washington journal continues. host: former president donald trump will be arraigned today on

four counts of conspiracy of obstruction related to the january 6 capitol hill riots, the 2020 presidential election. we continue our conversation here in washington journal and are joined by politics editor for the washington examiner james antle, thanks for coming by. what is the difference between this federal indictment difference between this indictment and the documents case. >> it's pretty clear you have access to documents you are not supposed to or do not. i am sure the trump legal defense team has theories about presidential powers regarding classified documents they will use in defense, they are possibly going to compare themselves to other people who have had classified documents and maybe were not given the same treatment.

by and large, that seems to be a straightforward case. the january 6 case, clearly there is the subtext of some sort of incitement of the attack on the capital, but that is not exactly what he's been charged with doing. sort of looking at the ways in which his efforts to contest the results of the 2020 election were on some level fraudulent or corrupt is the case being made against him. i think at least initially politically, that indictment probably works to his favor, at least with the republican primary electorate. a lot of primary voters are going to feel the views they hold about the 2020 election are implicated in this indictment and, on some level, holding these views is being criminalized. they are going to view it as a bit of a pile on. this is not a portion -- the

republicans who are particularly exercised by what happened on january 6 are already not voting for donald trump, they support other candidates. they support chris christie, mike pence. they perhaps support ron desantis, but to a lesser degree. in the immediate effect, i suspect the former president's poll numbers with republicans will not be changed. but when you head to the general election, which at the moment is where the former president appears to be headed, this is probably not helpful, just the practicality apart from how you feel about the merits of any of the cases. there are practical issues with being so tied down with all of these legal fights. to what degree does that cut into your ability to wage a competitive campaign? host: in terms of what we are

hearing potentially, some early ideas for the legal arguments for the president's team is there is a first amendment case to be made. you touched on it briefly, the idea the president was expressing his views and you mentioned his supporters can relate. their views are being potentially criminalized. do you think that works as a legal argument in addition to the political argument that the president is making on the campaign trail. guest: it works for republican voters as a political argument, whether it works with the broader general electorate remains to be seen. as a legal argument, juries -- you cannot predict what a jury is going to do and what trump would have to do in this case is raise reasonable doubt. the core argument, in addition to free speech, is going to be

where jack smith is going to present this all as a corrupt arrangement. the trump legal defense team will try to argue there was no corruption, trump believed he would you have a won or there were serious questions about the election. as opposed to a coup, what trump was attempting to do -- this will be the argument, i think -- he was asking other constitutional actors, state legislatures, the vice president, members of congress to exercise lawful powers he believed they possessed and exercised them in certain ways to get to the bottom of the election. when they did not exercise them in the ways he asked, he left. that is what i think their argument will be. the special counsel argument will be that attempting to do all of this from the very beginning was a corrupt

exercise. host: it appears the indictment relies a great deal on the interviews of former vice president, mike pence. he has been the one republican candidate to come out strongly reacting against the indictment. what do you think this means for his presidential aspirations? guest: it is an interesting case as to whether you can make these arguments with the republican primary electorate. the former vice president's case, he has no choice. he is not pulling very well, he is struggling to make the debate stage for the first republican debate, though i do expect he will probably clear the donor threshold required to do that. the fact it is this point suggests troubles with his campaign. he rebuffed trump on this, he has taken the stand that he

chose the constitution over donald trump. that is sort of where he is leaving his case with republican voters. it will be interesting to see how it works out. a problem for the former vice president, just like the former president, is it so much of the conversation about 2024 is going to hinge on 2020. ex-pence himself says, elections are won about the future when you are talking about the past, that is generally to your detriment. i think pentz would like to move on from 2020, whereas trump seems stuck in that year, which for most people was not a pleasant year even apart from the election. i think it is going to be difficult because of the circumstances for pence to escape 2020. host: we welcome your calls and comments, republicans is (202) 748-8001. republicans -- democrats (202) 748-8000, independents and

others (202) 748-8002. your publication frames it like this in an article this morning. trump indictment's and biden family investigations could define rematch election. we have heard in response to the most recent indictment the allegations of a two-tier justice system. what about the biden family and hunter biden in particular? guest: from house speaker mccarthy on down, that was the immediate pub can -- immediate republican response. this is happening as things are heating up in the investigation of hunter biden and the revelation the current president was present on speakerphone and some luncheons for meetings with hunter biden business associates , which is not quite the smoking gun republicans were hoping for, but it is a development beyond

