watch. very -- i love baseball. >> huge baseball fan. >> and it's really cool, like in a corn field there, is corn -- >> i've always wanted to walk out of a corn field or run through a corn field. >> we can make that happen. we need this, americans totally are you can recognizable. we need to, you know, come back. >> tune in tonight. >> we are watching rally on wall street, potentially inflation may be peaking, while prices remain at historic highs. wholesale prices coming in at 9.8%, consumer costs 8.5%. that is year over year, and that is the tally for the month, mike. >> all of this, sandra, as democrats gear up for a vote on

the massive tax and spending bill. steve moore weighs in on where the economy is heading. >> an armed man tried to break into the fbi building in downtown cincinnati. i'm sandra smith in new york. mike, great to have you back. >> in for john roberts. police are working to arrest him. >> watching the developing story for you. he has the latest. what are we hearing, garrett? legal reports indicate the suspect demonstrated what agents described as a potential threat. it's not clear if any shots were fired, but after agents responded, the suspects took off

leading police on a car chase, 50 miles northeast of cincinnati to a rural area near wilmington. this is between interstate 71 and state route 73. the suspect is in a field near a farm there, wearing a gray shirt and body armor. and has been trading shots with law enforcement officers trying to calm the suspect down. no word at this point as to why they targeted the field office, but comes a couple days after we learned there is a significant increase in death threats against fbi agents and leadership following this week's raid at former president trump's home in mar-a-lago. christopher wray was asked about the threats and called them deplorable and dangerous. we'll keep monitoring this and keep you updated as we learn more. we are expecting potentially a press conference here with an update in the next little bit. we'll let you know. >> sandra: we'll check back in soon, garrett, thank you. >> mike: the fbi is actively

reviewing the records it seized from mar-a-lago days after an unprecedented raid. merrick garland is not talking but the evidence could soon speak for itself. the judge who signed the search warrant is weighing whether or not to release it after two separate motions were filed. the trump team says it will not release the copy it received. we are learning more about what may have prompted the raid. an informant tipped off fbi investigators about some documents stored on the grounds. sean and jessica will join us, but david spunt is live at the justice department. the judge could rule to unseal the warrant as soon as next week. >> david: federal magistrate judge bruce reinhardt, based in south florida, and given the department of justice until monday to answer to a lawsuit that has been filed to actually unseal some of these documents, the warrant, affidavit, to make public why the fbi specifically

went to mar-a-lago, what were they looking at. so, the judge said the department of justice, end of business day, to provide your answer and then the judge will decide whether or not he wants to do that. we of course hope it happens so we can see exactly why, because there are so many unanswered questions in this case. we can tell viewers right now just to update from what we have been learning that june meeting we have been discussing at mar-a-lago between doj and trump officials, trump lawyers took the doj team down to the room at the estate where boxes of material were stored. some material viewed by the doj team were labelled as sensitive material. our source would not say they had a specific designation such as classified or top secret, and unclear whether doj asked for an inventory list, after high level back and forth negotiations between the trump team and the government over potentially classified information broke down over the past eight weeks,

that's why the search took place on monday. this is according to multiple sources familiar with the search and those meetings at mar-a-lago. the former president's team denies this and claims donald trump has been cooperating and happy to turn over any requested material. there is growing frustration inside federal law enforcement agencies looking to hear from the chief law enforcement officer, attorney general merrick garland, and the fbi director to say something, maybe even issue a statement that is generic to let people know what's going on. well, the attorney general has stayed silent this week, but the fbi director wray yesterday was asked about this with reporters. listen. >> well, as i'm sure you can appreciate, not something that i can talk about, so i refer you to the department. >> he's talking about the department of justice, he says after the department of justice we have asked to hear from the attorney general, we have not yet. so basically what's going on here, the government obviously has these documents they know what is in them. the trump team, trump attorney also confirmed they have a copy

of the warrant, either could release them, so who will release it first, that's the question, mike. >> mike: david spunt, live at the justice department. thanks very much. >> sandra: jessica and sean, fox news contributors. can democrats stay on message ahead of the midterm elections? obviously a lot to look at there, but before all this happened, democrats were out on the tv airwaves touting these recent wins for joe biden. seems this is distracting from that. >> i think there has been a lot of discipline on the senate level, and mitch mcconnell does not really want to talk about this, everyone wants to focus on policy. they know in a midterm election where the economy is the central issue that people will vote their kitchen table issues, checkbook, etc. i think it can stay as a nondistraction and a lot of wins, you can look at what's happened with the generic

ballot even in the house, shifted for the democrats and the 538 polling, the senate, we are favored to keep it and we can stay on message. an important piece of the puzzle, and dashing to defend president trump, calling this you know, a huge injustice, the raid, execution of a warrant that did go through a judge, you can see this is a piece of the puzzle of why republicans cannot be given control again of the government and are really unfit to lead. >> sandra: the question whether the raid could backfire for the democrats, one white house official under trump said after the raid he has never seen the gop base this red hot and is causing republicans to rally to donald trump's defense. >> 100%. i got from wisconsin, a primary tuesday night, so many voters are energized by what happened to donald trump in mar-a-lago, and people were not going to

vote come out and actually vote. some people were leaning away from the trump-endorsed candidate vote for that candidate because they were so angry. donald trump, investigated on the russia collusion, nothing there, hillary clinton concocted story, impeached him twice, now going after classified documents, and to think that donald trump is treated fair, i think republicans have a long track record could go no, the government and democrats have not treated him fairly and jessica says it's about policy. it is about policy. democrats have passed their agenda and their agenda is horrible for the american people. just because you pass more spending bills, more regulation, does not mean the american people like it. spending $80 billion on the irs, what american says i want $80 billion to go to the irs because it's going to make my life better. no one thinks that. >> sean said something, it's about classified information, yes, sir, it is about classified

information. not only did donald trump upgrade the punishment for doing this in 2018, making it a felony to mishandle information like this, the man had in the 15 boxes taken out of mar-a-lago in february, he had documents and information so classified we could not even talk about what was contained in them. it is breaking the law, it matters. >> jessica, he has papers in boxes, and hillary clinton has servers -- did they raid her home. >> they didn't need to, she cooperated like a normal human being. >> sandra: it's a debate the country is having right now. and two questions, i have to wrap here. you want donald trump to run, correct? >> i think whether trump or desantis, either would be great. donald trump, i'm an are supporter of his. not because i like every tweet, but encouraging him to run,

absolutely. >> sandra: jessica, i hear you moving away from the kitchen table issues. people are worried about their pocket books, inflation. can democrats show they care about the sky high prices? >> i moved away from the topic because we were discussing something else. democrats are meticulously on message about this, a shift in the polls. >> has it worked? >> sandra: you need to come back, it's a fiery debate. >> meet us in the green room, we will carry on. >> sandra: mike. >> mike: sandra, final arguments starting today and convicted double murder scott peterson, his attorneys say he needs a retrial because of juror misconduct. emotional day, are the families of scott and laci there?

>> they are, mike. back here at the same courthouse in redwood city where scott peterson's original murder trial took place in 2004. the sharon, laci's mother and other relatives are in the jury box off to the right, scott's family is sitting behind him inside the courtroom as this make or break moment in his fight for a new trial gets underway. now, at the center of this legal fight is rochelle knight. she was juror number 7, and very outspoken about her belief that scott murdered his pregnant wife on christmas eve 2002. even co-wrote a book about the case. she had a few legal entanglementes of her own, including taking out a restraining order when she was pregnant. something she failed to mention on her juror questionnaire. scoot peterson's lawyers say if they knew about that, they would never let her judge a man

accused of hurting his unborn child. knight has denied any wrongdoing and said she was not bias against peterson until after she heard the evidence against him. scott peterson is now 49 years old. at san quentin prison almost 20 years and the rest of his life rides on the outcome of this hearing which actually began back in february, but because of covid and other issues, closing arguments have been delayed until today. so in the weeks ahead, a judge will decide if there was juror misconduct and if scott peterson should get a whole new trial. a redo of one of the most infamous murder trials in history. and his lawyer says he will introduce evidence that will clear his client. closing arguments just now getting underway. >> mike: so she has sent letters

to scott peterson over the years asking the question why do men cheat. highly unusual. she's been quite emotional when she is been testifying, right, claudia? >> that is correct. she and scott began the sort of penpal relationship not long after she cast her vote to convict him. she said she wished she had never done this. they have a unique interesting relationship a part of the hearing and goes to the defense point that you know, a defendant is entitled to 12 fair and impartial jurors, not 11. we'll see how the judge rules. she has until november, by the way, to issue a ruling in this case. >> sandra: claudia, we look at the live picture, redwood, california, scott peterson, seeing the live pictures in the courtroom there. laci peterson's family has been

very involved in every involvement in the case. earlier this year, saying they are bracing themselves for a possible new scott peterson trial. it has been brutal for them. they have addressed him directly, they believe he should never leave jail. are they present, are we seeing her family members there? >> they are in the courtroom. we know that her brother is sitting next to his mother, sharon roache, and they are not going to be filmed as part of the live feed that you are seeing. but it's been a tough time for the family. it wasn't that long ago that the judge overturned, actually the supreme court of california overturned scott peterson's death sentence because the original judge in the case made a mistake. so now he has been resentenced to life in prison without parole, and with this hearing, a step closer to getting a new

