Transcripts For FOXNEWSW Special 20240704

As you are looking live there, Special Counsel jack smith will make remarks at a News Conference from the Justice Department shortly. We will bring those to you here live and we have a full show of reaction to all of the developments and the specifics on the charges for that Griff Jenkins has the details outside the courthouse. Griff good evening. Donald trump has been ordered to appear in court behind me for First Court Appearance and possible arraignment. That is the news breaking at this moment. It will be on thursday at 4 00 p. M. Now Special Counsel jack smith has laid these allegations out in the form of Speaking Indictment where prosecutors lay out a detailed time narrative events surrounding the january 6th, 2021 capitol ri ri. How they dealt with his refusal to accept the results of the 2020 president ial election. The indictment alleges, bret, that trump falsely claimed the election was stolen, that he pressured State Officials to nullify Voting Results and sought to interfere with the certification of electoral votes by congress on january 6th, 2021 in the indictment it says each of the conspiracies built on the mistrust of the defendant was creating pervasive and destabilizing lies about Election Fraud. Bedrock function of the United States government. The nations process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the president ial election. Now, look at the specific charges. They involve, you see them Conspiracy To Defraud the u. S. Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. Now, trumps legal jeopardy has grown more serious. He was charged, you may recall, by a team in june with illegally hoarding classified documents at maralago and concealing evidence from investigators. He was also indicted in new york in march on charges of falsifying Business Records in connection with an alleged Hush Money Payment to a porn actor and prosecutors in fulton county, georgia, are precinct tg to announce charges relating to the efforts to subvert the 2020 election in that state. Meanwhile, as you can see in the bottom of your screen, we are watching this statement on camera being made by jack smith. Well bring that to you. Meanwhile, the Security Preparations, you can see the federal protective services, bret, behind me. They came here earlier. We know that Security Preparations will certainly ramp up between now and thursday at 4 00 p. M. We expect trump to make that First Court Appearance. We expect a similar situation as we saw in june in the miami federal courthouse. Bret . Send it back to you. Bret Griff Jenkins outside the courthouse. Thank you. Looking live again at the doj. We expect the Special Counsel to come out. He is in the Special Counsels office, were told we will get a twominute warning. Our producer is in the front row there and ready to ask questions, if we get a chance. With that, lets bring in our analysis our legal eagles. Former assistant United States attorney andy mccarthy, George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley. Gentlemen, thanks for being here. To repeat, two conspiracy counts, to obstruction counts. Conspiracy to defraud the u. S. Conspiracy to obstruct a official proceeding. Obstruction of a official proceeding. Conspiracy against rights. What do you see and what dont you see . First to andy. I think, unfortunately, bret, this is as weak as it was foretold to be you see a lot of deceitful conduct. The problem jack schmitz has is that congress has not enacted statutes that directly criminalize the behavior that smith is talking about. So what he has to do is it distort statutes in order to try to pigeon hole the behavior into them. For example, the Supreme Court was very clear in may in two cases where they threw out convictions against cro cronies former governor andrew cuomo. Defraud out of money or property, you know, tangible assets. To the extent that congress has tried to expand that into this idea fraud that creates deceptive practices. Statutes on the books now are vague and otherwise congress hasnt criminalized that i think what you have is the case comes down to can he prove that trump believed the things that he was saying notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary even if you can get over that hurdle which is daunting, he has extravagantly stretched the statutes in order to try to capture this behavior. Thats because this is really a proxy for what should have been a political impeachment process. They are leaving to the criminal Justice System the failure of congress to carry out a successful impeachment. Bret jonathan, you go through this and been reading through the pages here whats not here folks dealing with the january 6th rioters. Remember some 1100 people have been charged with that in relation to that rig riot on tht day. 445 of them have been sentenced. And that continues, that prosecution. But that direct tie to this indictment and these four counts, doesnt seem to be here. No. There is less than meets the eye in this indictment. I thought the last indictment was a very serious threat for donald trump. When i take a red pen through material that is protected by the First Amendment, it reduces much of this to a haiku. Many of the things that the prosecutor is charging here is protected speech it repeats allegations in the various states. Trump in his speech encouraging people to go to the capitol hill. Like the January 6th Committee it omits where he says you should go peacefully. And i think thats a mistake, quite frankly. Because it undermines your credibility when you sort of hide the ball on things like that. Bret as you mention that i have that. This is the president at the time the january 6th rally it starts with Fight Like Hell take a listen. I said something is wrong. Cant have happened. And we fight. We Fight Like Hell. And if you dont Fight Like Hell, you are not going to have a country anymore. We have come to demand that congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated i know that everyone here will be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Bret since we had that i wanted to put that in there for context for that day. Right. Its a mistake to omit material like that. The most jarring thing about this indictment is that it basically just accuses him of disinformation. This is a disinformation indictment. You were spreading false lose. Falsehoods. Undermining the intee election. He might have a fair shot with a d. C. Jury and maybe a d. C. Judge. He is going to have a harder time with the courts. And this reminds me of sort of the mcdowell complaint where he took the virginia governor, got a conviction, and then was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court it was a bridge too far. I assumed smith had this