comprising more than 700 pages. some include the highest levels of classification and that, quote, access to the materials is not only necessary for purposes of our ongoing criminal investigation but potential damage control from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported. this letter and what it reveals dovetails with new reporting from the new york times about how many documents the government has now recovered in total. multiple sources tell the new york times that donald trump held on to more than 300 classified documents after leaving office. some of those as we just explained were recovered in january by the national archives. a second set was also in mar-a-lago and was handed over to the justice department in june. the third were found at the fbi, by the fbi in the search a couple weeks ago. that s the latest on what is being reported from the government about the search and here is the latest on what trump s team is saying. they have
Robbery thats burglary, ill get it right. And in this situation youve got somebody really caught in the middle of it, and that doesnt excuse the person from the consequences. Professors, weve talked about abuse of power and bribery. When we started we said we would also discuss obstruction of congress. So i would like to ask you some questions about obstruction of congress. Professor gerhardt, in your view, is there enough evidence here to charge President Trump with the high crime and misdemeanor of obstruction of congress . I think theres more than enough. As i mentioned in my statement, just to really underscore this, the third article of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee against president nixon charged him with misconduct because he had failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. Here it is far more than four
that this president has failed to comply with. And he has ordered the Executive Branch as well not to cooperate with congress. Those together with a
Somebody really caught in the middle of it, and that doesnt excuse the person from the consequences. Professors, weve talked about abuse of power and bribery. When we started, we said we would also discuss Obstruction Of Congress. So id like to ask you some questions about Obstruction Of Congress. Professor gerhardt, in your view, is there enough evidence here to charge President Trump with the high crime and misdemeanor of Obstruction Of Congress . I think theres more than enough. As i mention in my statement, just to really underscore this, the third article of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee against president nixon charged him with misconduct because he failed to comply with four legislative subpoenas. Here it is far more than four that this president has failed to comply with and hes ordered
the Executive Branch as well not to cooperate the congress. Those together with a lot of other evidence suggests Obstruction Of Congress. Professor karlan, do you agree .
of these former aides, including trump s former chief of staff very close, aides are also going to be compelled to testify. what does it tell you about this case that they re building that they are able to really win these various rulings and compel these people to testify? well, the executive privilege arguments that trump has been making with respect to all of these witnesses was always a weak argument. the supreme court ruled a long time ago that when you can demonstrate the need for testimony that that will overcome a claim of executive privilege if it s in the context of a criminal investigation, that s why the january 6th committee didn t have luck with these people. but jack smith is having that luck. what it tells me that they re now moving forward to actually get these people in the room in the grand jury is this is the end of the game. i mean more. meadows and mike pence are the two most important witnesses here who know the most about what actually happened in the days leadi
i think that s significant because what it means is you re going to probably get in the near future a lot of testimony or at least a lot of question and answer sessions before the grand jury from people close to trump. any reaction from trump and his team so far? so nothing too significant at this point. i think what you re starting to see is in some of these executive privilege losses, trump s legal team decided not to appeal. so for instance, in a recent similar decision about the testimony of trump s lawyers, they basically decided not to fight that to a higher court. so we re now in a situation where it looks like the executive privilege arguments keep falling. so therefore, that seems to be the way the cases are going. i thank you very much for being with us. appreciate it.