hundred, thousands in days. you hit exactly on the issue. the numbers get huge very quickly. because you have e-mail chains, e-mail chains that slit off with different conversations. sometimes you get an e-mail and foe whole chain to one other person. and two of you an an e-mail that originally had a conversation on the side. each of the eails is generally a separate document. and so that s how these numbers, 4 million is not surprising to me if you were going to raid a law office that you would get that many, particularly electronic files. every text, phone call, all all that stuff is going to create its own document in the system. these days it s a lot easier. most of it is electronically searchable. you can do word searches. it doesn t strike me as a crazy durham of documents in a law office. what about the percentage of documents that are privileged. the impression we have is a lot of this stuff is privileged.
across state lines so that the public doesn t know how or where $11,000 in taxpayer money was spent? abide by the constitution, in the full light of day, in front of everybody like our justice system s supposed to. missouri officials were accused of buying drugs from a compounding pharmacy named the apothecary shop in tulsa, oklahoma. e-mail chains also revealed secret agreements between the apothecary shop and prison officials in georgia. where the pharmacy was also unlicensed to do business. it s almost a cloak and dagger way of trying to get drugs to use for executions. i think the real reason for the secrecy happening now is states are at the end of their ropes so to speak.
$11,000 in taxpayer money was spent? abide by the constitution, in the full light of day, in front of everybody like our justice system s supposed to. missouri officials were accused of buying drugs from a compounding pharmacy named the apothecary shop in tulsa, oklahoma. e-mail chains also revealed secret agreements between the apothecary shop and prison officials in georgia. where the pharmacy was also unlicensed to do business. it s almost a cloak and dagger way of trying to get drugs to use for executions. i think there are reason for the secrecy happening now is states are at the end of their ropes sort to speak. they ve tried everything. this is like their last-ditch effort to proceed with executions. with less than 24 hours to go, the oklahoma supreme court agreed to hear susanna s argument and granted clayton lockett anarles warner a
do you have concerns about document retention in the case of this white house given what hope hicks is alleged to have said? of course. you always have a question about that. but the point is, a lot of people were on those e-mail chains. so it might be a lot more difficult than it was, for example, in watergate preinternet, pree-mail to destroy everything. really interesting. elizabeth holzman and paul butler, so great to have both of you. coming up, the increasing drum beat to #release the memo and the increasing likelihood it may be a dud. one of the house intel democrats one of the people who obviously sits next to devin nunes joins me next.
threatens someone with if he s already charged him with a crime and the person isn t cooperating and the way the prosecutor would like, you say i m going to charge you with a whole bunch of other new crimes which reportedly is what mueller said to richard gates. so he gets a new attorney which to me suggests he s cooperating or strongly considering cooperating. he could bring down manafort who obviously he s indicted with who was his business associate and again, manafort, hicks, these are all people who obviously are on the way to the big target here which is the president of the united states. final question for you because there was a fight about what documents particularly in the case of tapes the white house had, and they lied about it. and they have fought in the court to not give them up. do you have concerns about document retention in the case of this white house given what hope hicks is alleged to have said? of course. you always have a question about that. but the point