type of ah ha moment that there is something in there that the January 6th Committee didnt find that supported. We heard about witness tampering. Its not in there. I mean, everything in this indictment is basically what has been discussed in the news. Now, by the way, the other thing that is not in here is conspiracy for incitement. Not in here is Seditious Conspiracy. Those were the claims the democrats used in the impeachment and said that the evidence was absolutely clear. People like schiff and others said he is clearly guilty of those crimes they are not in here. Is he using the favor of prosecutors. I think there are serious legal problems with this indictment. Bret what in here, andy, at one point are descriptions of several private phone calls between the Vice President at the time, mike pence and President Trump as we know former Vice President pence testified to the Special Counsel and to this effort. For the grand jury here. It talks about getting him to try overturn the election. You are saying, both of you, that this is protected speech and that its going to be hard to get to conspiracy . Its even beyond that criminalize ago legal theory. Eastmans theory may have been a bad one, i think it was a bad one. It was something that he was allowed to rely on and generally speaking in this country what why we do is figure take care of it or the political system will. We dont criminalize them. Ands that what this indictment attempts to with with the incrime. Stuff, this is stuff that prosecutors are not supposed to do. If you have got evidence that trump committed incitement. Then charge him with incitement. Of course i can say as somebody who actually successfully prosecuted a Seditious Conspiracy case they dont have a prayer of a creates like that for precisely the reasons that jonathan was laying out. So what do you do . You are supposed to put it aside and plead what you can that actually do. What smith does here is a nod and a wink. There is a exception called exploiting, you know, the violence of january 6th. I forget exactly how its articulated but he talks about exploiting it because he cant accuse him of actually aiding and abetting it or committing it in an actual way. Bret this is downtown d. C. At the Special Counsels office. We have we are now under two minutes for jack smith, the Special Counsel i want to bring in former Chief Of Staff marc short to mike pence. I dont know if you are hearing any of this. Your thoughts on this moment and what it means. Well, bret, i think its a pretty tragic moment for our country that the former president has been indicted three times. Im not a lawyer and cant comment about the criminality but i do think you have quickly seen kind of the former president s Defense Shift to now saying well, look, lying and defrauding the public isnt necessarily a crime. I do think that has been a dramatic shift where we have been in debate over the last couple of years. There has been testimony from people inside the campaign who testified that they told the president there was not sufficient Election Fraud that would have changed any results. I think there has probably been testimony from people like mark meadows and others who told the president the Vice President never had such authority and that never in our history in 250 years has a Vice President been able to overturn Election Results nor do we as republicans want Kamala Harris to have that north in 2024 and so i do think that you have seen a shift in what the coverage is. Whether or not its criminality, i think it is a different standard. And i do think there is concern among many republicans that there has been a two Tiered System of justice and they see that Hillary Clinton getting off. They see hunter biden differently. I do think there is a difference the way this has been covered. Bret marc, stand by if you would. Special counsel jack smith speaking to reporters about this indictment. Good evening. Today an indictment was unsealed charging donald j. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the district of columbia and sets forth the crimes charged in detail. I encourage everyone to read it in full the attack on our nations capitol january 6th, 2021 was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american ddemocracy. Its described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies lies by the defendant targeted as obstructing a Bedrock Function of the u. S. Government the nations process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the president ial election. The Men And Women of Law Enforcement who defended the u. S. Capitol on january 6th are heroes. They are patriots and they are the very best of us. They did not just defend a building or the people sheltering in it, they put their lives on the line to defend who we are as a country and as a people. They defended the very principles that define the United States. Since the attack on our capitol the department of justice has remained committed to ensuring accountability for those criminally responsible for what happened that day. This case is brought consistent with that commitment and our investigation of other individuals continues. In this case, my office will seek a speedy trial so our evidence can be te tested in cot and judged by a jury of its citizens. In the meantime, i must emphasize that the indictment is only an allegation and that the defendant must be presumed innocent until Proven Guilty yard in beyond a reasonable doua court of law. I would like to thank the members of the Federal Bureau Of Investigation who are working on this investigation with my office as well as the many Career Prosecutors and agents from around the country who have worked on previous january 6th investigations these Men And Women are highest order and it is a privilege to work alongside them. Thank you. Why didnt you charge any of the other . Will this effect the election . Are you going to bring any more charges against more individuals . Bret Special Counsel jack smith, a short statement there on the four counts. Again, the 45th president of the United States indicted for a third time on four counts, Conspiracy To Defraud the u. S. , conspiracy to obstruct official proceeding. Obstruction of official proceeding. Conspiracy against rights. Back with andy and jonathan. Jonathan, there was not a lot of substance there as far as anything else. We do know there were six coconspirators listed in this indictment. Your thoughts on what he said and how he said it. Well, i think he established that this is the criminalization of disinformation. Thats what he was referring to. I think he is going to have a hard time with that i mean, this looks like basically the a complaint that follows oscar wilds rule the best way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it. It