circle are mark meadows and certainly mike pence. and so i think the anticipation that these sorts of obstacles will be thrown in their way, i think they certainly anticipated that. that is part of our process. i think, you know, it is the goal is to delay more than anything else if something happens to stick, great. but i do think it will have an impact. but i think it s certainly something that in the special counsel s office they ve been well aware of prior to this time. if i can just follow up on the timeline issue in all of this. i was talking to elie honig and talking about how because of these what trump is trying to attempt with executive privilege with what the former vice president is not wanting to testify himself, this process could drag out for such a long period of time that a situation may emerge where trump is not only running for president but perhaps on the cusp of starting to win some primaries. and how does that make things
may have overplayed their hand a bit on was that so much time was spent on the fraud, the financial, that you re going to see the closing argument from the defense that this is really a fraud case, and they re trying to turn it into a murder case. that is going to get some play with the jury. jessica, what do you think? i think the prosecution is actually going to hammer the timeline, i think they re going to talk a lot about the defendants lie about not being at the kennels, and continuing that lie until he was confronted. and that timeline issue, with the prosecutor brought up effectively before, when you lay out what the defense is suggesting based on the timeline, it does seem somewhat ludicrous. i think that s why the prosecution is going to hammer the timeline, to go to hammer the lie that is so critical, showing consciousness of guilt. i think they re going to say that the jury can t trust anything the defendant said on the stand because of his proven history of lying to
pardons then all those folks have reportedly asked for pardons said not me, not me. would they want to respond to something? could it be something that clear cut or do you think it s probably more likely to be something new? well, i think it s going to be something new but it could be something new related to what was discussed in the last hearing. so it s going to be something new. they wouldn t go on and say we have something. if it s new and it s related, it s going to be something so certain, so concrete that it s going to nail somebody in the midst of this in a way that wasn t clear as clear before. but again, this moment, i have to say, and we were going to talk about the politics, this moment coupled with roe versus wade, with the january 6th, commission, is the perfect storm of problems for the republican party right now. i want to get to that in a minute, but adrian, there is a timeline issue. we ve talked for a long time about when could they get a
they ve already got psas running across arkansas. listen to one of the most foremost pediatric experts on vaccine messaging. we haven t had that national training in vaccine communication off our health care providers. that has to be a part of vaccine communications interventions. we have to work with pediatric providers to make sure that the safety and efficacy message is communicated, but also they re there to answer questions. so, craig, the white house estimates they can bring in about 25,000 pediatricians through this program for that type of messaging, training. and here s the concern. the good news is two-thirds of parents say they do want to ultimately get their kids vaccinated. however, only one-third say they want to do that immediately. now, we ve got a timeline issue here, because we ve already seen a major surge in the devastating impacts of that of children
christopher steele and paid him to compile his now infamous dossier. they have written a book telling their side of the story. it s called crime and progress, inside the steele dossier. and glen simpson and peter join me now. here s what i think is the most interesting about what you say in the book and the hardest i think for people to believe. so i want to give as much credit as possible for your critics. their theory of the case is you re being paid by the clinton campaign through the clinton campaign lawyer, and you ve then commissioned this ex-british intelligence official who s got the russian sources and looks into the stuff that happens with russia. obviously the clinton campaign is going to learn about that because you re working for them. and your contention in this book is that the firewall is so thick they had no idea about the stuff that s happening on the start of the project. that s not quite it. i mean, first of all, there s a timeline issue, which is that we