could say mob for several hours. he could say that we think 60 federal and state courts are wrong in rejecting our claims of corruption, find, he could call thejudges, democrat claims of corruption, find, he could call the judges, democrat shysters or whatever you wanted to. he could make anything up, but when he decided to actually establish counterfeit electors and engage in a conspiracy to pull out these counterfeit electors to try and substitute for the actual electoral process, that moved from free speech where you can say anything to actual criminal conduct. that is what is governed by the loss of the distinction between what is free speech and what his conduct is do you thinkjack smith can prove that in court? do you thinkjack smith can prove that in court?— do you thinkjack smith can prove that in court? that is what we will see but the _

that in court? that is what we will see but the evidence _ see but the evidence certainly appears overwhelming for what we saw in the january six committee and from what has been alleged in the indictment. there are tonnes of witnesses and they are all almost overwhelmingly republican, members of the trump administration, republican secretaries of state like brad reference berger who of course donald trump famously told, just find me 11,780 votes. these are republicans, i'm sorry to even have to put it in those terms but this is what we have been reduced to, is not enough to see the secretary of state of georgia reported it. he is on tape saying,, to this secretary of state who gave him money, even thought it was for close and say that there was no way he would violate his oath like that. so at some point we will be able to call ourselves out of the vicious

partisanship that donald trump is injected into our country but in the meantime it is overwhelming republicans who are pointing the finger at donald trump for all of these crimes.— finger at donald trump for all of these crimes. ., these crimes. the same time we have seen the former _ these crimes. the same time we have seen the former president _ these crimes. the same time we have seen the former president has - these crimes. the same time we have seen the former president has on - seen the former president has on poll numbers rise on the back of these indictments, his fundraising has gone up off of the backs of these indictments and he put out the statement on the break before the arraignments and, it is a great honour because i'm being arrested for you so speaking to supporters, what you make of the support he has been able to garner from these indictments? it’s been able to garner from these indictments?— been able to garner from these indictments? �* , . ., , indictments? it's a sad thing to see abraham lincoln's _ indictments? it's a sad thing to see abraham lincoln's party _ indictments? it's a sad thing to see abraham lincoln's party reduced i indictments? it's a sad thing to see abraham lincoln's party reduced to j abraham lincoln's party reduced to an authoritarian cult of personality. lincoln's party was in anti—slavery pro—freedom anti—, no nothing, pro—immigrant party and it has been reduced into this collection of conspiracy theories and hatred against different groups in the country. and donald trump

exercises autocratic power over that party. so that is this i think that the vast majority of which americans reject it, rememberjoe biden beat donald trump by 7 million votes and so all that has happened in the intervening years between 2020 at our election next year in 2024 is 20 million plus new voters, young people, have entered the franchise. people who have no interest in the anti—choice climate to nihilism, election to nihilism of today's gop. final question. i do think the rest of the world is watching today seen the former president indicted now for the third time. i the former president indicted now for the third time.— the former president indicted now for the third time. i don't know you would be a — for the third time. i don't know you would be a better— for the third time. i don't know you would be a betterjudge _ for the third time. i don't know you would be a betterjudge of - for the third time. i don't know you would be a betterjudge of that - for the third time. i don't know you | would be a betterjudge of that than me. i hope that people will see it as a vindication of the american system ofjustice that as a vindication of the american system of justice that we as a vindication of the american system ofjustice that we do not say that because someone once held a public office as president or vice president or member of congress or

governor that they can commit any crime that they want. people understand how absurd that is if you are talking about a murder or a rain, no less absurd when you're talking about trying to overthrow a election or trying to interfere with a federal proceeding or trying to defraud the american people. those things are all crimes and you did not get any sort of exception to it just because you once held public office. ., , , ., ., office. congressman, leaving it there, office. congressman, leaving it there. thank— office. congressman, leaving it there, thank you _ office. congressman, leaving it there, thank you for _ office. congressman, leaving it there, thank you forjoining - office. congressman, leaving itj there, thank you forjoining us. live now to thomas dupree, former us deputy assistant attorney general. he can tell us more about the legal perspective on this story. tom, we have seen now the indictment, talked about that with you on tuesday, i believe, we have seen the arraignment. from what we have seen so far about the trial in the next day, are you confident that we are actually going to see a trial happen before the election? i actually going to see a trial happen before the election?— before the election? i would not rule it out. _ before the election? i would not rule it out, but _ before the election? i would not rule it out, but i _ before the election? i would not rule it out, but i would - before the election? i would not rule it out, but i would be -