does not appear that this was motivated by new evidence and in order to get a conviction, he will have to use material that, in my view, is clearly protected by the First Amendment. He is allowed to follow bad advice. I was doing part of the coverage on that day. I criticized the speech when trump was giving it. I disagreed with what he said about pence. That doesnt mean that he is a criminal for following that advice or taking that view. And, more importantly, you have democrats that challenge the certification of republican president. Were they also engaged in a criminal conduct when they did that . I think this is going to face very severe scrutiny. The question is whether the Trump Campaign can get this into the Appellate Courts quickly. Where i think smith is going to have a hard time. Bret andy, about timelines, we dont know this timeline specifically. We know the judge has been appointed, but you guys both say the other documents case seems more troublesome for the Trump Campaign, the trump team and the former president. And, yet, we have other legal hurdles to go in georgia. And in new york. Your thoughts on the timeline and what you heard from the Special Counsel . Just to start with that was one of the most demagogue jake i have ever seen. Anyone who listened to that any normal person reacting to that would assume that trump was alleged to have carried out the capitol riot, the entire not about what the core charges in his case are it was about the capitol riot and the Security Personnel injured in the capitol riot and fight to defend the capitol riot. Then you turn to his indictment, is he not charged with the capitol riot. So, if that is what he has to resort to in order to sell his case to the public thats compelling. As far as the timeline is concerned, i think is he going to have if its a good judge, we will have to see, he will have a very hard time getting this case to trial because having decided to already indict him on the mauller case is he not a good position to go court as he said in his remarks that he wants a speedy trial and he wants to get this case to trial. Now, i know for political reasons they would love to have the capitol riot, which he is underscoring in front of the voters in the runup to the election as a legal matter by bringing the first case first, he has now crimped the amount of time that trump has to prepare for what looks like is going to be a legally complex trial. So i think he has a very hard time if you get a good judge getting this case to trial. Bret gentlemen, thank you. Stand by if you would. We need a whiteboard for all of this. It is like planes going into laguardia with this legal situation but the person dealing with this Case Johns Us now. John lawyer row is former President Trumps lead attorney on this case. He joins us with his first public reaction. John, thanks for being here. Good evening. Bret you have heard what the Special Counsel has said. You read the indictment. Your client has been talking about it quit a bit today on truth social your thoughts on this. Its a terribly tragic day we find ourselves in. Criminal speech has been our fi. Speech has been criminalized. Joe biden is running against donald trump and losing currently and now we have that Justice Department indicting President Trump for actions that he took as Chief Executive of the United States with respect to Public Policy matters now we have the criminalization and weaponization of Public Political Party over another. Its not surprising when it comes. It comes on the heels of unbelievable allegations against mr. Biden and his son as well as the fact that donald trump is leading in the polls right now. And now we have what certainly is a regurgitation of the allegations in the january 6th report. Highly political. It reads no differently. Really an astounding document. For the first time in american history, a former president is being prosecuted by a political opponent who wields the power of the criminal Justice System for what he believed in and the policies and the political speech that he carried out as president. This is unprecedented. It affects not just donald trump it. Affects every american who now realizes that the First Amendment is under assault. Its under attack by the Biden Administration. We now have a political incumbent who is Attacking Americans for their beliefs. Attacking americans for their speech. And Attacking Americans for their politics. This has never happened in the history of our country and its playing out right now. Bret let me read from the indictment and can you respond to this specifically. It says the defendant lost the 2020 president ial election. Despite having lost the defendant was determined to remain in power. So for more than two months following election day november 3rd you, 2020 the defendant spread lies there had been outcome determinative fraud in the elections and he had actually won. These claims were false and the defendant knew that they were false. Created intense, National Atmosphere of mistrust and anger and eroded public faith in the administration of the election. I would like them to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that donald trump believed that these allegations were false. What did he see in real time . He saw changes in Election Procedure in the middle of the game being carried out by people at the state level, State Officials but not the State Legislatures. He had advice of counsel, a very detailed memorandum from a constitutional expert who said, mr. President , these states are complaining about what happened. You, as the executive, have the ability to ask Vice President pence to pause the vote on january 6th, have these states audit and recertify and that way we know ultimately who won the election. And thats the only thing that President Trump suggested. Theres nothing unlawful about that. He was entitled to do that as the Chief Executive officer, carrying out the laws. And nothing about that was obstructive. It was quite interesting that mr. Smith talked about the violence on capitol hill. He is not being charged with that there is no allegation that he incited violence or did anything. Just the opposite. He is being indicted for free speech. Is he being indicted for objecting to the way that the 2020 election was carried out. And any american that takes that view should be equally concerned are they next because the reality is that if a president can be indicted for free speech, then anybody can be indicted. So, when this case goes to trial, were going to be representing not just President Trump, but every single american that believes in the First Amendment. And believes in your ability to redress and bring grievances to congress. And thats exactly what people were