what we were previously told about the president's level of involvement in his son's business activities. we are told there is pretty much a firewall, now we are told he was around, but he was talking about the weather and exchanging pleasantries. i think this is going to become a big part of the republican weaponization two-tier system of justice argument. whether that works with the broader electorate, i do not know. it does have resonance with the republican primary electorate. host: into your point -- mike pence's point with elections being about the future, does this back and forth between the campaigns provide an opening for candidates who will talk -- not only talk, but propose about the future and break away from the arguments of what the current indictments are all about, or with the biden family is doing instead, focusing on issues in

the campaign? guest: most voters do not want a rematch between trump and biden. that is not a popular set of choices. but if you look at polls of democratic and republican primary voters at the moment, the current trajectory is to provide that rematch. both men have healthy leads over their primary opponents. president biden does not really have a top-tier challenger of any kind. donald trump's lead over ron desantis is almost as big as president biden's lead is over robert kennedy junior. if one creates an opening for a centrist third party, whether it is no labels or someone else, some ambitious person may see a trump biden rematch, an opportunity to sort of present themselves and maybe get votes so they can get on the ballot in enough states.

within the republican primaries, it does present the opening for ron desantis or someone else to say they can get us beyond the past disputes. up to this point, no one has been able to make that case successfully enough to make headway nationally or in states. host: with the current trump 2024 campaign, that has resulted in a bump in the polls and fundraising for the former president. any early indications of that from the campaign? guest: what little we have seen in terms of polling -- there has not been much in terms of polling since the indictment has come out. it has generally been stay the course or upward movement. trump is generally polling

between 50% and 60% of the national republican primary electorate, that is a pretty healthy lead for a nonincumbent president. he makes the argument he is a quasi-incumbent and many republican voters are receptive to that, which is to his benefit. we will see if the fundraising numbers -- i think this will be viewed more by a lot of republicans closer to the alvin bragg indictment than the classified documents indictment. i suspect there be rally around the flag effect to it. it puts the rest of a field in a somewhat awkward position. you cannot be seen as exciting with jack smith over trump, you cannot be seen as siding with the biden justice department over trump. but if you are running against

trump and you cannot capitalize on the fact he is now under multiple indictments, what will it take for you to break through? host: let us hear from our viewers, we will go to johnny in granite falls, washington on the independent line. johnny in washington. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been watching you guys since the 1980's, so this is a thrill and i am very nervous, bear with me. i wanted to make a comment about the trump indictment's, i am glad they are going on and i hope something finally sticks. i do not want to see this man back in office. i am kind of hoping he will do what is right for the country and drop out of the race, just turn his endorsements over to somebody else and save us, spare us from sucking all the life out of the campaign.

that is just my opinion on that. i had a question, i am glad to have a reporter, about the devon archer hearing. i was wondering if you know why that was a closed-door session and who made that decision. host: she is talking about the associate of hunter biden. guest: generally, those decisions are a negotiation between the attorneys of whoever is going to testify and leadership of the house oversight committee believes the transcripts of his interview are about to be published or have been published, maybe at some point this morning. then you will get to see what the answers are. a lot of times these hearings, the disadvantage of not being able to see the person testify in real time as members of the committee from each party are going to get to preemptively characterize with the testimony is and they are going to have their own take on what it would

be. for the republicans, the going argument was that devon archer came in and testified about the level of the president's involvement in discussing things with business partners of hunter biden. the democratic argument was that these were largely pleasantries, they did not revolve around the substance of any business decisions. devon archer was not aware of any of the allegations about the president receiving any money or payoff from any of hunter biden's business activities. at most, what we are looking at is hunter biden attempting to create the illusion of having influence over then vice president joe biden. the republican counterargument

is being present at any of these calls or meetings is at a minimum creating or reinforcing that illusion. host: in terms of the federal charges against hunter biden, the implosion of the plea deal with the judge in delaware certainly is not good news to the biden campaign with the potential hunter biden trial later this year or early next year. guest: we are hoping this agreement would be the end of hunter biden's legal troubles and essentially the end of this being in the headlines, apart from some republican house investigations. it is easy, if there are no court proceedings going on, to cast what house republicans are doing is a partisan exercise. if it is still going on in the courts, it becomes more difficult to move beyond that

and frame it as purely a partisan exercise. the courts and justice department remain having some interest in what hunter biden was up to. definitely not what they wanted to be talking about and had to adjust what they have said about it. if the white house line had been the president never discussed anything involving hunter biden's business arrangements, now the standard line is the president and hunter biden have never been in business together. it is a subtle distinction, but it is an important one. host: michelle on the democrats line in florida, good morning. caller: good morning. i am 70 seven years old, i've been a democrat, independent and republican all through those years. what i would like to say is, let the justice department handle all kinds of cases.