before the election? i would not i rule it out, but i would be shocked if it happened before the election. to me itjust seems almost impossible to think that you could allow for discovery process, exchange of evidence, review of information, some of which may well be classified, and just organising and getting every thing in order, including giving the defendant the constitutional right to defend himself, all before november of next year, particularly when he has two and possibly may be also three other criminal proceedings going on concurrently, and he is running for president of the united states. again, i don't want to say it is impossible, but it is just really difficult for me to see how it possibly happens.— difficult for me to see how it possibly happens. difficult for me to see how it ossibl ha ens. ~ ., ., ., , possibly happens. what leverage does the former president's _ possibly happens. what leverage does the former president's team _ possibly happens. what leverage does the former president's team have - possibly happens. what leverage does the former president's team have to i the former president's team have to postpone this from proceeding? sure. postpone this from proceeding? sure, and b the postpone this from proceeding? sure, and by the way. _ postpone this from proceeding? sure, and by the way. we — postpone this from proceeding? sure, and by the way, we should _ postpone this from proceeding? c”, and by the way, we should get a good sense within a few weeks as to how quickly thisjudge wants sense within a few weeks as to how quickly this judge wants to move. my guess is she's going to want to move it quickly. i do not know if it will be before the election, but she want to move it quickly. as far as the trump team's levers, they have a

few. the most compelling are, they haveis few. the most compelling are, they have is basically need time to prepare a defence. i suspect what they will say is, look, jack smith and the deferment ofjustice have been investigating this for three years, they had three years to pull together evidence, interview witnesses, review documents, review video tapes, all of that, you have to give us at least a year to counter all of that but to do our own diligence, our on investigation for i think that a from their own compelling argument. they made it a go they got three other cases at least going on at the same time, and you cannot inspect any, no defendant will let a candidate for president of the united states, to keep all of those balls up in the air and keep present in all these courtrooms, simultaneously across the country. they will have decent arguments for pushing things back. what they will have decent arguments for pushing things back.— pushing things back. what do you think about _ pushing things back. what do you think about the _ pushing things back. what do you think about the fact _ pushing things back. what do you think about the fact that - pushing things back. what do you think about the fact that the - pushing things back. what do you l think about the fact that the former attorney general bill barr stated this is just the tip of the iceberg? do you also ink there's a lot more evidence that jack smith, the special counsel, and his team have gathered we have just not seen yet?

right, and looked, he is not under an allegation to put all of his cards on the table. he told i thought a compelling story in the indictment, but those are just allegations, and prosecutors don't convict people based on allegations, they convinced them on evidence, and we have yet to see all of the evidence, maybe not even the majority of evidence. i will say, i thought the cardston, congers and raskin made an interesting point, and that this is an unusual case, and that this is an unusual case, and that this is an unusual case, and that the book of the evidence the special counsel is going to using against the former president trump comes from trump's own inner circle, his own advisers, political advisers, lawyers, from people variable gary close to him which makes this in unusual case —— congressman raskin. i think it will post some complications from prosecutor's perspective to introduce some of these things into evidence but it does make this things different from a normal prosecution.— things different from a normal prosecution. things different from a normal rosecution. ., ., prosecution. that does make a good oint. prosecution. that does make a good point- from — prosecution. that does make a good point- from your— prosecution. that does make a good point. from your sense _ prosecution. that does make a good point. from your sense of _ prosecution. that does make a good point. from your sense of the - point. from your sense of the indictment, from what you have seen,

