polarized than it has been in many years, probably since the 1930s. they are not unanimous on many controversial cases. coates: i will say you mentioned tapes, and of course you re talking next in but i was thinking of in georgia. there is a lot by the trump legal team to get rid of that case on the same grounds. if i m immunized one place them immunized another. does that hold water? obviously we re talking about immunity in a federal court citing, does it translate in the states? it depends on what the courts hold. if he is immune from prosecution, he is immune in state court as well. that s why the states in this case are so enormous, because it is not just the january 6th case that s pending in washington. it is also the case in georgia, the r.i.c.o. case there. potentially it is also the new
in particular that this was an aspirational request. that it was just sort of a if you feel like it wanted to do it. i think right now they re just throwing everything at the wall seeing what will stick i think pence really hurts them particularly his statement that donald trump pulled a mere two honest because it certainly seems to suggest that donald trump himself wasn t being honest when he was saying that he won the 2020 election. so i think it really just testing other theories right now they re ways away from trials are trying to figure what works. of course there s a lot of conversation about what the first amendment entails it s more. than just free speech does that hold water to you because certainly you can see trump saying well i m actually doing that right now when i m criticizing the judge in the prosecution.
does that hold water for you, that argument? not really. i think there would need to be i would put a lot more stock in a formal assessment by the intelligence community or other competent executive branch officials to actually make a determination just how serious a revelation this document represents. so, what if it i mean, what if, to his point, what if it was an old document? what if it was just a briefing rather than specific plans? would that make a difference to you? obviously it doesn t sound like it was. an operations plan is a very elaborate document with a lot of attachments in it. it doesn t sound like it was that. but the point here is if it reflected intent, a policy, statement or some sort of implication of a policy statement on the part of the government, then that in itself is pretty serious and has
if it is a planned, i mean a lot of it depends on if it exists, how detailed is it? is it, you know, a fairly rudimentary proposal from mark milley to the president that was outright rejected? does it give very detailed plans? if it is something that happened a few years ago and it is outdated, really it is one of those things that in the legal sense it goes to the jury where they have to look at the document and they have to make a determination as to whether it is national defense information. those that hold water for you, that argument? not really. i think there would need to be, i would put a lot more stock in a formal assessment of the intelligence community or competent executive branch officials to actually make a determination of how serious of a revelation the document