addressed the unprecedented indictment friday. we have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone. if applying those laws, collecting facts, that s what determines the outcome of an investigation. nothing more and nothing less. paul: joining me now is the former attorney general of the united states, michael mukasey. judge mukasey, good to see you. so you ve read the indictment. how strong is it? well, if the facts set forth in there are provable, and a great deal of it indicates that they clearly are, it is very strong. a lot of the evidence comes from his own lawyer who was compelled to testify over a claim of attorney-client privilege based on conversations he had with donald trump that show that he knew that he had classified information. there was, there are two instances in which he met with people on the outside, one a writer, the other a fundraiser. and showed them classified information and said that he knew that he had it and knew that it was cl
january 6th select committee hearings, judge luttig called out donald trump and his cronies as a clear and present danger to american democracy. you will recall that when the disgraced twice impeached four times indicted ex-president was pressuring mike pence to help him overturn the 2020 election results, pence in his moment of legal need called judge luttig for advice and in no uncertain terms he told mike pence that legally and constitutionally he could not help trump do what he wanted to do. now judge luttig is sounding the alarm again, about another constitutional question. does trump s role in the insurrection, not just make him a really, really bad choice to be the commander in chief, but does it actually bar him from ever holding office again? judge luttig argues that under the 14th amendment trump is actually prohibited from ever being the president again. judge luttig s legal theory is being adjudicated in multiple courts in multiple states right now. judge luttig h
the thugsjfi] and criminals areçócorrupting our justice system, xdhe s rallying his supporters as another legal probe, the special counsel criminal investigation intensifies.e1xdxdr i ll talk to trump s attorney joe tacopina and preet bharara. your platform should be banned. tiktok ceo faces bipartisan ( skepticism that the app may be used for spying by the chinese government. has indeed spied on americaná citizens? i don t think that spying is the right way to describ wit. can the biden adóilistration ban the most downloaded app on the planet?5a■xdw3lpe1lpe1ñri] fá and parental w3permission. as was, utah decidest( to target all of 5$%1■ media and becomes the first state in the nation to restrict how children use it.i] we have a responsibility to protect our young people. i ll talk to republi#pf governor spencer cox who signed this new law regardi consent for minors usq media apps. joining me for insight and e9 correspondent yamiche alcindor.1 jak
writer, the other a fundraiser. and showed them classified information and said that he knew that he had it and knew that it was classified. so it was not s it is a strong indictment. and it also shows that he was trying to avoid having his own lawyer find the documents so as to avoid turning them over to the fbi. paul: as i understand it under the espionage act, the portion he was charged under, requires the willful retention of documents that you know you shouldn t have. is that the key part of in this indictment that would make it a provable case in court in is that essential? that is essential. and the evidence that s pleaded in the indictment suggests that it was willful. i think that there s a kind of subtext here that was pleaded as opposed to simply the gross negligence standard in order to make sure that this is
if you re alvin bragg, how hard of a case is this going to be? i don t know all the facts and i don t know what evidence they have and i don t know what■ testimony the grand jury has been, and i don t think a2÷ody is saying it s a slam dunk case and i don t think anyone is ñiçó sayino3 it s an open and shut matter. the way i hear it, wow, it soundings like they need a mediator. i think you have it exactly right. it s a provable case. you have challenges like in any case and issues credibility with respect to michael cohen who is a key witk case.xdáhr the xdçóñi violation, that s not the instruction the judge is going to give. nobody s maybe he ll be able to persuade the jury not withstanding the judge, but insofar as even a little bit of the motive was related to personal embarrassment. that s not campaign finance violation, that s not the law as i know it and it s not the instruction that the judge is $= nobody s saying it s an easy, easy case. i will make another po