we know jack smith's team have put directly into the indictment, is it a strong case?— directly into the indictment, is it a strong case? again, based on the indictment. — a strong case? again, based on the indictment. i _ a strong case? again, based on the indictment, i think— a strong case? again, based on the indictment, i think he _ a strong case? again, based on the indictment, i think he has - a strong case? again, based on the indictment, i think he has got - a strong case? again, based on the indictment, i think he has got a - indictment, i think he has got a decent case. a lot of the work i think that led to this indictment was actually performed by the january 6 committee, the indictment, one surprising aspect of it to meet was it did not go dramatically on the committee already collected. there were some nuggets buried in there. we learned a little bit more valid vice president pence to president, but there were not any of the shock and all type information gets that you might have expected to see. that said, look, it is in indictments and a prosecutor wields the pen, the defendant does not have a chance to respond, at least not right away, so it doesn't surprise me that what we see in that at indictment paints a compelling picture, but as i set a minute ago, it case does not contrite based on allegations, it gets tried based on evidence. w , allegations, it gets tried based on evidence. , ., , ., evidence. exactly. that is what the secial evidence. exactly. that is what the special counsel _ evidence. exactly. that is what the special counsel set _ evidence. exactly. that is what the special counsel set as _ evidence. exactly. that is what the special counsel set as well, - evidence. exactly. that is what the special counsel set as well, why i evidence. exactly. that is what the j special counsel set as well, why he

is eager to get this evidence into court. let's bring in sarah krissoff again. we have been talking to you about this as well. just commenting on what tom said there would you agree? what do you think is the point here where you were able to see in the indictment that looks to be a pretty strong piece of evidence that we did not know previous to actually reading through this indictment? i actually reading through this indictment?— actually reading through this indictment? ~ . ., indictment? i think what we have here, all indictment? i think what we have here. all of— indictment? i think what we have here, all of this _ indictment? i think what we have here, all of this information - indictment? i think what we have here, all of this information set l here, all of this information set forth_ here, all of this information set forth in— here, all of this information set forth in one spot on the right? and so it reads — forth in one spot on the right? and so it reads very easily, and we understand the source of each bit of information, and so the special prosecutor presented this to us in a digestible _ prosecutor presented this to us in a digestible format, so as we just talked _ digestible format, so as we just talked about, much of this has come out before, — talked about, much of this has come out before, but it is now digested for the _ out before, but it is now digested for the public in a way that is frankly— for the public in a way that is frankly more accessible. sarah, i want to ask _ frankly more accessible. sarah, i want to ask you _

frankly more accessible. sarah, i want to ask you what _ frankly more accessible. sarah, i want to ask you what i _ frankly more accessible. sarah, i want to ask you what i just - frankly more accessible. sarah, i want to ask you what i just as - frankly more accessible. sarah, i | want to ask you what i just as the congressmanjamie raskin, which is that defence we have seen from the trump team at this point, which is the first amendment defence, that this is part of the president's right to free speech, how difficult is it going to be for the special counsel to make that link between free—speech then turning into a criminal conspiracy? i free-speech then turning into a criminal conspiracy?— criminal conspiracy? i think the congressman — criminal conspiracy? i think the congressman got _ criminal conspiracy? i think the congressman got that - criminal conspiracy? i think the congressman got that actually | congressman got that actually perfectly right. i was listening to them _ perfectly right. i was listening to them say— perfectly right. i was listening to them say that, i was thinking, oh, i wish _ them say that, i was thinking, oh, i wish i _ them say that, i was thinking, oh, i wish i could — them say that, i was thinking, oh, i wish i could say that so eloquently, because _ wish i could say that so eloquently, because i— wish i could say that so eloquently, because i think he got that exactly right _ because i think he got that exactly right. there is a difference between saying _ right. there is a difference between saying something, which you are allowed — saying something, which you are allowed to do, and there are very few restrictions upon that, and entering — few restrictions upon that, and entering into a conspiracy with someone _ entering into a conspiracy with someone else to produce in unlawful result, _ someone else to produce in unlawful result, so— someone else to produce in unlawful result, so there is a real distinction there in the law, and i think— distinction there in the law, and i think that — distinction there in the law, and i think that will... while trump's team _ think that will... while trump's team is— think that will... while trump's team is out— think that will... while trump's team is out there with these talking points— team is out there with these talking points with regarding the first amendment and intent and things along _ amendment and intent and things along those lines, i think that is going _ along those lines, i think that is going to — along those lines, i think that is going to have little effect on what

