he and his legal team were arguing that s immune to such legal repercussions, but this federal judge yesterday in this 112-page ruling is saying the former president is not immune. he says that trump knew exactly what he did on january 6th, everything he said, saying in this ruling that the former president s speech was akin to telling an excited mob that corn dealers starved the poor in front of the corn dealer s home. lindsey, there s a lot to unpack and develop in this case but for the most part, this federal judge said there is enough discovery in this case to move forward towards the next phase. all right, allie raffa, thank you so much. for more on this, i m joined by cynthia oxie, former msnbc analyst and barbara res, author of tower of lies, what my 18 years of working with donald trump reveals about him. so cynthia, we ll start with you
here. david laufman, oversaw the investigation into secretary clinton s use of private email said this. it is not conducting a criminal investigation into trump s stash of classified documents at mar-a-lago. is this serious enough for the doj to act, cynthia? sure it is and the national archives has been in touch with them. i find it hard to believe they aren t doing it. the presidential records act as you noted doesn t have really an enforcement mechanism because when they wrote the law, they didn t really guess that presidents would be ripping up pages and flushing them down the toilet but there are other statutes that are in play here and they are felonies, depending on the value of the documents. so my guess is that there is no escape for the justice department, as much as they don t want to be involved in the politics of the day. this looks like an investigation that s going to go forward, and remember, they have 15 boxes of
let s play what he once said about people who do that. you see the mob takes the fifth. if you re innocent, why are you taking the fifth amendment? so barbara, what do you think he ll do? you know, the fifth amendment is kind of tricky. i don t know about civil cases how all of that works, and in a crimical case, of course he s going to take the fifth amendment because anything he says that is truthful will, in fact, incriminate him. as far as this attitude about only the mob takes the fifth, i mean, you know, it s his projection. it s what he always does. i would never do something when actually that is what he s doing. cynthia, the legal question we kind of set you up there, first of all, would this be a risky strategy to plead the fifth? how could it come back to potentially bite him and how significant would it be for a former president to plead the ifivity? in the scope of history t seems shocking a president would