you have got the trump case, the biden case, all kinds of cases that come in the court. we do not need to have a former president make negative comments about the justice system. i speak four languages and i watch international tv. i can tell you this is an embarrassment for our country. i would like to say that if biden is guilty, then have the evidence. if trump is guilty, have the evidence. he will be judged in court and that is all we have to do. we do not have to publicize it on tv. the justice department will do their role.

i know trump's followers are never going to change, because he has hypnotized them. on the other hand, you have biden. who some people like. because he has done some very good financial transactions for different people. i do not investigate that. but the justice department will determine what the facts are, then the jury will decide that. guest: that is certainly the case for trump, we have multiple cases that are going to be litigated in court, presumably going to be decided by juries. in hunter biden's case, if not the presidents, we seem to be headed in that direction as well. host: will the hunter biden case take place in delaware? you have been in washington a

while, we've been talking about the potential jury for the latest case, january 6 for president trump. will it be hard to impanel a fair jury for that here in washington? guest: the irony, what i think a lot of people would view as a stronger indictment, the classified documents case, trump drew a more favorable judge potentially. a better venue, with a better from a trump perspective jury pool. in terms of a perspective jury pool, that is more favorable to the former president. in d.c., where i think some of the arguments in the indictment are more debatable, certainly did not get the judge that trump would have wanted. i think given 80%, 90%

democratic vote in the city, it will be difficult. trump's lawyers will be able to challenge prospective jurors and they will do it they can to screen them. but that is going to be an argument about the venue. host: chris from virginia, republican line. caller: good morning. just a couple of things, seeing how all of this has been coming to play -- host: we lost our caller, we will go to gary in texas on the independent line. caller: good morning. i see all of this stuff on tv, america is upside down and backwards it seems like. i do not have a dog in this race. i would like to see joe manchin and mike pompeo run for

president so we can get rid of biden and trump and get america back on the right track. as far as the impeachment goes, i did not understand why garland , adam schiff and other people are not being impeached along with trump. they are just escrow good and guilty as trump and biden. come on joe manchin and mike pompeo, get your head in the ring. host: do you think this gives further opening for a potential third-party candidate? caller: i do. i think a trump biden rematch will make it very attractive for someone to try to get in as some kind of third-party candidate. obviously, there is a lot of fear on the part of democrats that would create an opening for the former president to win the election, because it would be a lot of suburbanites who might vote for a more conventional

republican would not vote for trump. if forced to choose between trump and biden vote for biden. if joe manchin or a centrist figure like that was an option, they might conceivably vote for that option. unless the bottom falls out for trump, which is certainly something that could happen, we could be looking at the third consecutive election that hinges on 50,000 to 100,000 votes in a handful of states, perhaps as few as three states. if that is the case, something like a third-party challenge could swing the race one way or the other. we are still arguing over 30 years later over whether it benefited one candidate or another, so these things can be difficult. they can swing the race in unpredictable ways, that is the democratic concern right now.

if you did see a no labels or centrist third-party, or even a strong third-party challenge on the left, it would be to trump's benefit. host: let us hear from shawn in colorado, republican line. caller: good morning. the media, democracies are at risk. all of the scrap. -- this crap. the biden crime family is an asset of foreign countries and they are attacking his political opponent. this is disgusting. the doj, everyone, the whole swamp needs to be cleaned out. it is disgusting. i have family members that died for this country. host: any response? guest: sure.

obviously that will be a big part of trump's argument heading into the general election. a lot of the republican inquiries on capitol hill will focus on, at a minimum, hunter biden was making money off of being a biden. the most favorable interpretation of those events for the president is he either was not that aware of what his son and brother were doing or he did not tell them forcefully enough to stop. now with some of the speakerphone claims, we are seeing may be he had a little more awareness of what was going on and certainly seemed to on some level be enabling, if not encouraging them. that is going to trigger further investigation, then we will have to see where it goes. host: we touched on other

republican candidates response to the indictment, some of them responding talking about a two-tiered justice system, the weaponization of the federal government. another approach by will heard ahead of the indictment in iowa, i want to play the comments he made about the former president running and the reaction of the audience in iowa. [video clip] >> the reason donald trump lost the election in 2020 is he failed to grow the gop brand in areas like women with a college degree in the suburbs. black and brown communities, people under the age of 35. we need leaders who did like your governor reynolds, who went to places people did not expect. that is how you turned red. if we -- one of the things we

need and elected leaders, for them to tell the truth, even if it is unpopular. donald trump is not running for president to make america great again. donald trump is not running for president to represent the people that voted for him in 2016 and 2020. donald trump is running to stay out of prison. if we elect -- i know. i know. listen. i know the truth. the truth is hard. but if we elect donald trump, we are willingly given joe biden four more years in the white house and america cannot handle that. god bless you and god bless america. host: will heard is not polling high in the republican primary, but there is a big field.