doing. You had these alternate electors that said to the congress, we have serious doubts about what happened in the 2020 election. Were bringing these grievances to you. Listen to us. Thats being criminalized now. Dont forget, we have an extraordinary set of circumstances in 2020. We had the covid virus, we had laws being changed in the middle of the game and donald trump had every responsibility and every right to raise these issues. Bret to your point about what he believed. I talked to the former president two weeks ago at his place in new jersey about other things but the 2020 election came up. Heres a piece of that. You lost the 2020 election. Bret, you take a look at all of the stuffed ballots, you take a look at all of the things, including things like the 51 intelligence agents. Bret there were recounts of all of the swing states. There wars not significant widespread fraud. We are trying to get recounts real recounts. Widespread corruption there was not a sense of that lawsuits, more than 50 of them by your lawyers. Bret, are you ready . Judges that you appointed. Look at wisconsin. No evidence. Bret, wisconsin has practically admitted it was rigged. Other things are doing the same right now and its continuing on. Bret every potential case of voter fraud in six Battleground States and they found fewer than 475 cases. Do you know why . Because they didnt look at the right things, bret. Bret by point in showing that is that he is pushing back on june 20th on that front. When it says that he knew that the election was lost and it quotes people that they have interviewed. Whats the pushback to that . Very easy and very simple. Its not just issues of fraud, its also the fact that procedures were changed. Undeniably so that procedures at the state level were changed without the ability of the legislature to weigh in that mike was raising to give the lentil lay temperature each state of those contested state one last chance to make a determination because the reality is that the State Legislatures in every state has the ultimate responsibility for qualifying electors. So what mr. Trump did was exactly constitutionally precise and in order. There was nothing illegal about that and he was required to take steps as president of the United States to ensure that that election was held in a valid way. All of that now is being criminalized. The one thing i will say though in 2020, mr. Trumps campaign had a few weeks to gear up and present evidence and was very difficult. We now have the ability in this case to issue our own subpoenas and we will relitigate every single issue in the 2020 election in the context of this litigation. It gives President Trump an opportunity he has never had before which is to have Subpoena Power since january 6th in a way that can be exercised in federal court. Bret what you are talking about the states, the states did that, each individual state certified the elections. They were signed by the governors, many of them republican governors. And many of them republican secretaries of state that signed off and certified those Election Results before they came to washington, d. C. And we had what was january 6th. So what you are talking about a was done. It was certified. No, im sorry. You are missing what professor eastmans advice was. Professor eastman said that the State Legislatures had not opined and weighed in on the changes that had been done in those various states. Bret but each one of those states, since that time, now we are talking about two years later, has not reopened those cases. They have not some of them have had audits, but they have not reopened the 2020 election from this Point Of View and some of them are republican legislatures. And its never been presented to the states. Now what we are going to have is not just a civil trial but a criminal trial for mr. Trump exercising his right to speech. So there may be disagreement about what happened. But the bottom line is we are now treating this as a criminal case rather than as were doing, bret, talking about this in the context of politics and free speech. Bret lets talk legal. You are running point on this case. And according to our analyst. Is that true. Along with todd blanche. Yeah, we are cocounsel on it, definitely. Bret on the other cases is it legally Somebody Else . For the documents case are you on that. Im not on that team. Im concentrating on the First Amendment issues. Im concentrating on this case which is a direct attack on constitution. Bret will you run point on georgia if an indictment comes down in georgia . No. There are other groups. Obviously there is coordination around the country. All of this is being done in the middle of an election season where donald trump is winning. So you have a series of criminal cases that are being brought and serially brought out on a regular basis now with only one objective in mind and thats to interfere in this election cycle, which is now underway. Bret what about the stories that thats Campaign Funds are paying for legal fees and you are rub running out of cash on that front. Im not involved in that. The way they are trying to take out donald trump legal process. He is being forced to spend money on Legal Defense which should be spent of spent on the discussion of critical ideas and critical issues. People want to hear the issues. They dont want to relitigate 2020. And thes exactly what the Special Counsel i should say Merrick Garland. Merrick garland and the Biden Administration had to sign off on this indictment. And what they have really done is invited now a relitigation of 2020. But this time in a criminal court, which is unprecedented. No sitting president has ever been criminally charged for his views, for taking a position. And, by the way, is there any doubt there is two systems of justice in the United States . Was for the russian hoax . Were those individuals who said dont worry about the biden the biden laptop because it is just russian disinformation . Are they being prosecuted . No. Only one person in america is being prosecuted for his political believes. And that should send a chill, a warning, to every single american who one day wants to get up and say this is what i believe in. I disagree with the Biden Administration but these are the beliefs i have. Because every person who does that now is subject to potential criminal case. Bret last thing. According to this indictment, they believe that that argument would empower every losing politician to do what former President Trump did and by using what they call in this indictment false information to stir up people that the system then breaks down. Im paraphrasing but essentially thats what it says in this indictment. So what they are saying is politicians may use hyperbolic speech or excessive