You know, just typical government official type planning. what all post government officials are treated to. i can fit you in, i m running over but you get the last word. one other thing about the sealed witnesses thing. it was opposed by the press because of transparency, and judge cannon s order seems to want to say she wants to be more transparent. that s a huge sign. i would like to see this trial televised, live, audio and video in realtime, and her ruling suggests maybe she s open to that. i m glad you raised that as the final point. she has made rulings that were rightly controversial, but we have to follow each motion and see where we go. this is a motion for transparency, it was procedurally a little bit against smith but not the biggest deal to him and that team. and we re going to be tracking it. neal and kristy, thank you both.
They wanted to file it under seal. just going to the other side, and here s the headline, denying prosecution from smith for filing the list of witnesses at the trump can t speak under seal. the federal judge presiding over the criminal prosecution of trump, denying a request to file under seal. the immediate effect of the ruling is the list of 84 witnesses who may testify against trump at trial will go public, instead of just to the defense teams. i m curious what you think of that new ruling, neal. to me, the most important ruling is the one you didn t mention, which is she said there will be a hearing on the classified information procedures act in july. now, i have to interrupt, neal, we did briefly mention that in the previous set up, but go ahead. of course. you re always ahead of me, ari, but that to me is consistent with the government s time line of a trial beginning in december. judge cannon seems to be buying into that, and i don t think jack smith was taking a delay. i think that the interim date
Protecting donald trump, you re bound to witness some questionable behavior. yeah, neal, what do you think jack smith s approach is because as i emphasized, he has the very special portfolio of did anyone commit a crime who wasn t physically storming the capitol? the answer may be no. the answer may be they find the evidence doesn t lead to a criminal standard to what people sort of did off site or conversely the answer could be for people like giuliani, eastman, sidney powell, others, really did eventually cross a line of conspireing of exhorting people to knowingly interfere with this federal proceeding and/or we re just on the hook enough for active future crimes like elector fraud, and the fact that none of those resonate with the american public as oh, yeah, that happened, and then pence did this, and then we lost our democracy, right, they didn t pull it all off. that legally doesn t matter for whether there s a charge there,
You committed a very serious federal crime. right. so the charges that they re looking at are conspiracy charges, which all you have to do for a conspiracy is agree to take some criminal action, and take some step in furtherance of that criminal action, so even if they did not actually obstruct the congressional proceeding, they conspired, they agreed to obstruct that proceeding. you know, the same with whether or not they conspired to defraud the united states with this fake elector scheme where you see the forged documents. i mean, these are great documents that any prosecutor dreams of where you have just blatant forgeries, but neal is absolutely right. you re going to be looking at all of the witnesses who are close to this, people who were in the front seat, people who are in the oval office. the, you know, former state officials, the former campaign officials, chief of staff, vice president, these are people who
Looking at a subset of this conduct, the fake electors scheme in georgia, and she has already forecasted her timing, which is late july, early august. so i think we re going to see charges coming and i think they will be the next month or so. i think he s going to want to try to get ahead of georgia, if he can. super interesting because then we have the actual time line in the docs case. i told neal, i always try to be direct with folks. we re juggling more than one update here. we mentioned, interestingly, you would think smith would want the fastest trial for the reasons ms. greenberg told us, he s asking for the december trial, later than the judged ruled based on the evidence mentioned. he was asking to keep the witness list secret. as journalists and others, we re diagnose to get our hands on it because it will tell us part of the plan. we know it will be apparently about 80 witnesses. but in a ruling today, jack smith lost his effort to keep that secret from the public.
A good point, ari, maybe we can avoid this issue entirely. i don t even need to see these 84 witnesses right now, so maybe we can sidestep the issue. she s not giving it a firm no to the government right now. she s saying tell me more. tell me more if you really want to justify filing it under seal, and this is not to be clear for folks, this is not something that s going to make or break the case, as neal reminds us, they didn t even oppose t. we have been following every step, and those of us following and reporting on it would obviously love to have, we talk about cameras in the courtroom, we would love to have the full list as soon as possible. and it s a standard condition of bail for a criminal defendant to not talk to others who are witnesses in the case, and typically that list of names, those are public for any other criminal defendant unless there s some security reason or special reason not to gl. i m guessing just to press
The economy in the best way they can, but the economy in the best way they can, but there is only so much steam in the can, but there is only so much steam in the engine can, but there is only so much steam in the engine- can, but there is only so much steam in the engine. only so much steam in the engine. in the engine. only so much steam in the engine. you in the engine. only so much steam in the engine, you said in the engine. only so much steam in the engine, you said it in the engine. only so much steam in the engine, you said it all. in the engine. only so much steam in the engine, you said it all. neal- in the engine. only so much steam in the engine, you said it all. neal in . the engine, you said it all. neal in manchester. the engine, you said it all. neal in manchester- the engine, you said it all. neal in manchester. ., . . manchester. good morning. i have an additional idea. manchester. good morning. i have an additional idea. they manchester. good morning. i have an additional idea. they are manchester. good morning. i have an additional idea. they are putting - additional idea. they are putting interest rates at which affects everybody, obviously it affects the poorest 60 70% of the people already struggling through the cost of living crisis. 50 instead of putting interest rates up, there are so convinced consumers are spending too much money, which is adding to inflation, why don t they instead put income tax up to the richest
Actually be a significant concern here in terms of this case actually making it to trial. because, though, neal rightfully points out n this case it is very strong case that the doj is making. it s very straightforward. it s very simple. there are off-ramps, if you will, fors, her. and they suggest that, you know, the doj may have in its back pocket a potential indictment up in bedminster, which is where somer, of the recordings trump made were, where he acknowledges he has classified documents in his possession, and he can t declassify them post-presidency. do you think bedminster exist post doj or is that fantastical thinking? there are allegations it was at bedminster in new jersey where he disclosed to unauthorized peopleos classifie information, so it could be a basis for a charge. it seems like the indictment in florida is a very solid one.
Trump will trymi presumably a grain nail strategy, that s a strategy of saying, look, you re saying there s ang classified document i mishandle, you ve got to show it in open court. and our intelligence community is worried about that, so there s a t long compromise in dialogue between the justice department and the intelligence community in any sort of criminal trial. one thing that happens sometimes you substitute under the classified information procedures act a sensitive document for something that is less sensitive or that redacts the information in one way or another. those are things you really want someone with experience to handle, but unfortunately it looks like at this point that s not what we have. we re going to dig into a lot of the ins and outs of the clsified documentsof and how the make their way into a trial setting, but beyond what you re saying, neal, which is well-taken, there are other areas where i think-t some folk think it s sort of been settled
Decisions pretrial, but it s going to result in lengthy delays, which is something the justice department doesn t want and absolutely will be donald trump s bottom line game plan. neal, can we talk about something barb just mentioned, the prosecutorial misconduct claim, this was something in the closing days before the indictment wasin released the trump team was talking about comments made by a doj investigator jay bratt to the lawyer for walt nauta, robert woodward. can you talk a bit about what you ve heard in terms of that claim and whether it s something for the doj to be worried about, whether it s something judge canon could viably give credence to? yeah, every bad criminal defendant tries to make that argument about prosecutorial misconduct. it s going nowhere. it s going nowhere fast. in order to show prosecutorial misconduct like this, you d have to show some sort of actual malice on the part of the prosecutor, which is just not within the realm of possibility.