wrapped up. thanks for your reporting. let s bring in kim what theically kim wayly to talk about this. are you surprised they took this step? i m not, we ve seen now over almost two years the trump team saying they will return the documents, we have no more documents, as of june there was an attestation that everything had been turned over and then there was the execution of the warrant in august when thousands of documents were found and then as was indicated just recently in the last week or so, additional documents. so, you know, this is the reason this proceeding is sealed is because we re talking about classified information. we re talking about national security. this is really important to broader interests beyond donald trump and i think the justice department is tired of the
gives rise to crimes, people will read that carefully as they should. kim, thank you very much for your expertise today. we really appreciate it. up next here, twitter s new transparency feature after an uproar over a term known as shadow banning. new car replacement, you can get a new one. (customer) that is something else. (burke) get a whole lolot of something with farmers policy perks. we e are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum
in these powerful organizations need to think about is that the message they are sending that abuse doesn t matter. if there are no indictments and there is nobody being arrested and the people who have become accessories to again trafficking us and handing us on a silver platter to larry nasser are not held to account, i don t know what today was for. joining me now to discuss more of what comes next is kim wayly, the professor of law at baltimore school of law, and former u.s. attorney, and so, kim, we heard the powerful sound and heard so much of it yesterday from the victims describing the incredible trauma, and then demanding accountability for it. what does accountability look like from the doj perspective is it more people charged? more agents fired? what is that kind of accountability look like? we know that the inspector general at doj did a huge report
wayly, and kim ruesell who is attorney for planned parenthood. so when the president said he looked at the law, he said that he was not clear if the d.o.j. could do anything with it, so tell us about the argument that the doj could do here, and what are the federal interests that the law could be interfering with. well, all we understand now, geoff, is that this is a civil case, and there is a empty space waiting in the western district docket where it can be filed shortly, and this is a civil case challenging the lawsuit, and not criminal, but there are a number of federal interests at stake here, and they could argue that it is violating the civil rights which the justice department has to uphold for all american citizens and that it is
and no like it is not no rules like criminal proceeding and so if the president, fellow republicans in congress, decide they want to stand by the president, they can. there s no reason why they can t do that. that s certainly what we are seeing right now. according to multiple administration officials, kim, two of the president s allies are informally advising the white house now on the impeachment inquiry, specifically the reported aspects of the testimonies given so far which, by the way, have been in the skiff, right? a secret room. supposed to be kept secret and where they talk about classified information. so are they taking any legal risks by sharing information with the white house? hard to know what they re actually sharing. and the extent to which there are laws that govern that process. the question always is, with all of this, i talk about this in the book, is what are the consequences for violating norms and violating rules?