you see it in georgia. this is something that is incredibly dangerousichigad. he attorneys general across the country think that they can do this. but let thinkthat they cas forg are people who ran on creating a crimete, matching the presidet to the crime and then putting him in prisoe n. and now you have the president of the united states going, gosh, lookpresid, he is now he a convicted felon and now you have to vote for md feloe. i i mean, this is one step away from alexei navalny. this is a very serious t situation when you have the president of thewhen you united states taking his opposition and jailing them. what se the next?is and you re seeing this like i said, you are seeing this in other states as well, where they are either finding, oh, this person will be my oppositio t thisn. cre i m going to create a crime and match them to it, or they re takingate an people who have run and said, look, we want to make sure that they wa do it againin and we re going to find a crime and m
trace: they were talking about a unilateral gag order if you will earlier and wondering it seems unfair that the drones are going after the former formr president while michael cohen can do is podcast or appear on msnbc. stormy daniels can speak all she wants. it just seems like it s uneven. you have heard him make arguments the hu former presidet did it s an attack on his first amendment speech they know it s a strong argument they say they will take it all the way. whether that means ends up in supreme court on a constitutional issue, we will see. they have a hearing scheduled for tuesday before the jury was fully seated to talk about violations but the term defense team says it s a first a first amendment free-speech issue and they will fight it from that vantage point. sandra: thank you, shannon they could for joining us on breaking news we will be watching all of it of course. thank you. thanks, guys.
everyone s going to discuss the case. ssand i think this motion is toe deaf. and that says, look, i don t agredeafe with what the presidet has been posting. i think that that posting thatpp noted was really ill advised and it couldn t have come at a worse time. but i think there s a poine ist that if you re going to trygoin the leading republican candidate forential e the presidency during the presidential election,will c he s going to have to be able: to talk about this case. ifif you have a president now that won t talk voters and theni you have a presidential candidate who the mediala and te prosecutors won t let talk to voters, how are we supposed to decide who to vote for? professor turley and i w understand i answer that, buhy t i also understand why he posted this. he s trying to push the envelopes trying to here bf he gets slapped with a gag order, he s not ableit to speeches. they re going to throw him in jail for giving a speecspeech about a trial. wel
the documents and they became declassified. speaking of, let s listen to part of his explanation of why he believe d the former presidet that he had per view over these documents. this is from the cnn town hall. why did you take those documents with you when you left the white house? i have every right to under the presidential records act. i was there. i took what i i took. it gets declassified. do you still have documents in your possession? are you ready? do you? no, i don t have anything. i have no classified documents. they become automatically declassified when i took them. you were telling me as we were hearing from paula reid that some of that is not totally crazy. it s really not crazy. there s no supreme court case on this, but this case, if they move forward, will come down to the issue of whether a president can declassify documents i m talking about a sitting president, not a former president. the entire authority to