trial. >> mike: it does not stop scott peterson's actions related to laci peterson, seems to be a technicality, a juror who lied potentially about her involvement and her true feelings. it's got to be gut wrenching for laci's family and a lot of folks thinking it does not change his behavior, right? >> that's right, and you can only imagine, mike and sandra, that back in 2005 when he was sentenced, this family probably prayed they would never have to be back here at this courthouse in redwood city ever again, and now they have had to come back multiple times to face scott peterson, see him there in the courtroom in person, it must be gut wrenching for them, and if he gets a new trial, the nightmare will just continue on. and you know what they say also with christmas and the holidays approaching, very difficult times for this family because their daughter, laci, was killed

on christmas eve in 2002. so very dark days for the family and yes, they are here keeping a very close eye on how prosecutors present their closing argument to convince the judge to reject this bid and deny scott peterson a whole new murder trial. >> sandra: absolutely brutal to relive these moments and to see scott peterson there in court. he's got a face mask, as our viewers can see, claudia, over his face. his -- her family, laci peterson's family, her mother sharon said two things will never change. laci and connor will always be dead and you are always her murderer. you betrayed her and everyone else, ended two beautiful souls. and her siblings have been extremely vocal, expressing their anger at scott, saying 19 years and not a day that goes by that i don't think about my

sister, said amy, her sister. her brother brent said no words to express not being able to experience life together. you go back, 20 years ago now, claudia, and you remember how this case captivated the nation, from the moment she went missing. >> it really did. and my heart really goes out to brent roache as well. in an odd twist of faith, rochelle knight got on to the jury, her brother had exchanged words with another juror in the lobby of this courthouse. he got kicked off the jury, that left a shot for rochelle to slide in as an alternate and she joined the jury after deliberations had begun. so you have to wonder how brent roache is feeling about all of this today with this entire

hearing centered on rochelle knight. >> mike: accused of being a stealth juror who failed to reveal that she had been a victim of domestic violence. you see there her colorful hair, she was also nicknamed strawberry short cake because of her bright red hair during the trial back in 2004 and i'm sure laci's family and families of crime victims are not amused by somebody who clearly likes the attention, clearly liked it back then and is enjoying it now, and starting up a penpal relationship with this guy is just stunning. >> it really is. and she testified during the hearing, she said she regretted reaching out to scott peterson but her letters were key pieces of evidence in this case as the defense argued that this woman clearly had a bias, she had an axe to grind, should have never been on this jury, she didn't

foreclose her own legal entanglement on that juror questionnaire and said if they had known about this restraining order, some of her other issues, that she failed to disclose they would have never let her on this jury. and it's interesting to note that back in 2004 scott peterson's original lawyer actually fought for rochelle knight to be on this jury, and she was an alternate until late in the game after deliberations had started, and she helped convict him. but interesting to see the woman when she testifies, co-wrote a book about the case tried to capitalize on her involvement in the high profile murder case and now says she regrets all of it. we'll see what the judge decides. >> sandra: we are continuing to look live inside the courtroom. we'll watch for developments from there, and claudia, we'll get back to you as soon as we know more. joining us by phone is geraldo

rivera, welcome to you. i know you have watched this case from day one and you have done a lot of reporting post conviction of scott peterson, and even into the details of what prison life has been like for him. but what a moment this is, and you can imagine, only imagine how incredibly difficult this is for laci peterson's family. >> absolutely, it made me want to throw up in my mouth. disgusting person killing his eight month pregnant wife. he is the epitome of evil. i happen to see him, i was in san quentin for an unrelated story and i saw him in the distance, i know he saw me, i hope he considers me his arch enemy, because he richly deserved the death sentence that was overturned by the california supreme court.

i was -- i was mildly disappointed when the death sentence was overruled, but i was satisfied that he would spend the rest of his rotten life behind bars, and now comes this juror who, you know, trying to exploit her position and all the rest of it, you know, bizarre wrinkle in this, but what it does to me is to bring back the facts as they were unravelling and being revealed of how he took her body out into the san francisco bay, i'm remembering it now as i speak to you, how he took her body out there and dumped it just for his love life, it was the most grotesque, narcissism, most malignant selfishness to do what he did to his pregnant wife,

laci, and i remember her family and the grief that they suffered and the anger and the rage and they have been through this, you know, every time you get a defendant who was brought back to court, the family has to start reliving the whole horrible nightmare. this man killed his pregnant wife to be with his girlfriend and now to see him there and to see all the resources being devoted in the courtroom and the officers and spectator, all the rest of it, he doesn't deserve that kind of attention. >> mike: geraldo, you have described scott peterson as living the life of riley at san quentin. describe what you witnessed. >> what i saw was, there he was, in the weight room, outdoors the roof, he was in the corner and he was taking turns, doing some

heavy lifting, you know, some pressing with barbells, and then you know, kind of giving five, slapping five to the other, you know, everyone knew that we were in the building there, everyone knew that we were looking, watching, you know, so they kind of smirky, you know, their little club in the fitness corner, and it was -- it was bizarre to see. l it was -- you know, they become celebrities even in, you know, behind bars, at that time sentenced to die. it was -- and i think that's probably why he was getting that kind of access and treatment, the vip treatment because he was condemned convict at the time i saw him. but you know, the whole thing, to see it come back is very distressing. >> i remember you were reporting at the time, geraldo, he was seen in the jail playing

basketball described sort of like a college student on break, just sort of living his life rather cushy as you described it. for anybody just tuning in, these are the final arguments that we were expecting and they are happening now in redwood city, california, in scott peterson's bid for a new trial. the judge could decide if the convicted killer will get a new trial. he was convicted in 2004 of killing his wife laci and unborn son connor. his attorneys are saying the case should be retried because of juror misconduct and provide more detail on that, the center of this request from peterson's legal team for a new trial is whether a juror, rochelle knight, lied when she said she was never involved in a domestic violence case. it's been discovered, peterson's

lawyers said, that during the time right before the time she served on the jury she was involved in a domestic violence issue with an ex-boyfriend. his legal team says she was also involved in a court case involving a woman who was apparently stalking her and a lot of this occurred while she was pregnant. much as laci peterson was pregnant. that is the end of that quote. so, no matter what you think of scott peterson, he says, no matter what you think of any defendant, everybody has a right to 12 independent jurors who are neutral and who are willing to listen to the evidence. that is why they are reconvening in that courtroom today, geraldo. >> i appreciate that, i understand the law involved, but you have to put yourself not only in the victim family's situation but also in the situation of the state of california. the state and the prosecutors, d.a. did their best to vet a

juror that was fair and impartial. it was a very rigorous voir dire, and what you have is a desire to be, you know, many people don't want to serve because it's a celebrity case, it takes up a lot of time. others, though, wanted very much to be part of their lives. they see it as an adventure, so there is some, you know, some white lies or, you know, some bending of the truth to get on the jury, some competition to get on the jury, as bizarre as that may sound. this situation, though, if she flat out lied as is apparent, put yourself in the district attorney's position. what are they supposed to do? they can't mind read, they can't

subject every potential juror to a lie detector test. maybe there should be a lie detector test. but it's not the state's fault. it's not the victim's family's fault. it is the fault of the juror who wanted as you described to have celebrity by association and writing books and so forth. but to me i keep going back to how it was, dealing with laci's family during the search and this son of a -- how he pretended to care about the search, how he pretended, just gone fishing as i remember, you know, and then the bundle that he dumps into the bay, and it's his pregnant wife and then to

emerge after the disposal of laci's body as this husband who has lost his wife, poor guy, so again, he was this celebrity, but you know, you always know the husband did it, almost always. they all think they are so slick they are going to get away with it. >> sandra: from one breaking news to the other, stand by with us, we are going to head to ohio now, where there's a news conference after a man attacked the fbi cincinnati office. update now. >> you have done more on the details. so as of right now, that's all the questions i'm going to take, and we'll fill you guys in here in a little bit as soon as i get more information. i can't comment on anything right now. >> sandra: the news we missed

maybe right at the top there was that the official on the ground there in ohio said on the attempted breach of the fbi cincinnati building says gunfire was exchanged with the suspect. we'll wait for any other updates there. it looks like he was not taking many questions from the reporters that showed up there in cincinnati on this story. so we still await any more information on that. ted williams is joining us on the phone right now. hey, ted, it's sandra and mike. we are covering the breaking news here on what we just heard out of ohio. still waiting to hear more on what prompted this, who this was. your thoughts in this moment. >> hi, mike and sandra. i can tell you we are in a very volatile time. it seems as though there's not the respect that a given law enforcement officer and the recent days we have had a great

deal of disrespect that has been shown, i believe, to the fbi for them doing their job on the raid at mar-a-lago in which they carried out and as a result of that we have had a great deal of rhetoric that has put fbi agents in the bulls eye for many people around this country, and i think that's very dangerous. we on television and in the communication business have a duty, should i say, to be very careful of what we say that may drum up someone to do something like may very well have been done here in ohio. this situation could have turned out a great deal worse. so i'm happy that as of this time, from what i've been told,

