there, with president trump, when he said we are declassifying this information. so far, the trump legal team has not actually made that claim in court. it is just a story that kash patel and donald trump like to tell from time to time. which is why, among other things, a lot of people would like to ask kash patel a lot of things under oath. and now, tonight, just before we got on the air, the wall street journal wrote the news but back a, posh patel, will not testify in the mar-a-lago case in exchange for immunity. catch patel, a close associate of former president donald trump, is set to soon testify before a federal grand jury classified documents at mar-a-lago after receiving immunity for his information. that, according to people familiar with the matter. mr. patel appeared before the grand jury last month that refused to provide information by repeatedly invoking his fifth amendment right against self incrimination. that was then, but this is now. the journal reports the immuni
not testify in the mar-a-lago case in exchange for immunity. catch patel, a close associate of former president donald trump, is set to soon testify before a federal grand jury classified documents at mar-a-lago after receiving immunity for his information. that, according to people familiar with the matter. mr. patel appeared before the grand jury last month that refused to provide information by repeatedly invoking his fifth amendment right against self incrimination. that was then, but this is now. the journal reports the immunity grant leaves the government only able to charge patel, if it, all using information obtained independently of his immunized testimony. so if cash patel incriminate sums off and testifying about the mar-a-lago document scandal, he won t go to jail. if he does go to jail, it ll be for other things. the wall street journal also reports that other trump associates involved in the mar-a-lago documents matter also have been offered some form of immunity, inclu
classified documents after receiving immunity for his information. that, according to people familiar with the matter. mr. patel appeared before the grand jury last month and refused to provide information by repeatedly invoking the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. that was then and this is now. the journal reports that immunity grant leaves the government only able to charge patel using information obtained independently of his immunized testimony. so if he incriminates himself and testifying about the mar-a-lago documents scandal, he won t go to jail. if he does go to jail, it will be for other things. the wall street journal also reports that other trump associates also have been offered some form of immunity including one of mr. trump s lawyers, kristina bob who said she didn t need it. we don t know exactly what the justice department wants to ask kash patel or why they went to such lengths.
watergate case, all of the information that the watergate committee gathered, wanda being brought to our office. we didn t bring information to their office. so, this is not unusual, it is not unusual to have two parallel investigations that have different objectives. as you have here. so that is a tension that is going to exist, while in the watergate situation, the tension was exasperated by the fact of the committee there actually provided immunity grant to certain people. hair, the committee has not immunized anybody. basically it has left it to the department of justice to do that. so i think this is all being done just the way we would expect it to be done. it is being done the right way. well that is both reassuring and also daunting to think about. history repeating itself in that particular way. nick. thank you. also the violent ask you this question because, look, we know that secretary of state. the former secretary of state mark pompeo testified before the committee. we w
then sk squelched. is there reason to believe that he as the cfo of the trump organization will be queried about that? is it just about these payments? that s why this is particularly interesting because if it is about cohen and if it is about the payments, that doesn t make a lot of sense because cohen s already been got. cohen s already pleaded guilty. he s no longer really of interest in terms of securing a conviction for the government. so why move on to weisselberg? it can only mean to give that grant of immunity that the information he has is so valuable it logically extends beyond payments that cohen has already testified to. now of course the government needs corroboration, they do need someone if addition to cohen saying these payments were made. they have a tape, maybe that helps them but it doesn t make sense that they would give weisselberg immunity for just securing more of a conviction against michael cohen who s already been convicted. the implication is that this immu