show tomorrow and thursday this week, and our in-studio guest jimmy failla, kalen mcenany, dagen mcdowell tammy bruce and surprise guest. go to hannity.com, tickets are free. hannity.com. that's all the time we have left. please set your dvr never miss an episode n the meantime let not your heart be troubled. >> laura: i'm laura ingraham this is the ingraham angle from washington tonight. well, i'm a former white collar criminal defense lawyer you might not have known me about me and i read the entire 16 page indictment handed down by left wing da alvin bragg and here's my reaction. just another political hit job. >> under new york state law it is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime. that is exactly what this case is about.

>> laura: well a blatantly false statement. here's the only thing non-lawyers need to know about this case. if after the 2020 election donald trump had announced that he was retiring from politics, alvin bragg would not have indicted him or if let's say after 2020 trump had gradually evolved in his views and maybe became more like romney or one of the bushes. in that case, alvin bragg would not have indicted him. the real reason that donald trump was booked and fingerprinted today comes down to one simple fact. he has the wrong political views. now, the entire class of politicians and media figures who cheered the proceedings today, donald trump represents an existential threat to the regime that's run our country into the ground for decades, a threat to the credibility of the media that he calls out relentlessly. but most significant of all another trump turn is a threat

to the biden family and their nonstop grift machine. alvin bragg is more like alvin bag because he's nothing but the bag man for the white house hoping his reward comes when he runs for, let's say, governor as the trump slayer. yet right now he's july the middleman for the dnc and an elicit scheme to interfere in the 2024 election cycle. and his a ston i shallingly thin indictment brag alleges it was trump who may have, now i say may have attempteded to interfere in the 2020 election or may have violated state election laws by allegedly ordering that former mistresses be paid off then concealing the reimbursement of thoseouts. in a few moments we're going to talk with a former chair of the federal election commission who explained why the fec decided against pursuing the case on similar grounds. but as we suspected last week, the question bragg left everyone

asking today is, where's the beef? >> here's where we're going to run into legal problems, because the indictment does not say what that second crime is, which is completely inexplicable to me. the entire point of an indictment is to tell the defendant here's what you're charged with, as he said federal campaign election law but this is new york state so said state election law but this is a campaign for president which is federal and there was one word said something about tax but they didn't take detucks, real question about this. >> it's disappointment. it's hard to imagine convincing a jury that they should get there. >> one source said to me, this is donald trump. you don't bring a knife to a gun fight. >> i had hoped that there would be more in the indictment. >> reporter: translation, this case is a dead doing in the middle of the road. have someone come pick it up and give it a prompt burial. but the portly da tried to sell

his case today and inadvertently engaged in some standup comedy. >> these are felony crimes in new york state no matter who you are. we cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct. >> reporter: what? normalizing serious criminal conduct is all his office ever does. like the case from over the weekend where a parking garage attendant saw a man casing the cars in his garage. he confronted the suspect, who then pulled out a handgun and shot the parking attendant twice. the worker wrestled the gun away and shot the suspect in the chest. now, in the real world where i tend to live, the worker did the right thing. but in the bragg world, the parking attendant was charged with attempted murder along with the actual criminal. this is the insane. bragg finally backtracked and announced, only after public outcry, that he would not

prosecute him but you would he would have if he could have, the damage had already been done. but you really, really know this case against trump is like a leaky roof when even mitt romney throws shade at bragg. romney saying that bragg is trying to fit a political agenda and his overreach sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing political opponents. well, the one good thing that may come out of this dark chapter, though, for america, will be what i want to just dub tonight as state bragg laws, where state legislatures decide to disincentivize state gas or ags from using their position as batterying rams against individuals and corporations for reply reasons. it would bar the gas or das from running for governor for at least ten years or maybe forever frpt look at da alone where they

use it to try to advance their political careers a prostitution scandal hadn't derailed him former prosecutor turned governor elliott spitser might have made it, too. they were talking about him as president. in 2004 the left's favorite magazine the atlantic dubbed spritzer the crusader and proclaimed he was the future of the democrat party. heaven help us. the bottom line is this bragg saga is another urgent warning we must have a federal criminal justice system, that americans of all political backgrounds will trust. trust to do what is right. not one that will delaware river political dividends either for his party or for him personally. our justice is the system at every level should be the envy of the world, not a laughing stock. joining me now is david schoen, former trump impeachment lawyer