that no one has been harmed, there was gunfire there, and that was exchanged. but we have to be very careful how we denigrate these agents, specifically fbi agents who in the trump case down in mar-a-lago was only doing their job. >> mike: ted, tracking two big breaking stories. the fbi office in cincinnati, ohio and also the scott peterson trial in redwood city, california, where potentially a flakey juror who wanted 15 minutes of fame could potentially lead to a new trial. as someone who is a long time police detective in the nation's capital, can you imagine what the law enforcement back in the day is look at their work possibly being changed by an inappropriate juror. >> yeah, mike, i covered the

scott peterson case for fox and i can tell you first of all that i believe scott peterson committed these heinous offenses against his wife and unborn son. scott peterson, at the time from what we had been told and had been proven, was having an affair and wanted to get out of that affair. now as pertains to this juror, i think that -- and as a lawyer i can tell you also that i tried to get cases overturned pursuant based upon the activity of a juror, and i can tell you that's a very high bar. it rarely ever happens. if the juror in this case of scott peterson made a mistake on her form, that in and of itself is not gonna be enough to get

this case overturned. if there was some bias on the part of a juror in the scott peterson case, what the defense in this case is going to have to show is how that bias affected other jurors. did jurors, pursuant to their own independent recollection of the evidence, come to a decision that they all agreed upon. i would say, and i would be very troubled if scott peterson got a new trial. i thought when he was given the death penalty that that was the appropriate sentence pursuant to what he had done to his wife and his unborn child. and in recent years here, that death penalty had been

overturned. i would hope, and i'm sure law enforcement all the work that they put in, mike and sandra, are hoping that this judge does not undo and give this man a new trial. as far as i'm concerned, he's not deserving of a new trial and as far as i'm concerned i would hope and i wish that they would have kept the death penalty in place for this guy because i saw no social redeeming qualities in someone who would go and take their wife out and drown their wife and kill their unborn child. and that is what he was convicted of, meaning scott peterson. >> sandra: ted, if you could stay with us, and bring geraldo back with us. ted is bringing back so many memories, quite some time ago, scott peterson's wife, laci, eight months pregnant at the time she was reported missing christmas eve 2002, 20 years

ago, scott told authorities he went fishing and when he came home to their residence in modesto, california, laci was gone. and the investigators said that scott was not exactly forthcoming, he showed little emotion, did not ask as many questions as usual of an innocent spouse of a missing person and you remember the vigils and the search parties for laci and the financial awards, scott was photographed laughing and smiling at one of the vigils in the weeks between her disappearance, the associated press reported that scott sold laci's car, tried selling their house, turned their unborn baby's nursery into a storage room and then it was reported that he was in debt before laci's disappearance. there were so many twists and turns and very unusual activity

that was reported all throughout that time, geraldo. >> i just remember his smirk. i remember once confronting him during one of the vigils, it was very sad to watch and very heart wrenching, but also revealing to watch how the family went from, laci's family went to support of scott to increasing skepticism, i thought he did it from minute one, but initial support of scott, support waivered, they became increasingly convinced and particularly with the revelation of the girlfriend, to being convinced that he was the monster that not only took their daughter but also their

grandson. it was almost, you know, a reflection of so many of these domestic violence cases. it is almost always the boyfriend, the husband, being the male significant other who was responsible when a woman goes missing and then turns up dead. i just -- if i can, sandra, just one comment about what ted, who is the superb expert said about the fbi raid here in ohio, the gunman with the ar-15 shooting up the fbi headquarters here in ohio, one of their offices, i hope and pray that this is not related to mar-a-lago. because the vitrile and the tone of the rhetoric and the hatred being directed against the bureau by supporters, fringe supporters of the former president is very alarming.

i grew up believing that the fbi was, you know, we had all the tv shows and they were flawless, of course they are not flawless, but they are a magnificent law enforcement agency doing its best, i'm not sure the details of the mar-a-lago raid will eventually be revealed to us, we'll know everything eventually, but to see this really visceral hatred directed at the fbi by people who believe that they are supporting the former president is really, really very, very dangerous. we can't, and again, i'm assuming this, ted and i are just using, you know, best guesses on this. we don't know for sure what the motive was of the assailant, but we can't go there as a country. once we start, you know, being

so disrespectful and filled with vitrile against an agency that is so central to so many american's lives i think we, sandra, run into danger. >> sandra: back -- >> mike: what about the taxpayers footing the bill if there is another trial for scott peterson and the whole circus comes back to town. >> mike, that's a very valid question and what i was trying to say earlier when i said it's not the state's fault this woman deceived them. you know, if appropriate, i don't know the statute of limitations, but if appropriate they should prosecute the juror, prosecute the lying juror. not the state. the state could have easily substituted for her, they had alternate jurors if they knew and they would have, of course, to avoid this kind of situation. but i like to believe right now,

remember, he is not -- he has not been granted a new trial yet, that is it what's being contemplated right now, but i believe that this motion to grant him a new trial should be denied on the basis of the state's lack of culpability, and as ted says, this is and should be a very high bar, a very high bar. otherwise when you look at it, every well-funded defendant in retrospect to investigate every single juror and find a flaw post conviction and exploit it. there will never be a settled -- how can it be that in a murder, going down to 2002 and the trials that took place in the subsequent year, way back there and here he is again, having done his weight lifting and his basketball and living the life

of riley and being a celebrity, an in-prison celebrity that this punk is once again on our tv screens and i know for a fact behind that mask he's smirking. behind that mask he's telling us all to go screw ourselves. >> sandra: claudia is joining us now, we await breaking news from the redwood city courtroom, this hearing was supposed to take place back in june. it was postponed after an attorney contracted covid, peterson was exposed to the virus in san quentin, so a judge is not expected to decide by today, right, this is in the next 90 days. what do we expect to come out of the courtroom today, claudia? >> right now of course we are hearing the closing arguments and i can tell you, because we have this live feed, the gentleman doing the talking right now is scott peterson's lawyer cliff gardner.

he may not be as well-known to our viewers as mark garagos, but he is a heavy het -- hitter in the bay area. he takes on death penalty cases, and he got special permission to represent scott even though scott is no longer a condemned inmate, not on death row, although still incarcerated at san quentin prison, and our producer in the courtroom is telling me that cliff gardner is just hammering this point home before the judge about rochelle and how she lied, that she was a victim of domestic violence and she has a sketchy past for want of a better word and she should not have been on this jury, and if they had known about her past and her restraining order against the father of her unborn child, they would have never let her on this jury. and again, they keep saying,

look, you are entitled to 12 fair and impartial jurors, not 11. they are hoping very much their argument resonates with this judge and of course we will hear the prosecution give their closing arguments. it's not expected to last very long, maybe a couple more hours and then the judge will take it into consideration and she has a number of weeks to issue a ruling. it's unclear if she will call everybody back to court when she announces her ruling or if she will do it in some electronic way. she has until november. and so scott peterson and his team will be sitting tight waiting for that ruling, while the families will just be praying that there will not be a redo of this infamous case. >> mike: claudia, i don't know how long you have been in redwood city on this particular assignment, but folks around town, do they want to go through this again or what are you picking up from people around town? >> i think they would not like to see this trial happen again.

first of all, i don't know if you can hear, there is a lot of construction in this area. it's difficult to move around redwood city around the courthouse right now. i think the folks in this area had enough of the circus when it was here in 2004-2005, it was similar to the o.j. simpson trial. there were people here, there were people with signs, people trying to sell products related to the case, it was very much a crazy atmosphere here, and i think the folks in this area would like to keep the calm they have now while the construction work is underway, anyway, and probably not like to see this trial happen again. >> sandra: the juror in question, peterson's attorneys say referred to him in juror deliberations as a little man, which they argue is one among several indications that she was bias against their client. that is likely what we would be hearing if we were able to get the audio out of that courtroom

in the closing arguments there. as far as the national attention to this case, claudia, you go back 20 years, and you saw a nation that was completely tuned in to this trial and ultimately his conviction of killing his wife and unborn son. he's 49 years old, obviously sitting in that courtroom there showing very little emotion as he did in the early days of her disappearance. he has a face mask on, handcuffs, dark orange jail-issued clothing. something to see this 20 years later, see what comes from this ultimately, but as you just mentioned this will likely go on for a couple hours today. >> yes. that's right. and i just want to say a word here about the key witness for the prosecution in his original trial. amber fry, and i understand from

her lawyer, gloria allred, if there is a new trial amber will testify again. she had recorded a number, hours of phone conversations that she had with scott peterson when he was pretending to be somewhere else, new year's eve, for instance, he said he was in france. she knew he was up the road in modesto. she was very brave, in fact she was blackmailed for a time, i don't know if you recall, the national enquirer published some salacious pictures of amber because they could not get her to talk to them. she's like i'm not going to give interviews, preserve my testimony, was very brave of her and she was the prosecution's key witness in this trial. if there is a new trial, we could hear likely from amber again. >> sandra: claudia, thank you to you on that. you'll stand by on the breaking news from there for us, ted williams and geraldo as well, we will monitor what comes from there. meanwhile, more breaking news,

