and gets into congressional nuance here. intelligence committee can get territorial. i wouldn t hold my breath about this briefing. broader picture is extraordinary. todd: this briefing is classified. the 64,000 dollar question, a common person, when does the public find out truth of what is out there? that again is the $2 million question. the short answer is more whistleblowers could come forward and that is what some individuals who are familiar with this story have called catastrophic disclosure, a concept whereby explosive information about ufo retrieval and reverse engineering program
it is pages long, it appears to be holding it up. we hear audio reaction from people who seem to be seeing what he is holding up. presumably, jack smith has the grand jury testimony of every person who was there, and possibly among one or more of those people. jack smith has a description of what donald trump was holding up. if jack smith doesn t have that, then is there a chance that the defense we are hearing from donald trump can work? you know, i don t think there is a chance it can work, lawrence. the 64,000 dollar question is, when jack smith compelled these witnesses to testify, did they tell the complete truth, for did they still feel that sort of pull of loyalty or allegiance, or fear, or whatever it is, i can t say i understand, it that motivates
you know, i don t think there is a chance it can work, lawrence. the 64,000 dollar question is, when jack smith compelled these witnesses to testify, did they tell the complete truth, for did they still feel that sort of pull of loyalty or allegiance, or fear, or whatever it is, i can t say i understand, it that motivates people to stick with donald trump. you know, they may have downplayed it. they could very well have testified that, you know, i didn t get a look at it. i wasn t paying attention to it. now, it can be difficult to try to disprove those things in the grand jury. but that would do, is it would
staff said, he s quoted in saying in an article on the hill, here it is. he says, quote, as a guy who spent 32 years working to create and produce this intelligence for our national policy makers, it was nauseating to see somebody who served as our commander-in-chief as our president treat this material so recklessly. seeing the photographs and boxes on ballroom stages and bathrooms next to it or, let s build out on the, floor because of his carelessness, just made me sick. look, he s a former cia attorney, brian, does the square with what you are hearing from your former colleagues? yeah, i mean, everyone is still joe dropped at how recklessly they handled this information. every one of the cia knows how much effort and sacrifice this created. not only from u.s. government officials, but from the foreign partners. like i talked, about the foreign sources who put their lives on the line to collect this information. and then to see it handled like that is i think truly nauseating for
expenses, which of course, that s false, we know they weren t. each of those entries coul also be its own falsifie business record count. so again, those would be misdemeanor counts, unless you are able to connect it to this further concealing of anothe crime. what could those be? that s a 64,000 dollar question, we don t know. we ll be federal, will it be state. there is reporting that it could be campaign finance law, it could be election law, it could be tax law you know we just don t have th visibility to know what that will look like which might make this judge who has been put in charge o this relevant. because this idea of different kinds of entries in your books your two kinds of books, that something that is been pursued by the course with respect t the trump organization, and is still being pursued by the new york attorney general, letitia james. these things are connected the whole story of how the trump organization and weisselberg and everybody operated it migh be relev