happens — going to have little effect on what happens in this courthouse, should there _ happens in this courthouse, should there be _ happens in this courthouse, should there be a — happens in this courthouse, should there be a trial eventually.- there be a trial eventually. tom, i thou~ht there be a trial eventually. tom, i thought one _ there be a trial eventually. tom, i thought one interesting _ there be a trial eventually. tom, i thought one interesting part - there be a trial eventually. tom, i thought one interesting part of. there be a trial eventually. tom, i | thought one interesting part of the indictment that we saw is the point that the former president also tried to pressure thejustice department itself, wanted to replace the attorney general and was convinced not to do so. what did you make of that? ., ., not to do so. what did you make of that? . ., ., ., , ,., that? yeah, and that whole episode is a truly unfortunate. _ that? yeah, and that whole episode is a truly unfortunate. i _ that? yeah, and that whole episode is a truly unfortunate. i said - that? yeah, and that whole episode is a truly unfortunate. i said as - that? yeah, and that whole episode is a truly unfortunate. i said as a . is a truly unfortunate. i said as a formerjustice department official myself. not a lot of new information in that chapter of the indictment, but i did think it is evidence the special counsel will be able to use effectively if and when this case goes to a jury, to say that the president was basically willing to cycle through attorneys general until he found someone who was willing to carry out the scheme that he was demanding, so again i think that will resonate with the jury, i think the fact that other officials within the trumpjustice department, in the trump white house, resisted this plan and said, if you fire the current attorney general, we are all

leaving too, and that because the president to back off, all of these stories are packed and loaded with high and so for that reason i think it will be effective for the special counsel to use at trial.— it will be effective for the special counsel to use at trial. tom, how much does _ counsel to use at trial. tom, how much does that _ counsel to use at trial. tom, how much does that political- counsel to use at trial. tom, how much does that political pressure that is special counsel is under, that is special counsel is under, that the department ofjustice is under, actually bleed into the work thatis under, actually bleed into the work that is being done there? you know, somethin: that is being done there? you know, something is — that is being done there? you know, something is a _ that is being done there? you know, something is a prosecutor— that is being done there? you know, something is a prosecutor in - something is a prosecutor in high—profile case like this, you are very aware of it. date into the day out, how could you not be? you pick up the papers and it is all featured and you have... it changes your life if you are prosecuting a case like this to but at the same time, this is not theirfirst this to but at the same time, this is not their first rodeo. jack smith and his team have been through these cases, very hope i fail cases again before, so what you do in a situation like this is keep your head down, keep focused on the work, on the facts, on the evidence, on how you're going to build your case, present it with the jury and do your absolute best to tune out all the outside noise and static your

hearing around.— outside noise and static your hearing around. outside noise and static your hearin: around. . ., hearing around. sarah, quickly want to net our hearing around. sarah, quickly want to get your take _ hearing around. sarah, quickly want to get your take on _ hearing around. sarah, quickly want to get your take on that _ hearing around. sarah, quickly want to get your take on that as - hearing around. sarah, quickly want to get your take on that as well. - to get your take on that as well. absolutely full of listen, i think prosecutors are used to bringing hard _ prosecutors are used to bringing hard cases, there used to bringing cases— hard cases, there used to bringing cases with — hard cases, there used to bringing cases with lots of... that happens. there _ cases with lots of... that happens. there is— cases with lots of... that happens. there is a — cases with lots of... that happens. there is a real culture in the department ofjustice that i experienced, whether you are serving under— experienced, whether you are serving under a _ experienced, whether you are serving under a republican appointed us attorney— under a republican appointed us attorney or a democratic appointed us attorney, for the prosecutors to really _ us attorney, for the prosecutors to reaiinust _ us attorney, for the prosecutors to really just faithfully follow the evidence where it leads. really interesting _ evidence where it leads. really interesting point _ evidence where it leads. really interesting point there, - evidence where it leads. really interesting point there, sarah. | evidence where it leads. really| interesting point there, sarah. i think that is something we will all be looking at, the pressure they're under tub just for the viewers that may bejoining us, following under tub just for the viewers that may be joining us, following that breaking news. the former president is back in newjersey. at this