just new getting word that attorney general merrick garland is going to be issuing a statement, 2:30 p.m. eastern time today. official advisory does not give any indication what that statement will be pertaining to, david spunt is live at the justice department. what maybe could we expect, david? >> david: we are hoping it's something relating to what we saw on monday relating to the search of the former president's home down at mar-a-lago. merrick garland has been silent this week. procedure here at the justice department to be silent for an ongoing investigation. however, he is the attorney general and has the discretion to say something if he wants to, we are not going to say we know 100% what he's going to be talking about but sources say he is going to be speaking today at 2:30, so we will tune in and see what he has to say. >> sandra: 2:30 p.m. eastern time, we will obviously carry that live from the justice department. attorney general merrick garland

will be giving a statement. obviously, david, with the backdrop of getting very little information and slow to respond after now we are on day three after the raid of the former president's mar-a-lago estate. so, one can only assume that is what this statement will be on. one can assume all eyes on the news conference expecting any sort of update on this situation and information that the attorney general will be providing the country. >> david: can i add something, sandra? the fbi director, christopher wray was in omaha speaking with reporters, doing a tour of the field office and he took some questions and obviously one of the questions was about monday, and he essentially said i can't answer it, he said, ask the department, meaning ask the justice department where i am right now. the fbi director is saying ask the department, that would mean the attorney general and department of justice, the fbi falls under the department of

justice, so we will hear what attorney general garland has to say, if it is related to this. i think it's a safe bet to think that it is. >> mike: david, i was struck by a comment by texas senator john cornyn who has a legal background, said it's 72 hours since the justice department took the unprecedented step of raiding a former president's home, reports it relates to a dispute over presidential records are thinly veiled excuse, given the weaponizing the department of justice, american people deserve an honest explanation and again, we don't know exactly what the a.g. is going to speak about at 2:30, but one would think it would be the time, because there have been a lot of calls for him to say something. >> david: and senator cornyn is calling for an honest explanation, may not be an

explanation, i don't expect it to be long winded, we are told it's a statement, we are going to ask questions, of course, we have plenty of questions we want to find out, but i think that it would just be something very down the middle to assure people that the justice is doing its work. >> sandra: any details that would come from, obviously, a big moving forward in this story because david, to the point that it has been very slow to get any updates or information on this story, with it now three days post the raid of mar-a-lago, we can expect probably some sort of update on that. we are trying to tee up some of our lawyers to join us here ahead of that. 2:30 p.m. we could know a whole lot more, david. >> david: we really could, and we talked about monday being unprecedented, now hearing the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer in the united states, we are going to be hearing from the chief law

enforcement officer here at 2:30 and it's significant. all of this is significant from when it happened monday, every day we are finding out more and more and more, and it's all significant and history-making. >> mike: also striking to see how prominent democrats have been very uncomfortable answering questions about the raid at mar-a-lago, you have seen the white house press secretary put on the spot in front of the podium, but also senate majority leader chuck schumer was on tv and asked about it, he wanted to talk about the legislation they passed over the weekend instead was getting questions about the raid and of course the political context we have midterm elections coming up and that's obviously making democrats concerned about whether this raid may have an impact on those midterms coming up. so it's been fascinating perhaps some folks have said get out and say something. we don't want to answer the questions anymore.

>> and mike and sandra, from the beginning, march of 2021, he said a couple things over and over again, when asked about possibly investigating donald trump and possibly investigating hunter biden, and he said nobody is above the law. he said it multiple times and said the department of justice does not operate, or operates without fear or favor. those are -- you could say that's his mantra he said over and over again. he's clearly not worried about the political ramifications and what people are saying on capitol hill. it's a very different beast over here at the department of justice and this is something the attorney general has been saying over and over again. we have not heard him say anything since monday. fingers crossed we will hear today. >> sandra: you look at the "new york times," section of the "new york times" with the question should merrick garland reveal more about the mar-a-lago search. in it it says the justice department needs to explain why

the fbi searched former president trump home given the precedent shattering nature of what happened. it should do so for three reasons. it goes on to detail that. i wonder as we await any information ahead of this, 2:30 p.m. news conference which we will take live, i wonder if there will be questions taken, david. >> david: i hope so because we have a lot of questions to ask the attorney general and he's been gracious lately and has answered questions at his last few briefings and questions will be asked, it's just a matter of if he will stop and answer those questions because specifically we are told it is a statement, but nevertheless, we are going to ask because there are plenty of questions. and something else, the trump legal team has a copy of the search warrant. the government also has a copy of the search warrant. so, both sides have a copy, have not yet released.

the judge in this case, magistrate judge, bruce reinhardt based in south florida, he signed off on this search warrant. he is actually giving the department of justice until monday to make an argument for or against essentially unsealing these documents. affidavits, search warrant, whatnot, and he will make the final ruling. because several organizations sued to make them public, and that will really get -- more than even the search warrant or the inventory list, the inventory list is something that shows exactly what was taken out of mar-a-lago. more than the search warrant and more than the inventory list is that affidavit. that affidavit is going to tell us a lot about what happened monday and the days and weeks and perhaps months leading up to monday, sandra. >> mike: david, also struck by kevin mccarthy, when he said

when republicans take back the house we will conduct immediate oversight of the justice department, follow the facts and leave no stone unturned. attorney general garland preserve your documents and clear your calendar. he may not want to be involved in politics, merrick garland, but he's in the middle of a political town in the middle of a political season, and so there are other realities to the work that's going on there at the justice department. >> david: it's true, and it's interesting. it's a little poetic, i'm actually sitting inside the department of justice right now, and the department of justice, excuse me, with a cough, is right between, is central between the white house, the executive branch and the capitol, the legislative branch. you could say figuratively and literally this doj sits between two major houses of politics, the white house and the capitol. >> sandra: the justice department obviously is being

called upon to offer some sort of explanation for a precedent-breaking case like this. as i was referencing that opinion piece in the "new york times" this morning, one of the biggest reasons why more information is needed and explanation needed from the doj, it has left a lot of room for speculation and misinterpretation potentially on the basis of partisan lines and biases. so, if this is information pertaining to that raid, certainly it could clear the air on what has become an incredibly speculative environment, and obviously some sort of explanation needed since this silence has led to a lot of different interpretations over why this raid took place of a former president's home. >> david: and i've heard from people at the department of justice, not just this building,

and other agencies that say it is time to hear from attorney general garland, fbi director wray, more so attorney general garland because the fbi is part of the department of justice, people want to hear from him and if he speaks to it today, to his credit, he is speaking about it. we don't know what he's going to say today. again, he's going to be making a statement at 2:30. we don't typically just get a head's up an hour before, hey, the attorney general is going to be making a statement in 60 minutes and embroiled in perhaps one of the biggest political stories and legal stories, not even political, legal stories in the past 50 plus years, if not more. >> mike: stunning if he didn't talk about the subject, considering it's consuming all the oxygen in washington and throughout the national media at this point, david. it really is striking this moment, and also the optics

issue of former president trump was up in new york city at trump tower at the time that the fbi was going into his mar-a-lago home, and questions whether his attorneys observed the process, and so i think a lot of folks are willing to give the justice department the benefit of the doubt as long as they get an explanation why they went in and what they were looking for. >> david: i suspect we are going to hear something from the attorney general that may, i don't want to say may tamper any concerns, but something a little bit potentially meatier than a one-word sentence the department justice operates without fear or favor or no one is above the law, he said multiple times over and over again when asked about hunter biden and when asked about donald trump. and you know, the attorney general had said this in my reporting, wakes up every day, sandra and mike in a pressure cooker. you have democrats want him to do something about the former

president, you have republicans that want him to do something about the current president's son, hunter biden, i may add is under federal investigation, he's not charged at this point. there is a federal investigation into hunter biden, going on since at least 2018. grand jury proceedings in that case also in other cases, grand jury's hear multiple cases from the smash and grab robbery all the way up to the president's son's case, grand jury activity ended in june, or in july, excuse me, and early july, so we know there is an active investigation and while hunter biden is not charged as of now, that case is still very active and i am reminded about it by officials all the time because there is a sense from people that the attorney general is not doing anything, we'll ultimately see what happens there. but he's being briefed on that as well. >> sandra: interesting, wall street journal this morning

saying considering the current spectacle the u.s. is presenting to foreign adversaries, saying you can hate donald trump until your eyes pop out but let us be clear, he was elected the 45th president of the u.s., four years in office, no former president who was disliked by many, not clinton, reagan, nor more f.d.r. had his home invaded by a squad of fbi agents. this should never happen in the u.s., end of discussion, but it did happen. trump raid is a wall to wall political disaster to the u.s., doing more damage to the internal division and external risk. consider the current spectacle the u.s. is presenting to foreign adversaries. we will get to the presser when it happens. tom, jump in here on what you might expect come 2:30 p.m. eastern time when a.g. garland is set to make a statement live from the doj. >> i don't see how he can avoid

the inevitable questions and i hope he uses this press statement, press conference as an opportunity to address what's going on. the whole enforcement action is shrouded in mystery from the moment it happened. they want to know what led the doj to take this extraordinary step and i'm hopeful he will show some of his cards. >> mike: tom, you think it's a one sentence statement or do you think he's going to give us some meat, give us a minute or two or more, hopefully, on camera, maybe answer a question or two, or is it a lawyered up statement? >> well, i suspect it's going to be the latter. look, the justice department is not known for being forthcoming when it comes to sharing details of investigations, and attorney general garland is no different. i suspect what he may do at most would be issue a statement, maybe take a question or two. but it's also entirely possible he continues to skirt this issue. i would have thought that they

