way that they know who this informant might be if there is one? no, they don t say who this person might be and how that person might have come to know that information. the feature of mar-a-lago and of trump world, as you know, is that there weren t a lot of checks on people coming and going in that circle. so there s just many, many people, we ve been making calls, and there s a number of people that come to mind when you talk to people about who this could be. the idea, kim, of who could ve had access, who could ve seen something in some way, or have been witness to something, is really curious here. as evan points out, this investigation, the timeline alone, has been going on for over a year. there was a june of this year, june meeting at mar-a-lago, between trump s lawyers. and then this search happened. something had to have happened in that time to go from this conversation, the idea of discussions happening to an unannounced execution of a search warrant at the es
focus on. because it could bear a national security. and the last point i would make is, you know, unless this goes to trial after indictment, we might not see, because merrick garland is so tightlipped, we don t know, and there certainly energy from team trump to start circulating different narratives here, and until it comes out in the justice department directly, or in evidence in a court of law, i m not so sure we should worry so much about what we re hearing. i m really glad the reorient it away from the idea and focusing on the messenger as opposed to what they may have seen and what may have gotten the affidavit in the first place. i know you worked on the whitewater mastication as well, you mentioned merrick garland being tightlipped, do you think it s important for the doj to come out and say something and explain what they ve done? i don t, actually. i think in this moment, there s so much information misinformation, there s no way the good guys could manage the message t