what did you think of his argument? he initially had the crowd in his hand, he had some support. guest: what you are seeing with will heard is the dilemma for anybody who is not donald trump in the republican primaries right now. you have to find some way to make the argument that trump should not be the nominee and you should be, perhaps being entangled in all of these legal situations will disadvantage the republican ticket in 2024. if you make the case to aggressively and position yourself too much against the preferences of republican primary voters who still by and large like and support trump, you end up like will heard getting booed off the stage and not polling well. is there a way to make the argument he was making before he was booed?

when the audience seemed receptive, can he a bottle that point? or is that too difficult to do? chris christie is polling better than will heard and is probably the best polling candidate who has made an aggressive anti-trump push. his past denomination looks dicey. host: elizabeth on the democrats line. caller: thank you for giving me this privilege to be on your show. it sounds like you all really know what you're talking about, very impressive and i appreciate it. what i would like to say is that first of all, when donald trump started out -- i thought, oh no, he is involved with the christian right. i did not get it. somebody who has got that much immorality going on -- do not

mind me, i am a christian and i am a democrat. every one of my buddies are christian democrats, even the ones that do not admit they are democrats. there are people like us that actually believe you have to have some kind of substance as a person to be a leader. you cannot just be anybody who has got so much going on. stormy daniels as an example or whatever. i have let a pretty wild myself. we are not judgmental. but you do not want someone who is insulting people from the get-go and who is a racist. he is even putting down the disabled, that is not somebody anybody should be looking out to in the first place.

once people put their faith in someone like that who does not respect to certain groups, then you get what you pay for, so to speak. that is why we are dealing with what we are dealing with now. it is not heated this and this made a run after he became president, it is how he started in his campaign. as a person, as a christian -- i never was patriotic, but this will make you patriotic and make you believe in your country. i believe in my heart of hearts that because he is such an immoral -- i hate to use that word. it sounds like i am trying to preach or something. but since he is this type of person, that is the fruit of it. host: thanks for the call. guest: a big part of were any

republican primary challenger to donald trump is going to try to do is separate evangelical voters in particular from trump and try to move some of the base away from the former activists that he kept the majority of those promises, certainly the reversal of roe v. wade would not have happened without some of trump's nominees to the supreme court, which will be used against him in a general election. certainly with social conservatives in republican primaries, that is a pretty impressive aspect of his record. that was something ronald reagan and george bush tried and failed to do. donald trump did it.

for a lot of the reasons the caller mentions and some of trump's distancing himself from his handiwork on roe and dobbs, some challengers see an opening in that will be critical if you are going to make roads in a place like iowa or south carolina, pivotal early states in the republican nominating calendar. you will need those voters if you are able to be competitive with the former president. host: the former president is leading all of the polls for the republican primary. we had a caller earlier this week that said the rally last weekend -- it was not the crowd they talked about, it was not his big as former rallies. outside of the polls about the horse race, where do you see potential weaknesses in donald trump support that he did not

have an 2020 or 2016? guest: if you break down some of the polling numbers and look at the focus groups of republican primary voters, including by various campaigns, trump has wide support but some of the support is soft. the people running against trump are hoping the subset of trump voters who are with him right now, but has misgivings about his temperament, misgivings about the way he talks, misgivings about his tweets or whatever we call those things today who do not like those aspects of trump, they may have openness to other candidates they are currently less familiar with. peeling those people away is a big part of how ron desantis or anyone else has some kind of path to winning the nomination. there is also the possibility

that, at some point -- it has not happened yet, so it may not. but at some point, it is possible the practicality of nominating someone who has so many other problems -- the desantis campaign has previewed some of these criticisms by noting how much of trump's campaign spending has gone toward legal fees rather than trying to build a competitive race against joe biden. the practicalities of running someone in a general election that you were trying to win who has so many other problems they are dealing with becomes daunting. at some point, do republican primary voters take that into consideration when deciding who to vote for? i think that even among republicans, trump has a plurality of the party pretty firmly in his camp. a majority of the party with him right now.