would have come out either monday or tuesday with some statement about what's going on, but it's just been crickets from the justice department so far. we'll see what happens. >> sandra: really interesting going back to so many of these stories that have come from this moment, three days now after the raid. "washington post" deleting a tweet that suggested a.g. merrick garland politicized the department of justice by authorizing an fbi raid of former president trump estate, saying garland vowed to depoliticize justice and the fbi searched mar-a-lago. really interesting in a moment, by the way, again, they decided to delete that tweet. but it's a moment where we are going to see how a.g. garland handles this moment, three days out, it has left a lot of room for speculation. >> yes, and the thing i cannot get my head around, he had to have known this was going to

happen, the public fire storm was going to erupt the minute the fbi agents hit mar-a-lago. attorney general garland has been around a long time, served in the department, a federal judge, not his first rodeo. he knew what was going to happen. and why this administration was not ready to hit the ground running with the public explanation to justify what they are doing and diffuse the speculation and attacks and criticism from liberal and conservative quarters what the motive was. >> tom, are you surprised 72 hours later nobody has given out the first page of the warrant, whether it be from the government or the trump side? >> i am. typically doj will not release the info, they keep their cards close to the vest. president trump, however, he's got the warrant. i think he also has a list of the items that they seized from mar-a-lago. either of those documents he is totally free to release, and

seems to me if i were in the president's legal camp i would give thought to putting those documents out there, show the american public exactly what the government was coming in to get, and what in fact they did get. the president himself, former president could go a long way toward helping dispel all the clouds of mystery that are swirling around this event. >> sandra: there's been a lot of questions over why he has not done that. what does it tell you that he hasn't, tom? >> one possibility is that he doesn't want people to see exactly what was taken from mar-a-lago. in other words, as far as we know, the government went in and seized boxes of documents. presumably presidential records, classified information. if that's what they seized, it's possible the president does not want that in the public sphere and know what the fbi carted out of his house. >> mike: awaiting a statement

from attorney general merrick garland, expect that at the bottom of the hour, or 25 minutes. jonathan turley, george washington university law professor and fox news contributor. professor, your thoughts on the attorney general preparing to make a statement. >> jonathan: well, the initial thought is that it's rather belated, isn't it. just a torrent of speculation that's gone or for days and the attorney general has remained in radio silence. i'm astonished. i mean, the purpose of the attorney general is often in these circumstances to assure the public that justice is being meated out in a fair and apolitical way. he has to the done that. he was absent without leave. and so a lot of questions now that have built up and the question is how many specificity he's willing to give. probably the most important

issue is the allegation by some that this was a pretextual raid and effort to get january 6th evidence. i've said in the past if that was the case, you could have potential ethical, rather serious ethical problem. if it was misrepresented the purpose to the magistrate, that would be a continuation of a documented history of the fbi making misleading or false statements in a trump investigation. he can also address why this raid was even necessary. it does appear that the former president did comply with an earlier subpoena, turned over 15 boxes of documents, and gave agents access to the storage room. he then secured the storage room at their request. the question is why a second subpoena would not have sufficed. >> sandra: what would the answer be to that? >> jonathan: it depends on what

the agents told the magistrate. did they say this was going to be a potential case of destruction? there is a story out there that they had a confidential source at mar-a-lago. that's why we need to see this warrant. but there's all types of rather odd reports going on. "newsweek" said attorney general garland did not even approve the raid. i thought that was rather breathtaking. i mean, he was effective nonentity in approving a raid with historic and potentially massive political consequence. this story is attributed to people inside the department of justice who want to portray garland as a virtual pedestrian watching this raid unfold. that's not exactly a redeeming image for the attorney general. >> mike: and there are conservatives and republicans across the country saying what

about equal justice under law. the president's son has been under investigation. he appears to be getting pretty fair treatment. what about the former president of the united states. >> jonathan: well, i think that's the problem, and clearly attorney general garland must have known that that would be the response. the fbi just, not long ago, a few years ago, fired a high ranking official who called his actions at the justice department insurance policy against trump being elected. now trump is about to declare another campaign and we have -- the fbi, that does not mean it's the same thing, does not mean it's untoward, it does not mean they can't have cause. but there's a legitimate concern among trump voters that the attorney general should have been more sensitive to. and i'm not even sure why, even if you decide you are going to raid the home of a former president, why you need this battalion of fbi agents.

you know, couldn't you just send over 3 or 4 agents? it didn't sound like this was the, you know, davidian compound, the trump people said they were cooperating and yet they descended upon this location as if they expected to have a virtual firefight. >> sandra: reading through our own reporting right now, just coming into us, on june 3rd the fbi visit d mar-a-lago to retrieve the requested documents, trump complied with, the source tells fox news. fbi officials asked to see a storage facility where the records were located, fbi asked that staff put a lock on the storage room which they later did. trump and his staff were and are committed to being in compliance with the presidential records act, which requires presidential administration to preserve certain documents. as i read through this just coming in. trump received the subpoena two

months prior to the raid that you are seeing on the screen there. on the former president's private residence, took place monday morning, three days out. the source questions whether the federal magistrate judge who signed off on the warrant for the fbi raid was aware of trump's past compliance with the subpoena, adding that if the fbi was looking for additional documents under another subpoena could have been issued as trump and his team were cooperative and turned over documents and records responsive to the subpoena issued in the spring. lastly, the source also told fox that trump staff had been interviewed by the fbi with regard to the nara investigation over the last several months. jonathan, jump in here. if his team was cooperative to your earlier point, there could have just been another subpoena issued and that would not have led to the raid that we saw 72

hours ago. >> jonathan: that's right. if these accounts are true, the original subpoena was complied with, it was not challenged, they did produce 15 boxes and they showed the secret service additional storage. nothing in that suggests threat of distrunks or even concealment. maybe the confidential source alleged has more information, but it's baffling why you wouldn't just issue a second subpoena trying to get this information if there are preexisting, or existing documents that you wanted to collect. it's also important to remember, this is a presidential records act. these conflicts are common. now, maybe not to this extent, but most presidents leaving office have to do some adjustment with the archives and even the white house staff for furniture, documents, should not have been removed. we witnessed that happen. you don't order a couple dozen agents into the home of a former

president. a lot respect for our legal system demands restraint, recognition that this is a tinder box of a country, and we never have been more divided, more rageful. i'm surprised by the accounts that garland did not personally approval this raid. i can't imagine what is more important to get to his pay grade than historic and frankly inflammatory raid. and should have been satisfied there was literally no alternative, i just don't see how you could have reached that conclusion if this history is true. and by the way, if that history was not revealed in the affidavit accompanying the application for the warrant, there are serious questions here. just as if was a pretextual raid about the candor of the tribunal, the honesty with the magistrate.

>> mike: struck by a statement from texas senator john cornyn, yes, a republican, but also a former supreme court justice in texas, said it relates to a dispute over presidential records are either thinly veiled excuse or abuse of power if true. >> jonathan: reflection of the fact the pra, presidential records act, is rarely enforced beyond administrative measures. it's almost never enforced criminally. there have been a few cases, but even when the cases are enforced, the penalty is relatively light, even in the most agregious cases. sandy berger stuffing classified documents into his socks and taking them out of the archives to be collected later. you could not have a more serious violation. he didn't spend a day in jail, they did not even take away his clearance permanently. he got a probation on a misdemeanor plea. so, it's really the disconnect

of the response with the allegation that has a lot of us baffled. >> sandra: furthermore from this reporting that i was just bringing to our audience and to you, jonathan turley, the fbi interviewed staff who moved those boxes from the white house, administrative staff and others who helped to organize trump's departure from the oval office and questioned those individuals on what they were involved in moving, saying the reality is you talk to any one part of an administration and leaving the white house and they will tell you it is always a chaotic thing, according to this source telling fox news, adding that it's not surprising that records "came that should have stayed" and it is "not unusual for nara and former administration officials to be in communications about documents and whether or not they should have left the white house or stayed behind." can you add to that, jonathan?