and sol weisberg independent counsel. david i'll start with you, i don't know where to begin tonight this whole thing is such say disgrace, but this indictment as you read it, all 16 pages, represents what? >> it's shocking. i cannot believe that this district attorney did this to the country. to indict a former president based on this kind of theory. i also read the 12-page statements of fact that accompanies the indictment and it only raises more questions. the indictment is clearly from a due process perspective mr. bragg said they'll produce their evidence of trial this is all they have to do is stack the indictment. that is not true. as a matter of due process right to council et cetera that they be told exactly what they're charged with. the target crime here is absent from every count of the indictment and you read the statement of facts they imply could be a tax charge a federal charge a state charge. the defenses would be different for each of those.

the defense cannot prepare a defense unless this is fleshed out in a bill of particulars and so that's another thing that's going to be filed here in addition to the three motions that we discussed earlier. but i'll tell you this, this indictment opens so many opportunities to the defense for broad discovery. if you take, for example, the pomeranz book that talks about the deliberations ordinarily those things would be off limits the deliberations within a prosecutor's office. but pomeranz tells you how michael cohen's credible was questioned by bragg, by ms. lozano the chief of the economic crimes bureau over there. i think all of that stuff is opened up. i think there's been a waiver. this case offers tremendous opportunities for creative lawyers. >> laura: now, sol, alvin bragg was asked i thought the key question at the press conference today. watch this. >> there were 34 false business

records, and they conceal another crime but the indictment does not specifically say what those crimes were. we are assuming, perhaps, that they might be election related. i'm wondering if you can specify what laws were broken. >> let me say as an initial matter the indictment doesn't speaks it because the law does not so require. >> laura: sol, the law does not require me to do that. is that an adequate response given the defendant here? >> it isn't an adequate response and as david pointed out, at a minimum there will be a bill of particulars so he will have to do take before too long as a due process matter. and i did see -- i did watch his whole press conference and i thought the whole press conference was pathetic. i've been saying for quite a few days now, don't focus on the number of counts, focus on whether or not there's any real substance there. is this something that is

substantively and procedurally weak? does it seem like relatively minor crimes or not? and i was frankly shocked at how weak this indictment was. you know, you look at the first four counts, it's all the same date, essentially, and it's four different counts for four different false entries but it's clearly related to the same transaction. this indictment could have been rendered in far fewer counts. mr. bragg did say when questioned further what law was being violated. he mentioned a state law that you can't conspire by unlawful means to promote or harm a candidate. well, first of all, if they're talking about violating federal election law as i think a letter guest is going to explain. that's ridiculous. there's no violation of federal election campaign law. but that statute that he cited is a misdemeanor, that mr. bragg

cited conspiring to promote a candidate by unlawful means. it's a misdemeanor. so he's using a misdemeanor boot strapping it into a felony by saying the false enters were to obstruct another misdemeanor and the whole indictment reads that way. i was just, i was shocked. >> laura: another fine product of harvard law school, i will say. all right, david, andrew weisman, a good buddy of both of yours, he had a comment about everyone should just calm down about how this couldn't result, perhaps, in a conviction. watch. >> the jury could be charged that if you don't find for the felony, the bump up, that's what's called a lesser included offense is the misdemeanor. so the fact that the misdemeanors are not charged doesn't mean that the jury doesn't get allowed to consider them. >> laura: okay. so, david, the president of the united states could be charged with a bunch of misdemeanors

along with unpaid parking tickets. that's weissmann's conclusion here? really. >> what he said is a lot of gambled garbage. i have personal experience with him unfortunately and i hate to dig by any comment he makes the sick single most unethical prosecutor i've ever dealt with in my life. what he said is meaningless. 's been after donald trump for years and years trying to concoct a theory as he does with others. him and norm weisman have tried to figure out a way to get donald trump. it harkens back to jerry nadler who made the most irresponsible comment of a public official when he said we can't trust the e electric tours, we can't trust the voters to get rid of donald trump. that's what this is about. >> laura: sol, i have to get your response to the renowned legal mind at cnn, dana bash. >> we have to potentially differentiate the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. the actual case might be hard to

