security documents and show them without security clearance, that, of course, the government will have to prove beyond the government will have to prove beyond a the government will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. so that s .2. beyond a reasonable doubt. so that s 1 now. beyond a reasonable doubt. so that s 1 now. the beyond a reasonable doubt. so that s .2. now, the third thing is absolutely critical. it s full cooperation with any investigation. obstruction ofjustice is very serious obstruction ofjustice is very serious. we saw donald trump obstruct serious. we saw donald trump obstruct arsenic in the russian investigation, he wasn t prosecuted for that investigation, he wasn t prosecuted for that because he was the sitting president for that because he was the sitting president at the time, but the justice president at the time, but the justice department didn t want to prosecute him. but there was obstruction ofjustice and that unfortunately is the pattern
evidence that these two jared and ivanka or jared kushner specifically had access to classified material, but he could have. it s in a bathroom, in a balroom, spilling on the floor. we have no idea who had access to it, no idea why jared kushner got all that money from the saudis. i played that because the think that must keep you awake more than me is what happened to the actual documents, who saw them. i read over the weekend, this new york times terrifying piece, captured killed or compromised. cia admits to losing dozens of informants. the message in an unusual top secret cable said the cia s counterintelligence mission center has looked at dozens of cases in the last several years involving foreign informants who have been killed, arrested or most likely compromised. again, not saying anything to do with trump, but when i hear that story and read this indictment, i worry. do you? i do. i need to be careful not to confirm or deny any particular reporting but it s absolutely con
show tonight. thank you so much for taking the time with me this evening. so, you re the ranking member of house intel. there is a lot we clearly don t know at this point about these documents. what the motivation, was who saw them, how concerned are you about some of those unknowns right now? well, john, i think one of a few things have actually seen a lot of documents that were found at mar-a-lago, i will tell, you obviously can t tell you think about the documents, i can characterize it, when i can tell you is that having seen those documents, i m far more concerned than i was before i saw them. there it was enormously sensitive stuff in what we now know it is instilled boxes and bathrooms. we may never know who had access to this stuff. if it were out in the wild, it would do grave damage to u.s. national security. who gave damage before militias. as i sit here today, jen, i m
tries to never take any action that could be perceived as politically motivated. but if you read this indictment, you really read this indictment, i don t care if you re republican, independent, or democrat there is nothing political in this indictment. this indictment is all about the facts. i assume, because that is the standard for the department of justice, these charges and these allegations would not be in the indictment unless the government feels it has evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt everything it allege there. this is just part different than any matter where the government could be accused of trying to but a thumb on the scale of an election. i think, in fairness, anyone who takes the time to read that will have to agree with that, regardless of what they say for their own political purposes. frank, the other thing i m concerned about, to mary s point, is we don t know who else these documents went to, who saw them, who got them
attorney ed corrigan saw them, we ll, give him no choice, he said. he charged her with deliberately homicide. montana s equivalent of murder. justine purposely went into the wrong way to traffic and smashed head on into another car. by doing so she should have known her actions would ve killed somebody and under those circumstances i think deliberately homicide was a legitimate charge. you decide to charge president, why? she was 16. she was. the taking of two lives is not in my opinion a delinquent act. it is a crime, it easily prosecuted as a crime. if convicted it needs to be on her record for the rest of her life. perhaps because of her own massive injuries and continuing operations, her age. justine, after pleading not guilty, was released to house arrest, and fitted with an ankle bracelet. she was allowed to attend classes a glacier high. at home her parents fumed. no matter what those text