so, these sedition cases which can hit convicts with 20 years in prison on top of whatever other crimes they re convicted of, are a huge deal, rarely pursued. and that is the factual context for the garland donl to go at them, through the book at them. aggressive. sedition. that means the doj says it has the evidence that was more than violence, more than plots, that it was coordinated, trump boosting plot against the united states government was it was the violent muscle of the coup to overthrow the election. the doj having hard evidence on tape. the proud boys established a command structure in anticipation of coming back to d.c. on january 6th. you better get your [ bleep ] to d.c., folks, this saturday. if you don t, there will be no more republic, or we wind up in a bloody fight women all know
to have it both way, claiming it s up to the donl but the president supports freedom of the press. what is your response to the message in some corners that prosecuting assange is an assault on freedom of the speech, freedom of the press? i would again reiterate that this is a case that s still ongoing, it s under the purview of the department of justice. broadly speaking outside of this case, that the president has been an advocate for freedom of speech, freedom of press. outside of the case. outside of this case, here s our view. that s the key line there. of course that was then press secretary jen psaki, now at msnbc. and here s the thing about law it is built on cases. you get a precedent, jailing a publisher in one case, it will be easier in the next case and the one after that. i promise you that. go to law school, it s three
department guidelines this idea that when there are cases of public interest that dictates whether or not you should speak to something. i think he was certainly aware that given the significance of the event again, we re also stunned over the past three or four days to just step back and say the fbi searched the residence of a former president still shocks. so, based on that, i think appropriately my guess is he zuded it was appropriate to say something, particularly in light of i mean, there were senators. there are senators, united states senators, claiming or suggesting that fbi agents perhaps were planting evidence. people who should know better, responsible people who set the tone of discourse in the american public discourse. they these statements are wildly irresponsible. so, i think the attorney general saw an important need to do it but did so in a way that was very tailored to the guidelines that donl has to follow. and, again, provided enough
by saying as a member of the committee i know nothing more. i m not directly involved in donl s process of ongoing investigations. so i m learning. i ve actually learned new details as you continue to report in the last hour. my immediate reaction is in his statement president trump has said nothing like this has ever happened before. it truly is unprecedented, but it s unprecedented because this is in reaction to an unprecedented presidency. the list is so long. i m sure your viewers are well aware of all of those facts. even today more things. we see torn up pieces of paper in a toilet, another reporting of one of his aides saying he had eaten documents. chairman of the joint chief milly s comments about things that happened at the end of the last administration. unprecedented response is required to these unprecedented actions that where we need to
threatened to quit, as we know from jared kushner s testimony, he threatened to quit and he has been invoked with other pieces of evidence far beyond jeffrey clark. he doesn t want to talk about advice or conversations he had with the president. and he didn t want to talk about the january 6th coup plot and that s where my understanding the negotiations with pat cipollone fell apart. and there is no fifth amendment privilege against talking to congress. it is only against being indicted, prosecuted for what you said. to assert that. so then why does eastman invoke the fifth when he is talking to congress. they can t indict. exact limit because he has the reasonable and foreseeable expectation, as you say they re under oath and end up at the donl and every reason to believe that nicole s point that eventually it will so i would just note that it is possible they want a little more time and the government, the government does that from time to time but