there is a core group, close to a quarter of the party, that would like to move on. that is not big enough to win by itself. but it could present a challenge in a general election. there is an electability argument of the republicans will be making. host: can you give us a condensed version of where you see weaknesses in the incumbent president, the presumptive democratic nominee? the weaknesses in his party? guest: not a lot of enthusiasm among younger voters, which she needs. a lot of concerns about his age. suboptimal enthusiasm from black voters, even more trouble and levels of enthusiasm among hispanic voters. they are making some shifts toward republican candidates in certain races.

his numbers on a lot of key issues, including the economy, the low unemployment rate, the recent declines in inflation, he gets a very low marks on the economy. that is a major issue. low marks on handling of immigration at the border. republicans who are not trump argue that biden probably could not win an election that is a referendum on his presidency, which is why they try so hard to make it a binary choice between him and trump. host: in texas, independent line. caller: hello. revenge and separate from

government, whatever we do is godly or ungodly. if we support lies -- no matter what party, if you support lies and pushing lies, trying to convince people of lies and call yourself christian, we are not going to heaven. i don't want nobody to die and go to hell. in the same manner, people have got to stop fighting for lies. to make their party or family member or friend justified when they know it is not true and they know something is wrong, do not support it. i love all of you will, i hope you keep god and jesus christ in your life. except truth.

host: question for you from a text from stephen arizona. i find it interesting to the best of my knowledge, based on news reports i have heard and seen, none of trump's defenders are disputing facts presented in the indictment. instead, they are attacking the personality and motives of the indictment. guest: i think there might be some dispute over intent, motives, with the meaning of certain -- there is some dispute over whether trump was deliberately inciting versus whether the crowd got worked up. he was telling them to be peaceful. a big part of the trump legal defense -- the trump political defense against legal charges is going to be double standard

two-tiered system of justice weaponization. when they go into court, they will need to have a legal argument that moves beyond that. it will be interesting in the classified documents case to see what they say or do on that front. host: let us hear from elayne in pennsylvania, republican caller. caller: good morning. i am just calling because all of this going on about trump, i do not think it is a very nice of people to be laughing about one person's going to jail, especially with everything going on. they are coming after trump, they are coming after us. i do not watch cnn that much, but they are laughing. how can you laugh about one person might be going to jail?

they are coming after him, they are coming after us. abortion, that is important. that should not be the top of anybody's list. you are either american or not. you want freedom or you don't. i do agree with the caller yesterday, where is walter? we do not have reporters anymore. i went to see the movie the sound of freedom, go see it. it is a very true story and this is what is happening in our country now. host: several observations, would you like to respond? guest: a big part of the republican primary and trump's campaign is distrust of certain institutions. the media probably tops that list. media bias has been a topic of

interest to republican voters at least since richard nixon, that intensified under trump. cable news network have to go out and find new republican pendants to defend trump in 2015 and 2016. but it has gone deeper in this campaign, you are starting to see concerns raised about other institutions like the fbi and justice department. 30 or 40 years ago, republican voters would have had a lot of faith in them. host: one more call from maryland, democrat line. caller: good morning. i wanted to preface my remarks to respond to a gentleman that called in the last segment, complained about the journalist from the guardian newspaper. saying it was a left-wing, the washington examiner, as everyone

knows, is a right newspaper. so there is the answer to that. this idea, it is a false equivalency between hunter biden and donald trump. hunter biden was not the president of the united states. he did he did not try to overthrow the election. he did not try to stop the election. he did not do any of those things. there is no equivalency. republicans are not going to be happy. they're not going to be satisfied unless hunter biden gets life imprisonment, death penalty, or commit suicide. only then will they be satiated and that is the truth. they are very bloodthirsty. this whole idea that hunter biden is the big bogeyman and not donald trump, who was

president of the united states, people died in that riot. host: appreciate the call. final thoughts. guest: that is going to be the argument. it is not an apples to apples comparison and for no other reason than i hunter biden it was never president of the united states. republicans are trying to center their investigation to hunter biden more and more on the president himself rather than just his son. clearly in the absence of that family relationship, would any of these business arrangements be possible, but yes, it is possible and certainly, a possibility that once you move beyond republican primary electorate, that is not as engaging as a potable argument. host: james antle, read more at washington examiner.com an