prove. nobody has really said oh, no, he didn't do it. we know he did it, according to michael cohen, so the question is whether or not donald trump will be found culpable under this new york statute. >> laura: okay. when they start doing the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law, sol, where does that usually end up? >> that's that special statute, you shall not violate the spirit of the law. you know. >> laura: that's ridiculous. >> there's an old from statement when somebody gets acquitted, you may not do the time but you're going to take the ride. and that's basically what she's saying. >> laura: i started listening to spirit versus letter and i was like okay, trump had a good day. sol and david, thank you both. donald trump wins again and he knows it. >> and i never thought anything like this could happen in america. never thought it could happen. the only crime that i have

committed is to fearlessly defend our nation from those who seek to destroy it. and now this massive election interference at a scale never seen before in our country, beginning with the radical left george soros prosecutor alvin bragg of new york, who campaigned on the fact that he would "get president trump". i'm going to get him. i'm going to get him. virtually everybody that has looked at this case including ryan rhinos and hard corresponded democrats say there is no crime and that it should never have been brought. >> laura: in fact today's event seemed to have more energy in many ways than even his 2024 announcement if you could believe that. not everyone thought the speech was news worthy. >> right now the former president himself is making remarks tonight from his home in florida. as far as we can tell and what

we are prepared for here is this is basically a campaign speech in which he is repeating his same lies and allegations against his perceived enemies, so our deal with us is we will monitor the remarks if he says anything news worthy we will turn them around. >> laura: there's a reason rachel and the rest of msnbc didn't want you to see trump's remarks. not only are they embarrassed by how flimsy bragg's indictment was, they knew trump would use the remarks to tell the truth about his chief political rival as well. >> the world is already laughing at us for so many other reasons like our open boarders, our incompetent withdrawal from afghanistan, then our give up on energy independence, and crime statistics, if you look in democrat-run cities, numbers the likes of which we have never seen before. the open threats by various countries of the use of nuclear weapons. an economy that has been

crippled by the biggest inflation we have seen in more than 60 years, and a military that i used to defeat isis and kill al-baghdadi has gone woke. >> laura: this will all be a political boone for donald trump. he's built his lead in head to head against other likely presidential candidates and poles show that most americans thought the bragg deal was politically tainted. will this hurt the increasedability in the other two probes hanging over trump's head? maybe we'll know soon enough. but clear at least half the country are more obsessed with hunting donald trump than they are with turning around our economy or strengthening our position vis-a-vis china. my friends, biden's out of gas and the nation could be too given what he's done to our energy independence. so biden's trying to hold on to power hoping that one of these

investigations pays off for him politically. he doesn't care about what it does to the country or what it does to the credibility of the justice system. but as usual, the big guy's party cries trump corruption just to cover up their own. joining me now is ned ryan, chris bedford, common sense society executive editor as well as miranda define columnist and fox news contributor. ned this sounds counter intuitive but i don't think the day really could have gone much better for donald trump politically and it started with his arraignment. that's an insane thong contemplate. but what did you make of president trump's remarks and the tone of his remarks tonight? >> well, i think it's exactly what we thought it would be. he's a fighter and in compete defiance of what's taking place and he's right to do so. i think today, laura, marks the very beginning, this is the first day of late-stage republic

in which the unamericans left halves decided to use the laws of political weapons against a political opponent and in response to that thankfully donald trump stood up and said i'm not going to take this lying down and it's actually a very beneficial day. i don't think it's a temporary bump laura, he's gone up double digits in the primary ten million since the indictment came down for his campaign and the left wants to stretch this out until the hearings in december, end of this year.

