace? or in donald trump s mouth. i mean, just to say that we ve already got a series of reporting from people who said, this is his behavior when he was in the white house. why would we not believe that it s also his behavior after the white house? to frank s point, look, 15 boxes, absolutely right, it s not about the 15 boxes. but if the national archives got 15 boxes out of mar-a-lago and didn t get it all, i mean, that s, in and of itself, pretty astounding. the supreme court has actually said that donald trump does not have any executive privilege. we heard i can t remember if
last night where he noted that trump made the decision that it was in his interest to publicize this investigation. the doj sort of played it by the book and were keeping it quiet. what do you think it is what would you say i know this is going to be speculative, but what do you think it would have led trump to determine it was in his interest to try to publicize that this had happened and do it the way he did. well, trump is an information warrior. i mean, he s very savvy with information warfare and he understands that getting his narrative out actually, you know, helps rally the people around him. ( and so i think we just need to distinguish between the court of public opinion and the court of law, and from a legal perspective, what i would say is to also approach the search from a national security angle. if he was in possession of classified documents, those are by definition potentially harmful to our national security if they result in any kind of disclosure or leak or som
there. here s my question for you, pal. the house judiciary put out a tweet last night. this is what it says. this is what happens in third world countries, not the united states. doesn t the fbi have better things to do than harass the former president? okay. so, that s basically the shape of things to come if republicans take control of the house of representatives. we heard kevin mccarthy. they re telegraphing what they re going to do. we already knew they were going to go after hunter biden, et cetera. is there any way that democrats can take these positions that republicans are taking in the wake of this and use them politically to illustrate the costs of a republican house and the extremism that they would practice? i think maybe. just for starters, who knows whether this is a good message politically, but just on the facts, keeping whoever is behind the house judiciary twitter feed from having subpoena power seems as good a reason as any to vote for democrats in the midterms
attack on the capitol unfolded with graphic video and never-before-heard testimony. they argued that the former president led a sophisticated seven-point plan to overturn the 2020 election, incite the capitol riot, and subvert american democracy. jennifer rogers is a cnn legal analyst and former federal prosecutor. jennifer, thanks so much for joining me. first off, what did you think of thursday s prime time opening statement from the panel? i was really impressed, amara. it really exceeded by expectations. i thought they needed to present the new evidence they were talking about and set forth the clear, concise way, the attack on the constitution that trump and his allies perpetrated. i thought the way they used video, overlaying video of