>> jonathan: yeah, you know, i've testified on the presidential records act, and written about it as an academic, and it has a long history of tension between presidents and the archives. for a long time the presidents viewed all of their papers as private property and most presidents continue to have those lingering views. you know, when they receive a letter from the president of north korea, for example, they may view that as a personal note as opposed to a presidential record. and those types conflicts come up and they are resolved. the question is how you get to, you know, defcon five when you had documents turned over and appears there was a cooperative atmosphere at least up until june. but if there was a breakdown in that environment, you would think that attorney general garland would be the mature voice that says hold it, this country could not be more

divided. these are dangerous times. we don't need to add to that. let's find a way to work the problem short of sending in a dozen cars and agents to storm the house of a former president just before he announces his campaign for the next presidency. and seems like a reckless choice. we may learn more from attorney general garland. maybe there are things we didn't know about but that's part of the problem of waiting and allowing the thing to fester for days as speculation has overwhelmed the evidence. >> sandra: jonathan turley, if you could stand by us, we are expecting the news conference in 14 minutes from now. chris swecker, former fbi assistant director. thank you for joining us. we should see the attorney general shortly live from the

doj delivering a statement. the press release. it does not say what it will be about. do you expect him to provide some sort of explanation for this raid? >> chris: yep, you know, pursuant to the attorney general guidelines and the policies of the justice department in the u.s. attorney's manual, if charges have been brought he has more latitude and there are other things that he can say. and some limited details of the case. but in essence, his hands are fairly tied here. however, when you do such a, make such a big show of the execution of a search warrant, lights flashing, kited out ninja warriors out front, the public speculation is rampant and the interest of just getting out ahead of it and not allowing

misinformation to spread or speculation to go on, i think it's still some latitude there for the attorney general to come out and reassure the public that they are doing the right thing the right way, if that is in fact the case. >> mike: chris, you are a former fbi assistant director. can you see a scenario where top level people in the fbi have saying sir, we need you to say something because the bureau is taking a lot of heat. >> chris: absolutely. if i were still the assistant director i would be pushing for that myself. and undoubtedly whether the attorney general or the deputy attorney general that approved it and we now learn it was not the a.g. himself, which surprises me, then they are the ones that ought to be standing up. fbi is not the appropriate agency to be out there talking right now and chris wray is doing the right thing in that

record. doj needs to stand up and put the rumors to rest, put the speculation to rest and give us whatever information they can. and the first step would be unsealing the arrest warrant affidavit. >> sandra: chris, if you could stand by with us, a live look at mar-a-lago, 72 hours after the raid happening, and bring in bret baier and martha maccallum, to both of you, your thoughts as this is a last-minute statement, announcement of a statement that a.g. garland will be making, bret. it's expected about ten minutes from now. the indication that he'll be speaking does not say on what he will be speaking, but one can only assume at this point we will finally hear from him on this. >> bret: right, i think this is a big moment because it has taken until now to hear anything, really, from the department of justice or the fbi. the attorney general, we don't

know at what level he did or did not sign off on this, and when i say sign off, was aware of or could have stopped, just by protocol, it would have been that he was in the mix. he's obviously going to say something about this illuminates some aspect of this. so many things we don't know about the search warrant, the specifics, whether it was the national security team or the criminal team that did the actual search. so hopefully this is going to shed some light on some of the things we don't know. but it's a big moment because this is a big thing that happened, and it is important for the attorney general to talk about a raid, a search at a former president's home after all of this uproar about it. >> mike: martha, the statement means he's going to say something but not necessarily take questions, odds are means we are going to leave that statement with plenty of

questions, your thoughts. >> martha: yeah, obviously we would all love to see an opportunity for questions to be asked of the attorney general. my guess is that we are going to get a fairly straightforward statement, this is an ongoing investigation, perhaps shed some light on what the i am -- impetus is, that they went into three different rooms, one a storage room, one a bedroom, and the other the office of the former president. and that they went through those areas in great detail. i think it's interesting that you sort of see both sides putting out their narrative on this. the trump side saying that this raid was arrogant, that they, you know, moved the lawyers off the property to the end of the driveway. then from the fbi said, we are hearing essentially they tried to do this in a low key way as possible, although i did speak to some former federal

prosecutors said they went in with many vehicles and many individuals, not sure that was necessary. really, the background here is the affidavit. there's a warrant, which trump attorneys say was partially sealed, interesting language on that, we are not sure what that means but if he can shed light on what drove them to the point where they went into the home of a former united states president and someone who is likely to run again, that certainly is what everybody is going to be listening for. >> sandra: bret, you look at the political pressure to say something here as we await his statement, expected about eight minutes from now. kentucky senator rand paul saying that this raid is likely an abuse of power by the doj. arguing and calling for his impeachment potentially, saying this is beyond the pail. a lot of these republican members of congress demanding some sort of evidence for this search warrant on a former

president's home. so a lot has been built up to this moment. we expect to hear more from the a.g at 2:30. >> bret: and andrew cuomo says they have to explain this, ab since then other democrats have piped up saying they need some explanation about this level of intensity as far as this search and obviously they are taking heat from some corners in the public about it happening. others who are on the left are very happy it's happening but don't have all the info. i think there is, as we said, a lot of questions here and one of the biggest is what precipitated this. you know, there is reporting from the "new york times" there was something so sensitive they had to move quickly, that the subpoena early on in june was not being fully complied to, the grand jury subpoena and they had

to move to get it out of there. you know, there's all kinds of looks at this about handling of classified material. this is a former president of the united states, so it talks on a different level. so people looking at this have to hear something from the attorney general to explain what's going on. now, all that said, he could lay out the whole thing or just be talking 30,000 feet and trying to take the temperature down, especially on the day when the field office in cincinnati comes under some kind of attack that we have seen and covering here on fox. >> mike: and you've had mitch mcconnell who has had his share of run-ins with the former president come out and say the country deserves a thorough and immediate explanation. i guess the question is how thorough and immediate this will be, martha. >> martha: yeah, you know, i think that because of the circumstances as bret and all of you have said, it merits some understanding. i think there is a lot of

concern about where this all leads, what's going on at the fbi office in cincinnati, i think people are nervous about the state of the country right now, and this -- i hope that attorney general garland will be able to calm those fears, there's been a lot of questions about the fbi over the last several years, and the way that they went after the former president, so we need something that cools the temperature here and gives some sort of substantiation why they would have taken this measure that can calm the waters a little bit. and information out in 2 places, wall street journal and newsweek, an informant nudged it forward, someone in the inner circle, in mar-a-lago, a document that is there and maybe pointed them to where it was. that according to the two outlets and we'll see if the attorney general sheds any light on that. interesting that he was not given word that the raid was

going to happen when it did. we heard the former fbi, one of the former fbi deputies just a moment ago with you guys say he thinks that's very surprising, who us also says they didn't know it was going to happen. so, hopefully we'll get some light shed on that as well. >> bret: and if i could add to that, it's important to distinguish between informant on the inside planted there, and somebody who gives a tip and says this is here and maybe testifies before a grand jury. we don't know any of that, we don't have any of the confirmed but you are right to say, martha, there are news organizations pointing to this from different sources and that's one of the things the attorney general likely will have to answer. again, this is likely, to martha's point a statement. if i had to guess. there are too many variables here for the attorney general to go down and open q & a. we all hope that he does, but i would be surprised if that's the case. >> sandra: for anybody tuning in just now, we have bret and martha joining us as well

attorney general merrick garland is set to deliver a statement 2:30 p.m. eastern time. just got word of this before the turn of the hour, so fairly last-minute announcement of this statement, and this is he has remained silent on the raid of former president trump's mar-a-lago estate three days ago. the department of justice did not specify in the announcement of the statement that is coming why he is speaking and on what he will be speaking. it's a last-minute briefing, and it is unknown whether or not he will be directly addressing the fbi investigation, the execution of this search warrant at the former president's residence on monday. fbi and doj face a lot of criticism from not making this clear. it's been republicans, and to bret's point, also democrats putting pressure on the doj and garland to explain why this happened. the fbi is actively reviewing the records they seized from

mar-a-lago while the attorney general has remained silent on this issue. we do know as chris swecker pointed out, it's not likely that he can directly weigh in or explain an ongoing investigation. so we really don't know exactly what we are going to hear from the a.g. when he begins speaking. >> martha: that's right, sandra. he may sort of quell some of the anxiety around this issue or he might add to it based on what he does. we don't know. the other thing worth mentioning, a nudge to this moment, reports officials inside the fbi are uncomfortable that they have not said anything, they feel there needs to be some kind of statement that clears their reasoning for taking this very unprecedented action in the private home of a former president. so you know, it would have been better, perhaps, if the next day there had been ok, we are ready to make a statement about what

happened last night, very little we can say but we want to get before the american people. this feels it was sort of forced to this moment and i think it would have been better perhaps if it did not feel that he had been nudged into speaking out right now, but we are a couple minutes away from hearing from the man himself. >> mike: we have a live camera in the justice department, reporters are gathered to hear what the attorney general has to say, hoping probably to fire some questions at the a.g. now the shot has gone to black, but it occurs to me not the only politically awkward thing under the attorney general's purview. you've got obviously the raid, but also the president's son, hunter biden under federal investigation, and so there is all kinds of politics coming at this justice department and a lot of people are asking for equal treatment under the law. >> bret: and that's firing up conservatives, mike, when you see the image of hunter biden

getting on air force one to head to south carolina for a family vacation and questions why that has not moved forward. and then obviously the attorney general has a history here of the conservatives would point out what he did with the school boards and calling parents who were having problems with various school boards, what he did, and how he inserted himself in that moment. so their charge on the right is that this is political. it's from the left they say a.g. garland is the opposite, calm and measured and takes his time on things. that's really the balance here, and we'll see the attorney general and how he handles this moment. we should be clear that we have confirmed through sources that there was a grand jury subpoena issued to trump officials and to president trump about sensitive materials. >> sandra: you are looking live at the justice department here, bringing our fox stations to

join us now as we have just been told the attorney general, merrick garland will be making a statement live from the justice department. it was announced this would be happening 2:30 p.m. eastern time. we just got a live shot of this. it was not specified in the announcement of the last-minute briefing what exactly the attorney general will be speaking to. obviously growing speculation that this will be the moment where he will address the fbi execution of a search warrant of former president donald trump's florida residence, mar-a-lago, 72 hours ago. fbi and the doj have faced a lot of criticism from both sides of the aisle for seeking this search warrant and carrying it out in the capacity that it did. the country certainly has a lot of questions, bret baier, martha maccallum, mike emmanuel, all joining us for live coverage.

bret, you first, anticipation building for this moment. >> bret: it is a big moment for the attorney general to answer some questions we have not heard answered. the subpoena was confirmed for sensitive documents taken from the white house, delivered in the spring. the trump officials and president trump say they were complying with that, they were dealing with that, were answering the questions. obviously something happened and the doj officials, fbi officials did not believe that was happening and that precipitated what then led to this search, this raid of mar-a-lago. a lot of things we don't know about cause of the search warrant, about the extent of the decision to go with this public of a show of this search to a former president's residence. and it's obviously in this environment, months away from the midterms.