speech in some way and stir up people and were going to criminalize that . Good luck in the United States if thats where we are heading. Good luck. Because of the reality is that everything that mr. Trump requested to be done was done with the advice of counsel, was done with lawyers giving him advice. Those lawyers are going to come in and testify. Nothing was done in a way that wasnt constitutionally permissible. Its all politics. Its all politics. And if were criminalizing politics, whats going to happen when the republicans are next in office . Think about the pressure thats going to be put on a republican president to go after and indict sitting democrats now in congress or in state houses for their political views. And then we have this vicious circle, once the criminal Justice System has been politicized. Bret john, we appreciate your time. Especially with this breaking and digesting all of this. We would love to have you back as this goes forward. We know you are going to be busy but thanks for coming on special report. Thank you. Bret joining us now again mark marc short former Chief Of Staff to former Vice President mike pence. You heard the thoughts there. What are your thoughts on. This there are several points. Donald trump has a lot of affection from Republican Voters because he gave a voice to a lot of disaffected voters and he accomplished a lot over four years of his presidency. In many cases it was an honor to have a chance to serve him and be a part of that white house. But, at the same time, i think he does a great job of presenting himself as a victim and while the russia Hoax Investigation i think was clearly unfair, i dont think he is really a victim in this case and i dont think its right to say he is protecting the Family Rights of all americans. And i think john distorts some of the facts here in that the reality is that donald trump asked mike pence to overturn the election. And the prosecution has handwritten from some of the president s senior aides that say since pence wont go along with this plan pivot just return to the states. That whole notion as well is something that is not afforded a Vice President of the constitution. Its never been done in 250 years. As you said, all of the states even republican legislatures certified the results and sent it to congress. The role of the Vice President there is to affirm the state certification. Thats what we have done for 250 years. If we begin to create a precedent otherwise and Kamala Harris can sit in that role, what happens if a republican wins nevada or wisconsin and is returned to a Democrat Legislature okay were just going to overturn it now. So i think what was being asked of the Vice President was far more insidious. Whether or not its criminal, i dont know. I think youve heard the Vice President himself say i would rather this be left to the American People to decide. And i think it should be put before the American People do you want a president whoismfully puts himself Above The Law and asks the Vice President to disobey his oath to the constitution. Bret we should say you are still advocating tore former Vice President mike pence running for president against his old boss. But, on your look at this law, if this indictment is, as our legal analysts say, weak and you just heard the former president s attorney on this, do you think politically that this somehow helps the former president in the g. O. P. Primary . J it might, bret. I dont think there is any doubt continued to rally around donald trump. And i do think because of the way he is presented a lot of voters view him as a victim in this. And so it very well might. Im not a lawyer to be able to opine on the legalities here whether it is criminal. Im simply saying what the president asked what is dead wrong and i think they probably now have evidence to suggest that he had been advised by the campaign, by other lawyers what he was asking was also wrong and unfounded. Bret yeah. All right. Listen, marc, thank you so much. Stand by if you could just a little bit longer. Former assistant u. S. Attorney andy mccarthy, George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley back with us. Here is the question, jonathan. I have got what are the rules for running . What are the rules for running for election, changing, Disputing Elections . We are getting to the heart of this. You heard the former president s attorney who is leading the leading man on this. What did you make of that . Well, part of the question is what the judge will allow the defense to argue when it comes to some of these legal claims. I will have to see but, you know, this is a Speaking Indictment but it doesnt say very much. It basically says that the president Spread Disinformation that he should have known that this was not true because people told him that well, other people told him something different. So the question i have after i read this indictment is what if he if President Trump really did believe this . What if he did believe that he that the election was stolen . Can you convict him on that belief . And the answer is probably not. If they have to show that he probably didnt believe any of this. Well, that doesnt make for a very good criminal case. And i think that the best argument for his team Going Forward is not to relitigate whether the election was stolen but to focus on that moment in time. Could someone have honestly believed the advice of some of his attorneys . Albeit a minority of attorneys . And thats also going to be a question that is going to occupy the courts because i do think this is a slippery slope. This is a dangerous indictment because it does criminalize not just many but political differences. Bret the judge in this case, andy, who has been assigned to this case is seen as one of the toughest on the january 6th defendants. What do you make of that . Well, it depends on whether we mean by tough that she is meted out harsh statements. If she has made gratuitous statements about when we what she thinks of the day. That could call into question her square fairness. Bret u. S. District judge tonya described by the a. P. As the toughest funner of the january 6th cases put all cases some way or another all of them behind bars. Describing it as the appropriate punishment for their participation in the riot that halted the certification of president bidens victory. Thats according to the associated press. So, bret, then i go right back to what i said before about jack smiths remarks. If you have a judge and thats where she is coming from and i would be the fact to say the fact that a judge mets out sentences wouldnt be a basis to seek her disqualification. If she is passionate about january 6th and the violence of the day and you have jack smith making nonin court statements, you