Live Breaking News & Updates on Jean carroll civil rape case
Stay updated with breaking news from Jean carroll civil rape case. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
thanks for being here. neil, let's start with you. your thoughts as we hear that the president is inside having his fingerprints taken for the third time in this indictment. >> we're getting used to this. it's weird. very weird. i was thinking of just what the president, the former president is facing and what his outlook calendar could look like as they pen in all of these events coming up. i know they're all moving targets. you have just potentially a couple months away, an investigation into the president's finances, a potential extended session at that. in january, you'll have the second part of the jean carroll civil rape case. that's something that he has to deal with. in march, maybe the whole hush money case and payments to porn stars and all that. you get past that, the big trial, the whole mar-a-largo document thing, the most significant for the time being. but for the time being. some of these -- obviously the
your thoughts as we watch this play out. >> it's strange to think this is unprecedented and historic and also routine and kind of boring. because as david spunt just said, this is the third time. this is a different case. this is about january 6th. when the indictment came out, i read it. i thought it was new information. i read the whole thing. i thought how is it that i know all of this? they spent all of this time doing all of this investigation and put together things that you could have found that was in a google search. i don't understand how that is possible that they went forward with that. the other thing is, they made a strategic decision to just name donald trump and not the other co conspirators that are numbered in the docket. that is because they want this case to go to trial before the election. that is why i think a lot of people aren't out there protesting. because they think one is political or two, it's not going to work or three, if you're a
only juries but the public on a political calendar is clearly political. i don't want to beat a dead horse. but first of all, jack smith, his existence as a special counsel is political. there's no conflict of interest between the biden justice department and donald trump. there's a profound conflict of interest between the biden justice department and trying to investigate the bidens. but merrick garland wouldn't appoint a special counsel, which you're supposed to do with a conflict of interest. yet he appointed one for smith. why did he do that? he did it because biden and garland knew that they were going to bring, for example, the case that is in arraignment today. and they didn't want to have their fingerprints on it. they knew trump's pitch in the campaign was going to be that biden was using the justice department to persecute him.
with one thing. do you think these cases go to trial before the election? >> i have doubts about that. there's so much pretrial wrangling that you do, motions, appeals. especially on the mar-a-largo case. people will file challenges to it. i have real doubts the federal cases will get there. >> martha: and the other layer of whether or not it is appropriate to bring a case that close to an election. so i think that is something to watch closely. i was just listening to andy mccarthy. he said something that really caught me just a moment ago. he said everyone in america, i'm paraphrasing, sees the haste to get these cases to trial before the political calendar. how do you think that reflects on democrats? >> the cases aren't being brought by the democrats. they're being brought by a special counsel and he's being indicted by a grand jury. he's not being indicted by andy
first amendment questions. i think a lot of judges are going to be highly skeptical about this indictment. keep in mind, martha, if you believe that the president may have believed this all along like many people have said he does, this entire case collapses. that's why, by the way, i'm not so sure trump wouldn't have invited this case. he has a lot to worry about in florida. this case, ready for order, for trump, i think a lot of americans view this as they did the new york case. that smith may have left a lot of the public behind here. you know, i think you're going to see that play out in the coming days. >> martha: just to put a fine point on it, you have to -- if you can prove -- it's so circular. if you can prove that he lost the election, then you're
i have watched enough episodes of "law and order" to qualified. what is fascinating, this indictment is just charging donald trump. it's just him. they talk about these six co-conspirators. they're not part of this process today, which gets back to this notion that maybe this is the case jack smith wants or wants to have the best chance of expediting, getting it moving quickly unlike the mar-a-largo case, the documents, national security issues that could delay key portions if not push it into the year after next, let alone next year. with this case, keeping it simple, keeping it focused on him, keeping it focused on his motives. keeping it focused on where he was coming from or whether he knew in his heart of hearts that the challenge of the election was not backed up by the facts. that this was an is meant to be expedited. you have a judge involved in
one of the things you have to imagine president trump's team will ask for is change of venue. dana and i know living many years in washington d.c., it's not trump country. it is a place that voted 92% for president biden. his team will argue he can't get an unpolitically biassed jury there. they know they're going to hostile territory with this particular case. it's more smaller than the mar-a-largo case. so it does have a chance of going earlier. there's so much that happens before a huge federal case. you heard the president's attorney out there saying that it took them years to put together this case as dana pointed out. doesn't have a lot of stuff we didn't know about. but we need time to put together our defense, too. >> martha: i'm thinking back to prior elections and things that hillary clinton said about president trump. he knows he's an illegitimate president.
this case who has a record of moving with great speed and severity. she has kneaded out big punishments for those that stormed the capitol. in nine of those cases, exceeding the jail time that prosecutors recommended. i put that in my legal hoard born of "law and order" episodes to think -- i know the real lawyers are saying this guy is beyond beyond. this is the emphasis here. let me clear this decks to get this clearly done quickly. >> martha: shannon, what do you think? >> this case is more streamlined than the mar-a-largo case with the documents. that one will be very involved. there will be all kinds of challenges to the classified documents. getting things vetted. the pretrial motions will take longer than that. this judge won't have tolerance for a lot of pretrial motions.
because this is not a violent crime case. when you have crimes like that, your dealing with people that you have to get off the street and in custody. once you have people in custody, there's pressure to get through the case more quickly. so people's rights aren't violated. this isn't that case. the government's presentation in all of these different cases, the justice department's as well as the ones i think we'll see from the prosecutor in atlanta and we have already seen from the prosecutor in manhattan, these cases would be exactly the same if they weren't tried until, say, december of 2024. in other words, the government would note at all be prejudiced by putting this all so the election process, which is constitutionally very important, could work its way through the system. the only reason to act with this haste, to boom, boom, boom, get these cases in front of the not
the audio tapes and the pictures, et cetera. bill barr was saying that this is now a case that he understands why it was brought. there was new information there with mike pence's testimony, which to the january 6th committee was not able to get. >> martha: he said arguments of freedom of speech will protect you from conspiracy. if they can prove that link, the links are difficult. they're tenuous in my ways. connect those two things together. we're going to continue with our panel in just a moment. great coverage here from -- of the former president's trump arraignment. you can see the vehicles as they make their way across here. we have coming up, we'll take to bret baier, to neil cavuto, we'll talk to andy mccarthy later this hour. also joining us, jim turley and congressman jim jordan. we have this transcript from what devin archer told the