>> mike: 72 hours have gone by since the high profile raid of the former president's residence in palm beach, florida and no public comments so far. undoubtedly the pressure is building as they are tired of fielding questions why the raid, why now, and now we are waiting answers. >> martha: indeed we are, mike. and the initial output, this was about archival records originated from a request from the national archive records agency to retain everything that was taken out of the white house. they brought a bunch of boxes back to the white house. and then you have sort of this middle issue which has come to the fore, whether or not someone inside mar-a-lago said i know you think you have everything but there is something i think you would be interested in, don't know if it was someone inserted in the environment by the fbi or what the department

of justice has sort of hinted at is that it was an organic phone call, outreach to the fbi that suggested that there was information that they might want to come back for, and they executed that warrant in the early morning hours. a lot of coverage about the details of that, the rooms that they went into, a bedroom, an office, a storage area in the house, that they went through there very carefully for several hours and a lot of discussion about whether or not the show of force in terms of how many people went in, the number of cars outside, that's also gotten a lot of attention. why was it carried out in this manner. and i think we are going to hopefully get something from the attorney general why the urgency, why the need to go in while the president was not there, also been discussed. he learned about it when his son called him, his son eric called him and got a call from someone on the property saying look, agents all over the place right

now at the house. so a lot of questions that we are all waiting to hopefully get a little light shed on here from the attorney general, mike. >> sandra: you know, bret, i'm thinking back in the moments in history we have awaited a statement from the attorney general and when we do hear merrick garland speak, you could suppose it's not likely he'll take questions, this is an ongoing investigation, and one might also assume that this is going to be a very brief statement, just to go on the record with something and say that he can't comment on an ongoing investigation. but to go on the record saying something because the pressure has been building for him to do just that. i can't imagine what he could actually say in this moment. >> bret: it's pretty amazing moment, if you think about it. we have not crossed this moment where a political entity that is a law enforcement doj, department of justice with a president of a different party,

a former president who possibly could be a candidate, an opponent of the current president in the next election, dealing with a raid of a search for what we believe is classified documents. there's reporting out there, sandra and mike, that some senior gop members have been warned to dial it back because there may be more damaging information coming forward. we don't know that to be true, and here is the perspective from the right. they look at the recent history with the russia investigation, collusion investigation. they look at what materialized from actual officials, doctoring wire requests for the court and not a lot of trust built in these kinds of investigations that have political overtones. not to say we could learn something that changes the whole dynamic, but a lot of things here that we don't know. hopefully attorney general garland can deal and fill in some blanks.

>> sandra: great point. if you are just tuning in now across the country, waiting on a statement just announced that a.g. garland will make a statement live from the justice department. i'm sandra smith, bret baier, martha maccallum, jonathan turley, give us your expectations, do you expect that a.g. garland will answer growing questions this country has over the raid of a former president's home? >> jonathan: well, he can answer some questions and quite frankly, i think he has to. one is this common claim this was a pretextuaral raid, nothing to do with classified evidence, but getting january 6th material. he needs to swat that down and say that that is not the purpose and that this is not a subtrafuge. and why the urgency and

excessive raid, many thought, sending a couple dozen people in. the assumption is they are going to say there was something in those papers that was so sensitive they couldn't wait for cooperation or further delay. but that's going to raise other questions. did you tell the trump people that there was a document or documents there that had to be secured immediately? from what they said in the trump camp, they were told to put an extra lock on that storage area but that they thought they were cooperating. so there's going to be some expectation to address why the urgency here, why, you know, did they tell the trump family that there was an extremely sensitive document, and they were told to pound sand? because that would be rather surprising when you are dealing with a fairly hostile department of an opposing administration. >> mike: jonathan, attorney general merrick garland is not a rookie, former federal judge,

and chris wray has been the fbi director years, he seemed surprised he was getting questions about this. the way they handled i would, 72 hours in with nothing for the country to understand why they raided a former president's home. >> jonathan: no question the department of justice and attorney general garland dropped the ball here. i think that is clearly established. they should have anticipated what the uproar this would cause. they -- they were clearly aware many citizens believe the fbi has been out -- to -- that's true or not, depends on who you ask, but it is a view of millions. you would have thought they would have been ahead of this a bit and arranged for something, a statement to be made. but this is why this moment is so important. i'm hoping that attorney general garland can put some of these allegations to bed. i have to tell you, i am

astonished with the account that he did not personally approve the raid. i cannot imagine an attorney general delegating the responsibility of a raid of this kind to underlings. you know, this is an historic event with still unclear political dimensions and ramifications. the attorney general shouldn't be a mere pedestrian in that decision. this was really his moment, his decision. so i'm hoping those reports are also close. >> mike: jonathan turley, thank you. please stand by. >> sandra: the a.g. running ten minutes behind, could step out at any moment. shannon bream, i feel so honored to be the first, shannon, congratulations to you and welcome, i know i speak when we cannot look forward enough to

watching you every sunday. congratulations, shannon. >> we will not have a shortage of news. >> sandra: starts september 11th. >> grateful to be a part of this family and have that opportunity, and momentous time in washington as we are waiting on the attorney general. we have never in this country indicted a former president on criminal charges ever before. we don't know if that's going to happen, just with this history in mind, this department had to think and rethink over and over again the consequences of what this raid would be. i'm astonished by the reporting as professor turley was talking about on whether or not the attorney general knew and specifically authorized this raid. in "newsweek," reporting they thought it could be low key, that surprises me as well. they chose a time the former president would not be at mar-a-lago, but when you bring in federal agents and conduct a raid on a former president's home, you have to know it's

going to make headlines. whether they were prepared for the fallout or not, it's coming and i expect that's why we are having the presser today. keep in mind, a number of organizations and watch have petitioned the magistrate in south florida to say we want to see the underlying documents supporting the warrant and the "new york times" joined that action last night and the judge has ordered they have a response by monday, why it should stay under seal. with that, i think that probably motivated the presser we are about to have, sandra. >> mike: congratulations on the new role, shannon. seems they were surprised this was such a big deal, and here we are 72 hours later and awaiting our first comments from the attorney general of the united states on the raid of a former president's home. are you surprised someone who has covered washington a long time they are surprised there at the justice department?

>> yes, and also makes me question whether there is more to the case we don't know. if this is simply about the presidential records and dispute with the national archives, seems an overreach, only lend itself to the former president's arguments of being a target of a so-called deep state or the establishment. it only is going to bolster his arguments and you know, probably the possibility that he will run. we have been hearing consistently that he, looks like he's eyeing doing that. the timing is the question. but that makes me then question, is there more to this case we don't know and maybe that's what we will get from the attorney general as well. our colleague, andy mccarthy has written extensively on this as a former federal prosecutor, thinking it does involve potentially january 6th and the attorney general, doj, the fbi would want to look at documents to see if there is anything relevant to that as well. from what we have heard about the search warrant, it was not dictated in those terms, but about the records.

but only so much we don't know. we don't know what we don't know and we are hoping all of us, the press conference will shore up questions that we have, whether we get to delve into any of those of the attorney general we will wait and see. but to think they would be surprised by the blow back, that would be naive and cannot imagine they did not think it through. >> sandra: we know and can recognize the fact that both sides could have released something in the form of the search warrant, which in donald trump's case would have revealed what was taken from the home team and obviously on the other side they could have released the search warrants as well. that silence is what led to so much speculation and you know, so much room for wondering how this played out, why it played out in the capacity that it did. do you expect a.g. garland will give us any explanation on any

of those fronts? he could be just making a plain statement to go on the record since he has not yet. >> he could and we are going to be super disappointed if that's what he does in the next few minutes because we have so many unanswered questions, and as journalists we want to dig into. the warrant is out there, christina bob, an attorney for the former president, she said they were pushed away, not allowed to watch as the raid was carried out, but they were given a warrant, regular process. when they were done she got a copy of it. as we have told folks it does no the have all the juicy underlying stuff. won't have the affidavits, all the things the magistrate judge was showed and told to be the persuasive point for the warrant. whether the doj wants to release that or not, there are multiple legal requests in with that federal magistrate to release

more materials attached to the warrant. what the trump team would have is very basic. what they are searching for, the parameters of that and the statutes involved so they would know what it was tied to as far as potential allegations against the former president. so, they've got it, they could release it and we would expect their team would fight for the underlying materials as well, that's very much in play and interesting to see. there are calls as bret has noted repeatedly, bipartisan calls for more transparency. >> sandra: shannon bream, thank you for joining us. bret, you have new information. >> bret: put in context here, the white house at the beginning of this said they did not know, the president was not informed about the raid, the search before it happened. press is how they found out, according to the white house. then you had a briefing the