know, extra judicial statements as we say in the biz, which is riveting peoples attention to the violence of january 6th, the violence of the capitol riot under circumstances where he hasnt charged trump with the violence of the capitol riot or any participation in the capitol riot, i think thats a significant problem. Not only in terms of whole judge is but in terms of what the prosecutor is doing to the jury pool by making remarks like that. Bret all right. Listen. You heard me challenge the former president about the election, saying the election was lost. He lost the 2020 election. But the question is can a president now, according to this indictment, publicly dispute Election Results . And is the electoral process now just not purely political but also subject to review by federal prosecutors, jonathan . I dont believe he is going to be able to relitigate whether the election was stolen. But he will be able to raise the question of whether there was a good faith, albeit flawed understanding of what occurred. Many of us disagreed with President Trumps view of the election. Many of us disagreed with how he presented the case against pence. I felt pence did the right thing on that day. But thats really not at issue here. As andy has said very well, is that the prosecutors really, i think, failed to sort of stick the landing on this one. But, i thought that smiths comments were really quite disturbing. I mean, i agree with andy. You would think that he was charged with incitement. That was a very surprising remarks to make. In the end, the court is going to have to decide what it will allow the jury to larry. Some judges will say that they dont want to have the jury being misled about the existing law. But you have to allow President Trump to say i had a good faith reason for believing this you might not agree with john eastman or any of the people advising me. You might think i had a 5 to 10 chance of winning but i believed i could win and i had a right to make that argument to the American People. That is a strong argument. I think particularly for the Appellate Courts when they look at the implications of the complaint. It doesnt mean that donald trump was right. It doesnt mean that what he failed to do was right on that day. The question was was it criminal . Bret yeah. I want to bring unjust fair and balanced. You have democrats and republicans weighing in. Senator blumenthal from connecticut saying no person is Above The Law. Violations should be pursued no matter how powerful the person is a grand jury has decided to charge former President Trump after intensive investigation lasting many months. Our Justice System has an obligation to pursue the facts. President trump will have the same rights as any criminal defendant and the Justice System will him innocent until Proven Guilty. Then you have the Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer, were expecting a statement from him. This was from Senator Blumenthal from connecticut. Lets bring in Senior National correspondent rich edson gathering some reaction. Good evening, rich. Good evening, bret. Former President Trump, his campaign, and the super pac supporting him have been the first to weigh in on all of this. Trump immediately sent out Fundraising Emails to supporters. A Trump Campaign spokesperson tells fox, quote why did they wait two and a half years to bring these fake charges right in the middle of President Trumps Winning Campaign for 2024 . The answer is election interference. Trumps closest republican challenger Florida Governor ron desantis says he has only seen the reports concerning the indictment. He tweeted about the ventricle venue. He says washington washin, d. C. Is a swamp unfair to stand trial before a judge that is reflective of the swamp mentality. One of the reserves our country is decline is the politic situation of the rule of law. I will end the weaponization of the federal government. Trumps other two indictments in florida. New york. Will hurd says trumps president ial bid an attempt to stay out of prison and scam his supporters into footing his legal bills. Got booed over that this weekends. His denial of the 2020 Election Results and actions on january 6th show he is unfit for office. Another trump critic and rival, former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson says in a statement this is another sad day for america where the former president being charged criminally for obstructing the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. January 6th is a day that calls for accountability for those responsible. I have always said that donald trump is morally responsible for the attack on our democracy. He now says the Justice System will determine if trump is criminally responsible and hutchinson is again calling for trump to drop out of this race. We have reached out to the other campaigns. We will update you as we get it. Bret okay. Rich, thank you. I mentioned Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer just out with a statement moments ago in which he says along with Hakeem Jeffries the Majority Leader in the senate, minority leader in the house, hakeem jeffer jeffries, the third time on mr. Trump illustrates in shocking detail the violence of that day was the culmination of months long criminal plot led by the former president defy democracy and overturn the will of the American People. The before had a feeling this was coming. He was in pennsylvania. He spoke about the Special Counsel about that this weekend. Why didnt they bring deranged jack smith january 6th . Why didnt they bring that two and a half years ago . Said perfect things. Peacefully and patriotically. Did you ever hear Maxine Waters and sup schumer and other people talking in their messages . We will get you kavanaugh. We will hit you. We will hit you like you have never been hit before. You know . Thats okay. But if you say peacefully and patriotically like in my speech. Bret former president on the campaign trail, a campaign for the g. O. P. Primary that he is leading exponentially according to the latest polls. Bring in juan williams, ben domenech editoratlarge for the spectator. Host of the ben domenech podcast on fox news radio. Julia Manchester National politics reporter for the hill. Ben, what do you make of this what have you heard so far on the show, the analysis, and impact . I think this is a travesty. This is terrible. I think that jack smith does not have the case to make on this. You can make cases against the former president in so many other different respects. But i do not think this was a case that ought to have been brought. In any indicates, i do not think that we can go back through history. Should we indict everyone who stead that al gore won in 2,000 . Should we indict everybody