questions, and i think it is important that we recognize that there are there is more information to be released yet. i think releasing the affidavit would help. at least that would confirm that there was justification for this raid. but, remember, this is also a case of where we re going to have more questions as they continue to develop as they look through the information, the material that they have garnered at mar-a-lago. perhaps they will share some of what their concern was, they ll share a little bit about the reason for going in and doing it this way. there will be a question about whether or not they did exhaust, as attorney general garland said, all other means to do this rather than making this unprecedented move on the home of a former president. this is a this is a very historic attempt and a challenge really in with regard to looking at a former president and whether or not they want to bring any kind of charges against him. this is a change and this is
and that it was an informant telling them that that was not the case subsequently that led them to believe they had to go in with a search warrant. can they establish some level of obstruction there if they do they have to establish that donald trump knew that there in fact was material that still had not been obtained? that s a great question, andrea. to prove intent with respect to any defendant you have to show that that person, the lawyer, mr. trump, an aide, somebody else, intended willfully to do a particular act. and so let s talk about the lawyer. if she knew that she was making a false representation to the department of justice, if she knew that, and did it anyway, that could be part of the basis of a crime, of a charge. if she did due diligence, but didn t do it well, if she thought she was telling the department of justice the truth, but was wrong, being wrong, making a mistake, is not the basis of the crime. did someone mislead her?
for months and months they tried to get cooperation, didn t they take every step they could have taken? i think the last part of your question is probably very important. i think it would be good for the justice department to release some of the information about the extraordinary steps or the steps they did take to try to cooperate with the former president. i also think this will bring into question one constitutional issue that has not been talked about, and that is whether or not a president can declassify or classify certain items. i think constitutionally back in 1988 there was a supreme court decision u.s. navy versus egan in which they actually talked about whether or not a a president could classify and declassify and it never really has been litigated, but it appears a president can classify or perhaps declassify information. and if that s the case, then the question would be, and i think it will be litigated as this moves forward, whether or not
0 man that wants to see a house who is single. every time. i could have been a victim. i was an intended victim. that this sunday, the fbi s mar-a-lago search. upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly, without fear or favor. fbi agents remove 11 sets of classified documents from donald trump s florida home, including top secret files. after attacking the fbi for the search the fbi raid of president trump is a complete abuse and overreach of its authority. it is joe biden s doj, and they have weaponized this fbi at every turn. some republicans tone down their rhetoric. you would think there would be an adult in the republican room that would say, just calm down, see what the facts are. what s in those documents? why did mr. trump keep them? and was national security compromised? my guests this morning, democratic senator amy klobuchar and republican senator mike rounds. plus, what kind of legal jeopardy could the former president face? i ll talk to nbc
week, you re here today and we re grateful. vindman, we have attacks on your character and watched personalities on fox question your loyalty. i note that you have shed blood for america and we owe you an immense debt of gratitude. i hope no one on this committee will become part of those vicious attacks. today s witnesses like they testified were temperatursubpoe here, not because they were for or against impeachment. that question is for congress not the fact witnesses. if the president abuses his power and invited foreign interference into the election if they are conducting investigations to aide his reelection campaign and by doing so with official acts, or hundreds of mp millions in military aid, it will be up to us to decide if those acts are