agreement after the generous six riot. we have been following this story for you all day and want to remind you that we have a life page —— january 6 right. you remind you that we have a life page ——january 6 right. you can remind you that we have a life page —— january 6 right. you can follow everything that happened. that is bbc dot com. do check that out. let's bring our panel back in. we have been discussing this breaking news, tom and sarah. just wanted to update our fears news, tom and sarah. just wanted to update ourfears might news, tom and sarah. just wanted to update our fears might be news, tom and sarah. just wanted to update ourfears might bejoining us. coming back to you as you were just speaking about the pressures prosecutors face in a case like this, what about the strategy here that we are going to see from jack smith and his team to actually push forward this case? because tom was saying, look, i don't thing it is very likely we are going to see this go to trial before the election. what can jack go to trial before the election. what canjack smith do to try and put this case forward? titer? what can jack smith do to try and put this case forward? very little, i think. put this case forward? very little, i think- 0ne _ put this case forward? very little, i think. one thing _ put this case forward? very little, i think. one thing they _ put this case forward? very little, i think. one thing they can - put this case forward? very little, i think. one thing they can do - put this case forward? very little, i think. one thing they can do is l i think. one thing they can do is try to _ i think. one thing they can do is try to get — i think. one thing they can do is try to get the discovery out as quickly— try to get the discovery out as quickly as— try to get the discovery out as quickly as possible. they need to complete — quickly as possible. they need to complete their obligations in the

most _ complete their obligations in the most efficient way possible, and they are — most efficient way possible, and they are to marshal all of the resources _ they are to marshal all of the resources that at their disposal to do that, _ resources that at their disposal to do that, but i assume those resources _ do that, but i assume those resources are asked. the government is devoting _ resources are asked. the government is devoting the necessary resources to this _ is devoting the necessary resources to this case, — is devoting the necessary resources to this case, but frankly is devoting the necessary resources to this case, but frank ly the timing — to this case, but frank ly the timing of— to this case, but frank ly the timing of the criminal trial is often — timing of the criminal trial is often driven to the defence site and the defence resources, because the government has had access to this material— government has had access to this material for some time that the defendant and the defence teams are 'ust defendant and the defence teams are just getting access to, so it is not unusual— just getting access to, so it is not unusual and, frankly, just getting access to, so it is not unusualand, frankly, it just getting access to, so it is not unusual and, frankly, it is to be expected — unusual and, frankly, it is to be expected that the timing may be driven— expected that the timing may be driven here by trump and his team. we are— driven here by trump and his team. we are seeing deplaning happening right now in newjersey, on the tarmac there, as the former president and his team, it looks like that is the former president just walking down the stairs from the plane. might possibly be him, but we cannot really tell from this vantage point, but they have arrived backin vantage point, but they have arrived back in newjersey, he is heading to

his golf club is minster there. we mentioned... that looks to be the former president. there he is indeed coming down the stairs, just arriving back from washington, dc. tom, we did not do your thoughts on the arraignment earlier, but from what we could tell, a fairly standard procedure. it what we could tell, a fairly standard procedure. it was. i don't want to say — standard procedure. it was. i don't want to say there's _ standard procedure. it was. i don't want to say there's a _ standard procedure. it was. i don't want to say there's a paper- standard procedure. it was. i don't want to say there's a paper for - want to say there's a paper for rating a former president, but we are kind of getting to that point because this is number three! — ever, following the exchange between the federaljudge, the former president, the prosecutors and the lawyers. it played out like you would affect any other arrangement to go. thejudge to would affect any other arrangement to go. the judge to defy the former president of the charges, reminded him of his rights had him state his name and he was not under the state of drugs, which is a standard question in these sorts of things. the government did not push for any sort of conditions on the president, restrictions on his right to travel, things like that. the president was in trouble he cannot speak to witnesses in this case about the facts of the case. again all of

these limits parallel what has happened in other cases, so again it pretty much played out according to scripts today. pretty much played out according to scripts today-— scripts today. tom, what about the former president... _ scripts today. tom, what about the former president... what _ scripts today. tom, what about the former president... what he - scripts today. tom, what about the former president... what he can i scripts today. tom, what about the | former president... what he can he cannot say was that this was a question asked in the last two arraignments as well. is there anything he can or cannot address about this case? i anything he can or cannot address about this case?— about this case? i think the clearest do _ about this case? i think the clearest do not _ about this case? i think the clearest do not cross - about this case? i think the clearest do not cross line, | about this case? i think the i clearest do not cross line, so about this case? i think the - clearest do not cross line, so to speak, is he cannot discuss the subject matter of this indictment with people who are witnesses or likely to be called as witnesses. friday is reasons, you don't want the defendant attempting to courtney testimony, prep testimony, condition peoples testimony, things like that. the president also at least in theory should not be making somewhat consider inappropriate personal attacks on the prosecutor, again i am not 100% confident that president would actually abide by that limitation. we have seen other situations he and his campaign team are not shy about being critical of