who was going down in 2004, you know, objections over the ohio ballots and things like that . You know when it came to john kerrys election . This is a step too far against any kind of politician making the case that they won in a vague and gray area scenario. Now, look, you know, you can make the arguments against donald trump in this instance. I certainly have made them. I have made the arguments against johns analysis. I agree disagree with all of it. Bringing a case like this i think is an absolute travesty for the Justice Department. Something that is going to create a toxic scenario Going Forward and one that is only going to lead to bad things. Bret House Speaker mccarthy just weighed. In i read the Senate Majority leader, Mccarthy Tweeting Out we have recently learned hunter received money from China Contradicting president bidens claim. President biden spoke with hunters Business Associates over 20 times. Contradicting what biden previously claimed. Bidens doj tried secretly to give hunter broad immunity and admitted the we have the heart deal unprecedented. President trump is leading opponent. Everybody could see. Doj attempt to distract from the news and attack the frontrunner from the nomination President Trump. House republican also continue to uncover the truth about biden inc. And the two Tiered System of justice. Thats the House Speaker. Julia, your thoughts. I mean obviously this day is historic in a number of ways but politically its quite something to watch. Its quite something to watch. I mean, this happens today. This happens the day after we saw that testimony from Hunter Bidens former business associate. And these are involving, you know, in trumps case the frontrunner by and large for the republican nominee but also joe bidens son, the president who is running against or could be running against donald trump. And this is the choice that americans have to choose from. A president thats been indicted three times, could be indicted more and then a president s who e son is facing all of these amazing issues. Its amazing to see the cnn college poll. Tied neck and neck. Whatever happens next, this seems like it is not necessarily going to impact trumps base or maybe even his standing Going Forward once we move forward to the primary. Bret i want you to weigh in on the indictment but also the fact that even now and every indictment its tougher and tougher for the other opponents to not talk about the former president and for him not to be the Center Of Attention and, thereby, get a lot of attention and even sympathy in the g. O. P. Primary. Absolutely. You know, the way i have been referring to this is to say he takes all the air out of the room its all about donald trump at this moment. If you are in the republican primaries, even as we approach the debate that will be here on fox, the question is will he be on stage . Wheres donald trump . What will they say about donald trump . What will they say about these indictments . Are they, in fact, there to defend donald trump All Of A Sudden . Is that what you have to do in order to say im a republican . You have to defend the man who at this moment really, with that huge lead in the polls looks to represent all republicans. And who makes the argument . Bret Walk The Line when that questioned yesterday tried to say disagree with this but im a better guy to clean up the system. You saw what i thought is he cant do it. Its very hard. Its at this point its hard to separate out yourself as a republican from being a trump supporter and defender. When i was listening to what jack smith had to say definiting democracy and the way of life. Not necessarily definiting people or a building his case is what you see from donald trump is that donald trump acted in provocative manner that caused people to commit violence. We saw pictures on the screen taking place. That was no garden party. That was real violence, with real consequences. Bret but he is not charged for that in the indictment. But, beyond that, it was, as smith said, an attack on the democracy, on the form of government that is basis of our stability. Think back, running the statements, you think back to what Kevin Mccarthy said at that time. You think back to what Mitch Mcconnell said. They said theres no question donald trump is responsible for the violence. Bret you were going to say . I just think that we cant we have to understand that jack smith is not going after him for that is he not actually accusing him of anything along those lines. Which is the real problem that i have with this. If he was going to make that accusation, do it. Okay . But he is not doing it. Instead he is going in a different path, one that i think is completely unacceptable when it comes to, you know, judging our politicians by a met trick that i do not think they should be judged by. Are we going to go after every politician that we think tells a lie . Come on. Bret going to be busy at doj. Speaking of doj. Attorney general Merrick Garland reacting to the indictment correspondent david spunt is at the Justice Department tonight with that good evening, david. Bret, good evening. We just got fresh reaction from the nations top Law Enforcement officer Attorney General Merrick Garland he is at unrelated event in philly National Crime night out. But he was asked about this and stopped and talked about this trump indictment. I want to play this. Watch. In november last, a pointed jack smith, Special Counsel to take on the Ongoing Investigation in order to underline the departments commitment to accountability and independence. Mr. Smith and his team experienced, principled Career Agents and prosecutors followed the facts and the law wherever they lead. So thats the Attorney General, bret, about 30 minutes ago. I want to read i have been dissing into this indictment, 45 pages. These are the alleged false statements made by the former president insinuated that more than 10,000 dead voters had voted in georgia, asserted that there had been 205,000 more votes than voters in pennsylvania. Claimed that there was a suspicious vote dump in detroit, michigan. Claimed that there had been Tens Of Thousands of double votes and other fraud in the state of nevada. Also, trump allegedly said more than 30,000 noncitizens had voted in arizona. And assert that you had Voting Machines in various contested states had switched votes from trump to biden. You mentioned at the top of your show georgia is something were closely watching. That would be a state charge if the president is indicted in fulton county, georgia, for his phone call with secretary of state brad rafns burger asking to find more than 11,000 votes. D. A. Willis down in atlanta had said that her team is ready to go, whatever that means. But that would be the former president