counsel there will be a protective order in this case, at least for some material, which means the judge said today in open court she will set limits on what butina can do and can t do with the evidence against her that the government has turned up once the government has to hand that over to them so they can prepare their defense. they had this fight today. it definitely lands in a very one-sided way. for us watching this case and thinking about the national significance of this case and how this fits into the bigger existential scandal that looms over this presidency, on the big question of does this dramatic case against this accused russian agent play into the larger scandal involving russia and the election and all the other indictments that have come out, the prosecutors today said yeah, this case is connected. it s connected to other ongoing cases and other potential cases as well. they re saying that s related to why we need to stop her attorney from putting the evidence agains
butina traded sex for a job. that has become unfortunately a big issue in the media. it was proffered you know as proffered in the bonds hearing before. we have no idea what the government s talking about. we don t believe it s true. the government has we presume they could give that part of it to us so we could see what it is. the government has not agreed to do that. they said we can wait for discovery to do that. the judge jumps in, mr. saunders, speaking to the prosecutor now, what s your position with regard to the information mr. driscoll just requested? prosecutor: our position is twofold. one is we want to make sure the protective order is in place before giving over anything and second, we re concerned about to what use anything will be put. if the defense is seeking particular pieces of evidence to take them to the news media we don t want that violation of the local rules. the judge. right. i mean, i think, driscoll, you re certainly entitled to discovery and to know the b
from their parents 2,551 kids between the ages of 5 and 17. they took them away at the border. now, a federal judge, as you know, has ordered the administration to give those kids back. the deadline for the kids ages 5 to 17 is tomorrow. at a hearing in that case yesterday, the justice department said that it has so far on the eve of the deadline only given 1,012 of those kids back to their parents. again, 1,012 kids out of more than 2,500 taken away. as of last night, the night before the deadline, they have only given back less than half. worse than that, the government said last night they were not even going to try to give back more than 900 of these kids. the trump administration now says they have decided that 914 of these kids who they took from their parents are not eligible to be given back to their parents. judicial deadline or not. so what s going to happen to those more than 900 kids who the
tonight that an updated version was sent to the archivist. nobody seems to know what that means. i m here to tell you the white house still has an official transcript of trump and putin s press conference posted on the white house website and it still omits it putin saying he wanted trump to win and i can also tell you that the white house still has a video posted tonight that omits the same thing. so i guess the update is the white house wants to get away with this in the sense they re sticking with their false record of what happened with vladimir putin, but they don t want to be blamed for it while they do it. they don t want anybody to see it as a bad thing even as they keep doing it. so judge for yourself. i m going to go to break right here. we ve got one more segment coming up. as we go to break, i want you to watch this one more time and
to put it onto a hard drive and provide it to defense counsel. judge, okay. bottom line is the government wants to provide this to the defense right away immediately so they can begin to prepare their defense in the courtroom. the problem we re having is, your honor, agreeing on a protective order. a protective order from the government s position is essential, not just for the normal reasons of protecting third parties personal identifying information, but also to protect potential ongoing investigations. and just given the sensitive nature of this case. in our discussion, the question that seems to be overlying the conflict between the two party, to put it frankly, is whether or not the defense counsel wants this information right away so he can prepare for a defense in this court or defense counsel wants this information so they can use it on cable news. the reason i put it that way, your honor, we proposed a basic protective order that says the information can be used for defense