that other election interference case. they re accusing trump s lawyers of exaggerating the time it will take to do this document review. are they right? they re absolutely right. but that s also incredibly common when parties negotiate over when a trial, or anything, is going to happen. one party, to the defendant, will say, no, we need plenty of time. the volumes, stacks and boxes we need to be able to go through. and the prosecution will set, you know, will push back on. that the judge will find a date somewhere in the middle there. so on to take time to get to trial. this is not going to take until 2026 to go to trial. there that some funny business. what do you think, evan, the doj is looking for here in terms of the timeline? look, i think they set an aggressive timeline of january knowing that they re probably not going to get it. but i do think that, you know, from watching that judge, watching judge chutkan on the stage, it is clear that she believes that this case nee
more time, the volume, stacks of boxes we need to go through and the prosecution will set, will push back on. that the judge will find a date somewhere in the middle there, it s going to take time to get to trial, it will not take until 2026 to go to trial. that s some funny business. what do you think the doj is looking for here in terms of timeline? they set an aggressive time of january, knowing that they are probably not going to get it. but i think, watching that judge on the stand, it is clear that she believes this case needs to go to trial, before the election. she believes that this is an important thing for the public, and certainly for voters. i think they believe that they are in a good place to get this trial by early summer. and then, it puts the onus on some of the other judges to try a maneuver around that. if she has a trial date, then some of the other procedural hearings in the other cases are
we ve seen him to be. he s reflectively drawn to the idea of bipartisanship, even if washington does not have an appetite for being bipartisan, but i think the white house will push back on, if they were here, is to say, we passed a big infrastructure bill, so we will be running for and take the presidential record to the country, mitch mcconnell thinks it s good enough to prepare with us, well kevin mccarthy was on vote 347 to become speaker, so i think to the degree to any debate takes place in the white house about what the state of the union will be about, there is an inside and outside the. i think this white house has had the debate and settled on an outside message. they don t really play an inside washington game. they take a message to the country, they probably view this night as you noted with 300 million people watching, to speak outside of washington to the whole country. on the bipartisan ship issue, there is not an appetite from the republican side in washington. i thi
awards for the fake news later this week. spending a lot of his time focussed on that. and so, this comes, this bit of reporting comes at a time that this book is going on, but this reporting is was presented by a very good reporter with solid axios. and this is again an issue that the white house will push back on, but the fact that the president tweets about this so often kind of shows that he is watching a lot of television. and sarah, another thing on president s agenda this week is this first physical since he took office. do you think it s good or bad that it s coming amid the fierce debate over his mental fit kpns. well it could be a good thing for the white house, certainly these are questions that the white house does not want to let linger for a long period of time, they want to put these questions about his mental acuity to bed. it s certainly something that they ve tried to characterize as an inappropriate line of inquiry, but it is improper to question the pres