>> reporter: i thought that was a great compendium of the failures of the biden administration but these cases and investigations do take an enormous amount of time. you have to go over documents, you have to look over exhibits. i mean you do have to prepare for this stuff. are you concerned about that aspect given everything that we've seen so far? >> well, yes, of course, laura. this is deliberate, it's a smoke screen to keep donald trump in the news and tied up with a succession of legal political

prosecutions from now into the election campaign. and, of course, that just completely buries any of joe biden's scandals, the corruption scandals that are being uncovered more and more by the republicans in the house. i mean, bomb shells already, and plenty more to come. and then, of course, the scandals of his own incompetent situate and sort of ideological administration, everything from, you know, the border crisis, the economy, the afghanistan withdraw, the ukraine problems. all the problems that his administration has just get buried and, in effect, he gets to do what he did during the 2020 election and hide in the basement. they called a lid today at 2:00 or something because joe biden is just going to put off, he's not going to announce now whether he's running in 2024 until the fall. he was going to do it now. he just wants to sit back and

watch while his, you know, regime media just demonizes donald trump and beats him to a pulp. and so, unfortunately, the whole country is now caught up in this drama. and it is good for donald trump because now it's showing in real time what they've been doing to him for the past six or seven years. but it's ironic that he's being charged with interfering in the 2016 election. >> laura: right when they're doing that. >> when the charge itself is interfering in the -- exactly. >> laura: yeah. they want to choose the republican nominee and they think if trump ends up being the nominee they'll have cut him up so badly that he's wounded in the eyes of the suburban women over there, you have to win over some of suburb and women in order to win the race next time >> chris, msnbc claims that trump could be a unique threat now. watch this. >> would you feel safe being on

that jury? can you feel confident that donald trump, for his team, might not talk about your identity or release details about your identity or do something that might, in some way, threaten your own life? >> reporter: chris, that is nbc news chief washington correspondent speculating -- yeah, senior washington correspondent, speculating that the trump team is going to dox the whole injure. this is all they have is pure speculation which after what happened to bret kavanaugh's house. >> this is fresh with their cameras over there. instead it's very uneasy they have to come up with new crimes, the idea donald trump's going to threaten the jury. imagine being donald trump with that jury in new york city put together for you. that would be something to be afraid of. but instead of being happy today a lot of liberals and democrats

and supporters in the media are extremely uncomfortable. alvin bragg failed to convince the laptop class the case looks flimsy just like the mueller report the charges he brought out seem to really have come to nothing. it all hinged on an election law he can't even charge him with it. the right in general, the american right in the united states is there are so many alvin braggs, he's not a 3-d chess player. he's a mid level mid whit. they believe they are right and the other side is absolutely evil, they'll never be punished which is generally true and they're willing to yield that power. you never see that on the right, a lot of handwringing and mumbling and principles and this and that. but the left are willing to yield power over their enemies and that's what we're witnessing right now. >> laura: i could not agree with you more chris and ned this is a

good point to raise with you, the democrats go with brass knuckles. you know, trump's a fighter, too, so he hits back at them hard which they're not used to. chris is exactly like they're used to the velvet glove treatment from the mitch mcconnell side of the aisle. but in this case you have a focus on getting this man and getting him again and getting him again. they're not going to stop. and we find out tonight that the wisconsin supreme court flipped and became controlled by the democrats, there was that one race they thought might go to the republicans. republicans lost that. so the republican party has enormous challenges even in the head winds that the democrats have created with this horrific economy. so you've got to get more votes somewhere. you have to get the votes in order to have the power. democrats last election and the midterms had the votes. more votes that they thought they were going to get. >> there's two things laura that republicans have to do between now and then. first of all commit to mutually assured destruction.

the democrats only understand brute force. and if republican das and ags will not use their tactics against them, we will lose. they only understand if we punch them back harder that's what they understand. that's all they will respond to. but the other thing laura that i think's important, we need to actually figure out, the democrats have perfected a ballot out ballot in machine and unless we figure that out, a lot of what's taking place this year with this donald trump and bragg and all of that, i think is really kind of distracting us from the fact that we should be putting in the work to do everything that we can to actually chase ballots not votes in 2024 and unless we focus on that we will lose. >> laura: well, we have to actually win by such a big margin, even if they cheat, republicans still win. >> that's right. >> laura: i mean, right? you have to win by such a big margin if you're a conservative today that they can't say, oh, well, you know, this machine broke at 8:00 or whatever. it won't matter. i think that's the big challenge

