today, in coming days, so we ll get some kind of read of the room. but you know we re going to hear different versions. of course of what he said we will. yeah absolutely. with jamie raskin on one side, james comer and the other we ve seen it before. we re probably going to see it again. hope they can agree. it happened on monday, rand paul paul sending criminal referral for dr. anthony fauci claiming he has proof the former white house doc lied under oath about the original of the virus. dr. fauci wrote, scientists in wuhan university are known to have been working on gain of function experiments with human infection and outbreak originated in wuhan. paul says this contradicts everything he says all the
criminal statements. recently, he talked about it being dangerous that he might wind up incarcerated. could that be used against him in these cases? or is it simply a distraction for pers? i suspect it s really a distraction for prosecutors and to try and come up with some sort of popular support for his position, but i do think that, generally, prosecutors will ignore sort of bellicose worst statements from potential defendants and go about trying the cases that they have. i m also curious to get from both of you, starting with you, tim, mark meadows, he has not said much publicly recently. we know from some reporting there s concern from team trump that he may have flipped. what do you think? hard to say, boris. we included mark meadows in that criminal referral. there was evidence that he was
donald trump stands accused of crimes. he is the subject of a second criminal probe also run by jack smith, which has gotten a little less attention lately. that s the january 6th probe. in both of these cases, in and one we have a lot more window into because of the indictment, a lot more of sense of how jack smith works. both times trump had more than one opportunity to just follow the law. to take the information, the warnings, the danger he was in, process it, and simply act lawfully. we have evidence that he could have avoided the criminal pro s altogether had he done that. i show you something i mentioned. when you look at the timeline of the mar-a-lago case, you have trump returning those 15 boxes to the archives. and that s what first exposed the problem of classified information in his possession. then they go to the doj, the criminal referral. doj demands the missing
everyone knows it takes months or years. there is a letter from the obama foundation in 2018 to nara to the archivists saying we have a bunch of classified records out here in illinois. we will give them back to you eventually and it will be expensive to move them. we will give you $3.3 million big question about what is going on there. again, no criminal referral. no concern white house as mark levin was talking about suddenly steered to the criminal division or criminal you know to doj. and so you are left with a situation where for every other president in history, there s a process of cooperation, a deference to the president to make that first cut is something presidential or is it personal? bill clinton had numerous recordings in his sock drawer. and basically said i m going to call this stuff personal. and there s deference to that the doj stood there in court in washington, d.c. and said hey, he gets to make the call. and if it takes years, if nara gets frustrated guess what