the prosecution, so there i am a little less confident there i am a little less confident there is a meaningful limit that will be enforced. the limit on speaking with witnesses i do think is a meaningful limit. i think i will be enforced going forward, particular with the judge presiding in washington, dc who is a bit of a no—nonsensejudge and i in washington, dc who is a bit of a no—nonsense judge and i suspect is knock the president get away with a lot here. $5 knock the president get away with a lot here. �* , , knock the president get away with a lot here. . . , ., ., .. knock the president get away with a lot here. . . , ., ., ., lot here. as we see the motorcade of the form or— lot here. as we see the motorcade of the form or president _ lot here. as we see the motorcade of the form or president he driving - the form or president he driving along the highway in newjersey, just left the plane, i want to bring back congressman rodney davis and bryan lanza as well, standing by listening to all of this. let's start with you. what did you make of it we just have been hearing from tom and sarah about the strategies here? what do you expect to see from the former president's team going forward? delays, looking at is strategically what puts them in the strongest position— what puts them in the strongest position as prosecution is some type of delay— position as prosecution is some type of delay until after the election that in— of delay until after the election that in their mind he is in a better

position— that in their mind he is in a better position to address or whether he is the president elect so he will be able to— the president elect so he will be able to have the charges dropped, be able to have the charges dropped, be able to— able to have the charges dropped, be able to pick— able to have the charges dropped, be able to pick a attorney general who hopefully— able to pick a attorney general who hopefully it is confirmed that they can drop — hopefully it is confirmed that they can drop the charges so you would not even _ can drop the charges so you would not even have to deal the so certainly _ not even have to deal the so certainly delay actives will be the best approach. i hear the conversation of people talking about president _ conversation of people talking about president trump blaming the advice of his— president trump blaming the advice of his lawyers and if he goes on that route — of his lawyers and if he goes on that route he is going to have to sort of _ that route he is going to have to sort of break attorney—client privilege. that in itself will lead to a delay. so if you are gaming this out, — to a delay. so if you are gaming this out, what you hear from everyone _ this out, what you hear from everyone is that nothing will happen before _ everyone is that nothing will happen before november and that the voters will ultimately decide whether it is going _ will ultimately decide whether it is going to _ will ultimately decide whether it is going to be the jailhouse of the white _ going to be the jailhouse of the white house for president trump. he white house for president trump. hrs. talked a white house for president trump. he: talked a little earlier, to follow—up on what you were saying, about former president in your strength about the indictments and agreements and of course he is facing this campaign next year as well. is there any point or scenario where you see this all started to chip away, and only at his strength

but his popularity. i chip away, and only at his strength but his popularity-— but his popularity. i have not seen it. if ou but his popularity. i have not seen it- if you look _ but his popularity. i have not seen it. if you look at _ but his popularity. i have not seen it. if you look at the _ but his popularity. i have not seen it. if you look at the indictments l it. if you look at the indictments that have — it. if you look at the indictments that have taken place, the former president— that have taken place, the former president has gained roughly 12 points — president has gained roughly 12 points. he was in the low 405 a point5. he was in the low 405 a month and _ point5. he was in the low 405 a month and have to go now in the low 505. month and have to go now in the low 50s at _ month and have to go now in the low 50s at least — month and have to go now in the low 505. at least the republican party you do— 505. at least the republican party you do not— 505. at least the republican party you do not see any chipping away. you have — you do not see any chipping away. you have had candidates, anti—republicans speaking negatively anti— republicans speaking negatively about anti—republicans speaking negatively about president trump for nearly seven— about president trump for nearly seven years and had next to no or limited _ seven years and had next to no or limited impact. so from the republican state point republican primary— republican state point republican primary obviously all the state —— nothing _ primary obviously all the state —— nothing chipping away. what happens with those _ nothing chipping away. what happens with those voters in those five states — with those voters in those five states that matter. if you look at those independent voters and how they view — those independent voters and how they view president trump and joe biden— they view president trump and joe biden to _ they view president trump and joe biden to actually viewjoe biden in a more _ biden to actually viewjoe biden in a more favourable way by a percentage of 52—50 three — 14. that is why— percentage of 52—50 three — 14. that is why it _ percentage of 52—50 three — 14. that is why it is _ percentage of 52—50 three — 14. that is why it is in — percentage of 52—50 three — 14. that is why it is in the name of president trump to get the independent voters to stay home. |