here. panel great to see all of you. thank you. >> thanks laura. >> the indictment itself is boiler plate. it doesn't allege any federal crime, any state crime that's been violated. it doesn't allege what the false statement is. >> a state prosecutor is prosecuting a federal election law violation that doesn't exist according to federal election law officials. it's as simple as that. >> laura: the point is right, the fec decided not to pursue a complaint against trump for violating campaign finance rules so why is alvin bragg. joining me now is brad smith chairman of the federal election commission. a lot of people hear the acro tonight fec and their eyes glaze over but you're in the spotlight with this case going on. and you say this is all based on a misunderstanding of campaign

finance law. can you explain it in layman's terms for our audience? >> sure. the prosecutor, you know, da's attorney -- let me start over. i think the da's theory is that the federal law says that any news made, any expenditure that's made for the purpose of influencing an election is therefore a political contribution and thus president trump had paid any if you understand to stormy daniels with campaign funs report that as such.

but the key is for the purpose of influencing an election. that doesn't mean the objective intent of a donor. in other words if i think it would be really useful to help president trump win the election by making a contribution to the national rifle association, right? that's not a campaign expenditure, it implies subjective intent. or the candidate, if the candidate says i need to have a really nice looking suit for the debate and spend money he does not normally spend, that doesn't become a campaign expenditure it's still a personal expenditure. just common sense wise before we get back into the technicalities of the law. you're a person out there you write your check for 20 or 50 or $500 whatever you can afford to a candidate. do you think you're writing that check to pay hush money to someone? and the answer is no, you think you're writing the check to pay for campaign ads and that sort of thing. that's what the law provides, the supreme court said you can't have subjective campaign finance it needs to be objective and we look and say would a person not running for office do that? he might buy a $200 suit but he's going to buy clothes. he might not otherwise pay for his teeth whitening but other people would so it's not a campaign expenditure. what is? a tv ad that says vote for me nobody buys that unless you're running for congress. >> laura: so this doesn't even really come that close. but cnn has a rationale as to

why the fec didn't charge trump. watch this. >> on the federal level they said -- >> they declined. >> before they have written about it in a memo but they declined to prosecute, at first because he was president, and then, effectively because they had other things like the insurrection that they were trying to deal with. >> they never declined to prosecute because they didn't -- they didn't say that the law didn't apply to trump. >> laura: is that accurate? >> well, it's true that they didn't decline to prosecute because they didn't say well the law doesn't apply to trump. of course the law applies to trump. what they held was that the law was not violated at least not a majority on the commission to pursue that. again it goes back to the idea that not everything that might influence a campaign meets that statutory definition. in facts it's worse than that because it's actually illegal to spend your campaign funds for

those type of things that benefits you for obligations you might have had even if you didn't run for office. and let me use one more example here. suppose you're a business person you get lawsuits filed against you, you say i'm going to run for congress you go and say i want these settled and he says no, he says no i want them settled so it's not a campaign issue. you can't pay for them with campaign funds. >> laura: i don't blame you for not really knowing how to refer to alvin bragg after this performance today. so you're totally excused brad, da kind of a prosecutor harvard law bragg, all the digs on harvard i don't know why i'm doing that. thank you, great seeing you. >> if you took the five worst presidents in the history of the united states and added them up, they would not have done near the destruction to our country as joe biden and the biden

administration have done. [cheers and applause]. >> with all of this being said, and with a very dark cloud over our beloved country, i have no doubt, nevertheless, that we will make america great again. >> laura: joining me now two men who were in that room as it happened florida congressman brian mats and matt gaetz who serves on the judiciary committee. matt what can you tell us about how the president is feeling tonight after an historic ridiculous and yet somehow very revealing day. >> indeed it was a long day for the former president but it's a long day for the current president if he just takes a stroll around the rose garden. donald trump has a renewed sense of focus. he knows how high the stakes are in this election and he knows if he doesn't stand and fight the