s fourth indictment if he is indicted in georgia. Bret . Bret all right. We are following all of this. You are also at the Justice Department. What can you tell us about this push from republicans to try to get answers from the Attorney General on the hunter biden plea deal . Some news there. Yeah. Thats another big probe we are following at doj. Attorney general Merrick Garland has been asked by the chairs of three House Committees to provide information about what republicans are calling that Sweetheart Plea Deal that ultimately a judge did not accept last week. They specifically are asking for more information about this deal and the current investigation into hunter biden. Remember, there is an active investigation into hunter biden. Its unlikely that garland will oblige and give this information because it is an active investigation. And he has essentially been pushing everything off on david weiss. Now, behind the scenes, Hunter Bidens legal team and doj attorneys are back to the Drawing Board nearly one week after judge maryellen nor reek that can a a donald trump many appointee chastised and embarrassed both parties says that the agreement was unacceptable and she would not be a rubber stamp. Bret, of course this comes on the heels as one of your panelists just mentioned just one day after devon archer, Hunter Bidens former Business Partner and close friend, testified or gave a transcribed interview on capitol hill saying that joe biden, former Vice President joe biden was on speaker some 20plus times. Republicans say that shows a definite sense that biden was involved in Business Dealings but democrats continue to down play saying they still dont have a direct connection to joe biden. Bret david spunt, busy day at the doj. Thank you. You bet. Bret back for analysis, andy mccarthy, Jonathan Turley, also bring back marc short, former Chief Of Staff to mike pence. Final thoughts. We have gone through the legal perspective here. You dont think that this is really solid . Do you think its pretty weak on the counts. But its not, obviously, the only thing legally that the former president faces there are people who look at this and say its almost like the doj, the Special Counsel the democrats run thats what the republicans charge looking at a box of chocolates here best chocolate to go after the former president to prevent him from being president again. I think this indictment is going to fulfill that narrative. I think that the indictment does not have this compelling level of evidence. I thought maralago was strong, and i said so, so did andy. This doesnt have that i also have to tell you, i was equally critical in Merrick Garland in his statement 30 minutes ago. Is he constantly taking the role of a pedestrians in all of this. This is a time when you want Attorney General to look at an indictment and say, wait, is this all you have . Because this is stretchering the law. And its Speaking Indictment that doesnt say enough. But, he clearly didnt do that. And i think that this is going to end up tarnishing his legacy. I think its going to undermine the Special Counsel on the credibility of his efforts. Bret andy, you say that this is weak. You agree with jonathan. You have pushed back on this particular indictment. But you also wrote an oped that you dont think the former president can win. Yeah. I dont think that the two things have nothing to do with each other except to the extent that what the democrats are trying to orchestrate here is a situation in which evidence about the capitol riot and the events attendant to the post election period come out in front of the electorate. Not the republican electorate but the National Electorate right on the eve of the election. I would just say, bret, you asked a question before, which is a great question, which is what are the rules . I think more important in a sense is who decides. And the problem that you have here is all of the bad behavior and it was despicable behavior, a lot of it, is meant to be addressed in our constitutional system by impeachment. By a political process. The fact that we dont have criminal laws that address this stuff is not a bug. Its a feature of the system because we dont want the Justice Department deciding elections. Bret marc short, final word here . We talked about the political implications here and the g. O. P. Primary, this very well could charge people up to say they are coming after the former president. They will dont want him to be president again. And why is that . Thats what i hear from Trump Supporters is they think he is the guy thats going to shake it up because, obviously, they want to take him down. How do you respond to that . Well, dont think that thats lost on the Biden Administration, either, bret. I think they recognize that each new indictment actually rallies republicans to donald trump, helps him in the Nomination Process but, also probably weakens him in a general election. So dont when you say its a box of chocolates that are intended to hurt donald trump. Bret im saying republicans in certain circles say that. I get that but i dont think it shouldnt be lost on viewers that it is also the Biden Administration is politically savvy to know this actually continues to rally support in the Republican Party around trump but it probably weakens him in a general election for biden to contest. Bret and will the Vice President use this . Use it . I mean, i think that the Vice President has written about it extensively in his book. He has continued to speak out about how donald trump was wrong on that day. And i think that hell continue to. And i dont think it was just that day. I think it was weeks leading up to that day in which it was very clear that the Vice President never had such authority and, yet, people around the president were trying to exert him to push that plan. Bret moirks, jonathan, andy, thank you very much. It has been a wild show. No commercials for you. Trying to bring the news of the day the 45th president of the United States indicted for the third time. We reaction to this case. Tried to provide you balanced analysis and what comes next but the biggest thing is we dont know its a crazy year. We h have got you covered, fair, balanced and still unafraid. The Ingraham Angle, which you dont want to miss, happens now. Laura im Laura Inimram and is the Ingraham Angle from washington tonight. We start with a fox news alert. Laura i read through this socalled January 6th Charging Document Indicting donald trump on four counts, two counts of obstruction, two counts of conspiracy this is a complete embarrassment. At this point they might as well hang a banner over that main entrance to the department of Justice Building tonight covering the credo with biden 2024. Now, if the democrats special co