certifications. how significant is that? well, i think it is very significant for two reasons. number one, obviously, if people knowingly signed fraudulent ballots, the array of potential criminality is incredible. we will need to see accountability for that. it is also important, wolf, because people need to understand how coordinated, how planned and how possible it might have been that this coup attempt might have succeeded. if you think about january 6th, which happened in the room that i m standing if right now, or if you think about rudolph giuliani standing in front of the four seasons landscaping, you might say, that was crazy. that wasn t planned. it turns out there was a legal theory. there was pressure put on the vice president who could have gone a different direction in the way he behaved that day. and these ballots, of course, are about creating uncertainty. they probably don t even need to be very good. if a number of people in this
of the information provided by the cabinet office inquiry team, and secondly, my officers own assessment. that s right the police first decided not to investigate, but after receiving information from an investigation by the civil servant sue gray, the police now will investigate. and this is the prime minister s reaction. i welcome the met s decision i to conduct its own investigation because i believe this - will help to give the public the clarity it needs, - and help to draw a line under matters. also on tuesday, when mrjohnson s spokesperson was asked if he thinks he s broken the law, the reply was, i think that s fair to say that he does not. it s also fair to say the opposition has already drawn some conclusions. potential criminality has been found in downing street. what a truly damning reflection on our nation s very highest office. and while mrjohnson s under sustained political attack, his supporters have rallied round.
but on that point on that point, tim, congress realized, of course, the transparency notion, the idea of wanted the american people to be able to see documents and also the idea of potential criminality here. i appreciate the history because it gives us the context we need on this as to why the norm was changed. and let me go back to norm, the norm in this conversation, other than the norms that are often broken here. but let me ask you. first of all, it s one thing to have it changed. but we re talking about some things reportedly as top secret documents. yeah, sure, the president of the united states, as you know, can declassify whatever the president wants. it s sort of the prerogative it s good to be the king in that respect, even though we don t have one. but now he s the former president. what does it mean when there might be top secret or classified documents contained in the possession of even a former president? is the same prerogative still available? it s not good, lau
level. according to to two people familiar with the matter. of particular interest in that post report, it is not clear who packed up the classified materials at mar-a-lago. trump was very secretive of the packing of boxes last month and did not let other aides look at them. according to people close to him. a spokesperson responded in a statement, quote it is clear that a normal and routine process is being weaponized by anonymous, politically motivated government sources to peddle fake news. the only entity to ability to credibly dispute the false reporting, the national archives is providing no comment. the department of justice might look into it. beyond questions of potential
he by the way would later sue and got some of them back. but on that point, congress realized, of course, the transparency notion, the idea of why the american people deal with the c documents and also the idea of potential criminality involved here. and i appreciate the history, because it gives us the context we need on this as to why the norm was changed. and let me go back to norm. the norm in this conversation other than the norms that are often broken here, norm, let pe ask you. first of all, it s one thing to have it changed. but we re talking about some things reportedly as top secret documents? yeah, sure. the president of the united states, as you know, can declassify whatever the president wants. it s sort of the prerogative, it s good to be the king in that respect, even though we don t have one. but now he s the former president. what does it mean when there might be top secret or classified documents contained in the possessions of even a former president? is the same p