white house press secretary was pressed again and again, she said it was a criminal investigation, and own connotations, but said it was a criminal investigation and they would not comment. now senior white house officials are telling reporters they had no knowledge the attorney general was going to make remarks today and they have not been briefed on the content of those remarks. so, the white house is clearly, if that is true, trying to separate itself, doj and attorney general are trying to do that. a lot of people obviously in washington have a hard time believing at this level, with the former president, a potential political opponent of 2024, that the president or the white house staff or someone is not in the loop in some way, shape or form, but that is what senior white house officials are telling reporters, did not know the attorney general would make remarks and did not know the content of them, neither do we. >> mike: and the attorney general is used to wearing a black robe and federal judge, he's now in the middle of a very

political town, sandwiched between the white house and the united states capitol and so here he is coming out to make a statement shortly. we don't know what he's going to say, but obviously keen interest in getting some details. >> martha: they are going it carefully, announced they would come out at 2:30, they are now 18 minutes past that marker, whenever he says will be very significant and the fact the white house is trying again to distance themselves in every way possible speaks to the fact that they understand that they are in a very difficult election environment, right. i mean, you've got someone who is about to announce by his own, by his own admission that he's going to run for president of the united states, someone that i think about 75 million people voted for in the country, and i'm struck, mike, by thinking that there is, you know we saw a new poll came out yesterday or the day before, four in ten

strongly support the former president of the united states. that number really has not budged since 2020. so, all of the january 6th hearings, everything that has sort of come and gone and water under the bridge and more water to come to be sure has not really budged the support. so there will be the four in ten, no matter what they hear, they are likely to not be moved by it, and nonetheless, you have the other side of the equation where as you are saying and shannon was saying, you know, the fact that they are surprised at the reaction to this, that they don't understand tells you sort of the mindset they have been in for a really long time, that they have been trying in vain so far to knock this candidate down in every way they can, and so quite a bit in the early stages of this, early

hours, whatever they have better be airtight. they better have gone in there for something that is significant and i'm hoping we are going to get some kind of indication as to how strongly, how confident they feel in that at this point because otherwise you are going to have, you know, a lot more deep division in this country as a result, and that's the last thing the country needs. >> sandra: bret, looking at the top of the media advisory, when this announcement was made that merrick garland would be making a statement live from the justice department at 2:30 p.m., 20 minutes past that now, they released this at i believe we obtained it at 1:32 p.m. so, made the announcement he would be speaking an hour before they said that he would be. so, this is a very last-minute thing, not something that we knew about to start the day, now we are told we are several minutes out, so we should be getting there, we are also told that he will be speaking for five minutes from the justice department and while there are

reporters in the room, we are now hearing he will not be taking questions and bret, i will tee you up on this. dan henninger from the wall street journal this morning is saying this, consider the current spectacle the u.s. is presenting to foreign adversaries, making the point that you can hate donald trump until your eyes pop out, he says, but let us be clear, he was elected president of the united states, served four years in office, no former president who was disliked by many, clinton, reagan, f.d.r. had his home raided by fbi agents. should never happen in the u.s., end of discussion. to his point about the spectacle the u.s. is presenting to foreign adversaries, the world is watching, certainly in this moment, bret. >> bret: yes, and it's a moment that around the world there are people commenting about the politics around this, and what america would say if it was happening in some other country.

now, there are defenders of this, and saying this proves that our system works, that even a former president, that no one is above the law. but we have not heard all of the details as we keep on saying, so it's important to keep on reminding people. beyond the fact that we believe this is about classified documents, you look at other cases dealing with classified documents. you go back to sandy berger, national security advisor who was busted putting documents into his pants and his socks and he got a misdemeanor. after that his security clearance was pulled but he got it back three years later. so, in the big picture, how does that compare. then you look more recently, hillary clinton and a lot of people point to the classified information on the personal email at her home, the hammered and destroyed blackberries in that system. i think that there are just --

there are two sides to look at this. we have to fill in the facts we know and so far there are so many facts that we don't know. >> mike: and martha, the justice department and the fbi say they steer clear of politics but we are less than 90 days from midterm elections, that would decide the balance of power in congress and so to think this we are political-free, apolitical, particularly in this town, washington, d.c., would seem naive. >> martha: sure would, mike, and the american people have been conditioned to watch these situations and to hear in some situations you are too close to an election to take action, or to investigate someone who is close to the president or running for president, right. and i think people feel like there are different standards at play for who gets investigated and who doesn't inside certain windows around elections. so they hear both sides using these sort of prescriptive norms and they wonder, you know, what is at work in terms of the

politics behind it. and sadly everything becomes colored by that when you watch it. we all want to live in a country where lady justice wears a blindfold and that's the way most of us were raised. we have seen too many moments, though. you think about jim comey coming out and going through a statement, he was director of the fbi, sounded like some chargers were coming for hillary clinton, but at the end, no, nobody would prosecute that case what we heard. i just put that out there as an example, but in terms of the way people listen to these things framed and i think unfortunately the has aroused a lot of concerns about how it all works, who gets by, who gets off, who doesn't, in all of these situations, and i think it's very sad. i think most americans think it's sad we live in a country so much of this is colored. let's see what he has to say,

let's listen to the statement, let's see what the underlying evidence is when we get that opportunity as well and let's judge it fairly based on what we've got here. >> sandra: bret, jonathan turley was joining us a short time ago on breaking news, on the "newsweek" report that garland was not asked to approve on the raid on mar-a-lago. he went on to say garland is portrayed in that piece as a virtual pedestrian as this raid unfolded in florida. sources at the doj seem intent on making it known that garland was an effective nonentity on the final decision. that is hardly a redeeming image. so perhaps he will clear that up in just a moment. >> bret: i guess, if that's the case, boy, it's hard to believe that the attorney general in the same doj is not aware of a raid of a former president's home and unprecedented moment in american

history. it's even hard to believe that the white house didn't have any way, shape or form knowledge, and now that they don't have knowledge of the statement that the attorney general is going to be making, let alone what's in that statement, it all doesn't seem to fit but we'll have to wait and see. let's go back to what we definitely know. we learned president trump's office was served a secret grand jury subpoena in early june. and that is what it was about getting these classified documents that were taken from the white house. those investigators then toured the area in mar-a-lago where some of the documents were stored. then briefly viewed and took custody of the small amount, as we remember, about 15 boxes of documents from mar-a-lago at the time. also say that federal investigators had spoken to at least one person who said that there were more documents there and in a storage room. they had concerns about the storage room. they said you need to put a lock on that storage room, that's

better than the lock you have now. we are told there were surveillance tapes requested about the handling of those documents. there was cooperation from the trump side, they say, they cooperated all along the way. but at some point that breaks down and that cooperation is not happening because it then leads to this ask for a search warrant and then what transpired earlier this week. there's a lot in between the part where they go, the part where they ask the lock, the part where they ask for the video and the lack of cooperation they obviously think is happening to get to the search warrant to get to where we are now. it's that section that we really need to figure out, and maybe, maybe the attorney general is going to provide that. >> mike: and martha, if this is about a document or presidential documents, there have been disputes between outgoing

administration and folks at the national archives for years. i remember them from president obama, president bush, they work them out. they don't go in and raid the former president's home why i think a lot of folks are really scratching their heads about this case. >> martha: indeed. and it's -- it's a situation where you look at the nara, in charge of these documents, right, this is what they are to keep track of. just as a pure side note, i mean, that agency was basically shut down for a couple of years during covid, there were veterans across the country desperately trying to retrieve their own documents for different reasons, could not get their hands on them. but apparently working very hard to gather these documents back, that's a side note. they took 15 boxes out as bret just detailed for us, and then they went back. i keep going back to this person that a couple of reports claim sort of was a game changer in

this situation, if indeed that's the case. the person said no, there is something you need to come back for, and why that triggered where we are today and the flashing lights on the bottom part of the screen around mar-a-lago at dawn the other day. so yes, as i said before, it better be good, right. i mean, it better be good, it better be good to evoke this kind of response, and maybe it is, we'll see, we'll see what the response is to it. >> sandra: and wondering what is happening behind closed doors, they made the announcement two and a half hours ago, it was to happen a half hour ago, every word will count, right, bret? >> bret: every word will count and every word will make a difference in how this is covered going forward. i think the attorney general is going to speak for five minutes, every five minutes of that will be important. >> sandra: so we were told a.g. garland will speak for five minutes, not take questions,

should be moments away. thank you for joining us for coverage here for "america reports." i'm sandra smith in new york. thanks for joining us. we are going to be handing off to bret and martha. >> mike: i'm mike >> martha: thanks very much. our breaking news continues. good afternoon. i'm martha maccallum. this is "the story." we'll have a very busy show over the course of this hour. we're about to hear from the attorney general of the united states, merrick garland, who will finally break his silence. it's been about 72 hours. feels like longer than that to talk in some way, shape or form about the raid that took place at the former president trump's residence at mar-a-largo in florida. that search was executed by the department of justice despite the fact that we're supposed to understand here that the attorney general didn't know the timing of this raid, wasn't given a heads up that was happening and we're supposed to also believe that the white house, which is the e