taken. they made public the warrant and receipt in light of the former president s public confirmation of the search, the surrounding circumstances and the substantial public interest in this matter. reporter: on friday, some details of those documents were revealed. fbi agents removed more than 20 boxes of materials as well as binders of photos and at least one handwritten note. according to the property receipt, seizing one set of, quote, top secret csi documents, four sets of, quote, top secret documents, three sets of, quote, secret documents, and three sets of confidential documents. but neither the released warrant nor property receipt detailed the contents of those classified documents. however, sources familiar with the investigation told the washington post that documents about nuclear weapons were among the items sought. the search warrant did identify three federal crimes the justice department is looking at as part of the investigation. v violations of the e
chance that the ideas raised in that oval office discussion would rise to the level of a crime, and if so, what would they be? hey, abby, good to be with you. well, it s interesting. there were a mix of lawyers and nonlawyers at that meeting. and so right off the bat you have a problem with privilege, keeping it confidential. you can have strategy sessions with lawyers. you can spitball ideas. you can talk about the past and developing a defense. what you can t do is potentially talk about future crimes, right? it cannot be a strategy session for doing wrong in the future. and having lawyers there does not protect it and make it privileged. so what it sounds like is, the special counsel is digging into whether there were potential crimes effectively being plotted at that meeting. and whether you call it seditious conspiracy or something similar, it s
to finally go down and get these documents? that s a much more appropriate question than, well, are they really classified or not? that s not the right one. steve? you know, i think the point is really on target. we do have to know what s in there and i think the collector, stuff david and i used to do, we look less at, is it confidential, secret, top secret? what we re concerned about is what lives are being put at risk? that s just for the human intelligence side. if you re looking from the signals intelligence side, the question becomes which of these documents that were in a basement someplace in a hotel, which of these documents compromise a technical collection capability, which is critical? at the end of the day it s about the systems and people providing the u.s. government intelligence and intelligence that protects our national security. that s really the bottom line here. david, and i know you know you say this is not exactly the most important question, whether it was
if he makes a statement to the fbi it s can go into a 302 which is an fbi in her view report. it will be handed to the senate. what they do with it is their decision. it s difficult to guarantee any kind of confidentiality of anything they said. it s great to hear that they re going to cooperate. i do think it s important that we hear from him through an fbi interview. but as far as it keeping it confidential that will be difficult. once he starts speaking it s fair game. senator flake who had drawn the attention for calling to this argument should be limited in scope. here is something from bernie sanders he sent the following letter on saturday. he said a fundamental question the fbi can help you answer is whether he has been truthful with the committee this goes to the very heart of whether he should be confirmed to the court. how broad of a scope will they be looking at will they look
companies, a, how possible is it that the chief financial officer wouldn t have known about a data breach at company whose business it is to keep information. b, when you were at the fdic what rules were there when a company knew it had some danger about selling stock? of the it really does raise if they didn t know about it it raises questions about what their internal controls were to provide notification to senior management of a breach of that size. either way they don t look good. i think they should give back untoward profits they got by selling them, if we are going to talk about compensation as well. no, banks are not perfect. i think cyber security is one area where bank regulators and banks they have recognized for decades this is a big issue. bank have highly sensitive information. it s in their interests to coop it confidential. you would have to have controls around notification, multiple