political opponent. it raises two questions of historic con kwens. does this put us one step closer to criminal charges against president trump? and could he after hinting as recently as this past weekend going to run for reelection be barred from holding off ever again? these are questions not only facing him, but also his mote fervent supporters. we saw a bit of their anger when a small group of protesters gathered after the news broke. and republican senator tim scott of south carolina reminded us of this. certainly as the largest voice of republican or democrat will continue to be the more focus you put on him, the more likely supporters will rally around him. meanwhile on capitol hill, a furious reaction from some other big name republicans. right after the news broke, house minority leader kevin mccarthy threatened an investigation in writing against attorney general merrick garland and the justice department. and just this morning, nbc news learned that more than a
analyst. you broke the story happening back in january. i thought about that when this first broke yesterday. i thought so why are they going back now. do we have a clue? it s a really good question. it s thee question what exacly the fbi was looking for when they executed their search warrant yesterday. we know initially in january at the end of january after extensive back and forth between the national archives and lawyers to former president trump that 15 boxes were eventually recovered. a combination of classified items and classified items that inventory is 100 pages long detailing the very things that were improperly taken to mar-a-lago and not archived inned a heernsz to the presidential records hah act.
for that at the ballot box. i think people expect an honest and fair trial and depoliticize it as much as possible. i will tell you that is very difficult afteru watching the house for a bit this evening. the bottom line is i think the american people expect our government to work. here for our leadoff discussion on a wednesday night, philip rucker, bureau chief for the washington post ashley parker, pull and mika o.yang. good evening and welcome to all three of you. tonight mark meadows is urging donald trump to add alan dershowitz as a member of the white house legal team. thee question is, does this presume a vacancy, a need, or a deficiency on said white house legal team? well, it assumes that the
counsel, and yet, you know i heard illegal commentators say oh, this is conclusive evidence now of obstruction of justice. in what legal world does that exist? you have to be ignoring the decision, not just the attorneyy general, but the lawyers in thet esteemed office of legal counsel, not to mention all the doj lawyers, whs investigation, and who concluded he did not establish obstruction of justice. sean: gregg, you ve been part of this. you ve been up to your eyeballsa few others. hee question is here, we now have the evidence. there is no ambiguity here, as i ve been saying all night. do you have faith that they can literally charge their own? because that s the big question. matt: i ve met with the attorney general, and i have every confidence that he is
unfortunately, you know, the next question for me is i know the law enforcement has indicated many of the kids didn t know what their parents were doing. what about the t ones who did? what about the ones who were given more time to take a test when they didn t have a learning disability? what about the ones who were given the answers to an s.a.t. test or, you know, who knew that someone else was taking the test for them. if those things did happen which, you know, the fbi has said they did, then it raises thee question as to whether or not those children will be charged. there are other college students who have been charged with other crimes in the past. once they sign the forms, there s a question of responsibility and consequences there.