american people are next. we are next on the menu for a corrupt system that has been weaponized and woke and dangerous to our country. and so i didn't sense any doom or gloom. there was great energy in the room and the campaign now takes on i think a renewed spirit and energy and vision that we are he a all very excited for. >> laura: congressman mast tonight speaker mccarthy tweeted alvin bragg is attempting to interfere in our process by invoking federal law to bring political charges against president trump. his weaponization of the federal justice process will be held accountable by congress. congressman mast, what does that actually look like holding a state da accountable? >> so, in a number of cases there's been monies that have gone to the state of new york. that's one of the places that we can look at in congress. but that's other instances of department of justice and other

agencies that we have to look at and say they're not going to get a dollar of taxpayer funding and that has to be the way that we attack this. >> laura: well, congressman gaetz when you look at the full scope of what's happened to president trump since 2016, what message is being told to the world about america's criminal justice system given the obsession with, as the president said tonight, getting trump? >> until this episode, america had moral authority throughout the world to be able to push back against des pots and dictators that would jail their political rivals and predecessors. now america enters a new era and it's a diminished era and one i know president trump personally deeply regrets for the sake of our country. even if it's good politically for the campaign, you heard president trump talk tonight about how the world would view america going forward. that is the true biden legacy

and it's a very dark one. >> laura: congressman mast i believe the democrats are going to try to ride these investigations all the way through the fall of 2024 to try to distract, in many ways, from how congress aims to get laws passed, maybe it's tik tok or something else, other things they can get some bipartisan agreement on, and hold democrats accountable. are you concerned that that distraction game will, in fact, hurt republicans in congressional races or senate races going into the fall of 2024? >> there are always going to be down ballot effects to anything that takes place but i think what they're calculating is wrong. they're not showing a blind justice system. there's republican justice and there's democrat justice and they're going to make the united states of america entirely about politics. and if you're not on the right side they're coming after you and that's not going to play out

for them. >> laura: congressman gaetz in a campaign like 2024 it's like 1980 where the country was in such bad shape and reagan came in and said i'm going to turn the economy around. he didn't complain about the hippies or the vietnam war failures, he talked about i'm going to turn the country around. do you agree that president trump, if he's the nominee, it has to be about turning back. oh, you're going dark, they're turning the lights out on you. but do you agree it has to be about the economy? >> no denying that. not the first time they've turned the lights out on me in mar-a-lago. what i can tell you is this must look so silly to americans struggling to make ends meet to pay for groceries and gas when you see careers are in jeopardy now because of a shrinking economy, layoffs in the tens of thousands and now you have the former president being hauled

forward, not even on a felony but really a misdemeanor in drag at best, and i think that says a lot more about people bringing the charges than it does about donald trump but president trump has to pivot off of this to a place of vision and positivity and american drive much like we saw from reagan in the '80s. >> laura: i agree and run on energy. when i'm president, your gas is going to go back to $2.20 a gallon because we're going to drill where we can drill and take the cuffs off the oil appear gas industry. congressmen thank you both >> joining us now is chris swecker former from and fbi director. chris, i want to bring this all back to this fundamental concept of equal justice under the law. that's what we all thought our criminal justice system was based upon, that eternal principle. but when we read about these brutal attacks sometimes now happening in broad daylight in

new york city and baltimore, and chicago, yet these criminals walk away scott free, you know, one career criminal with 90 previous arrests was just let out on a dollar bail for a felony robbery case. $1. so given all that that's ha happening in new york, how dangerous is it for the country to have these soros supported prosecutors apparently just focused on what their next political position is going to be instead of locking up real criminals. >> yeah, incredibly dangerous. we learned in the 90s how to reduce crime and that was arrest bad guys. there's a small group of violent offenders resituated advice offenders that are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. you get 1 off the street you can prevent 40 or 50 victims. but if you're not willing to prosecute them just like in new york city where crime is up in every category, 50% of these

cases, felony cases are downgraded to misdemeanors and then the only wins, that office only wins 51% of the felony cases that remain, they've lost 29 -- or they only win 29% of their misdemeanor cases they get an f and these bad guys are still running around out there, nypd is having a hard time -- they're not going to arrest people when they take them into court and they get dismissed or the cases get lost in court and that tributes to incredible increases in crime and we're all less safe because of it. >> laura: the sub ways in new york, the streets in broad daylight and midtown. it's not in areas people used to think that's not a good area to go in. people are worried about walking everywhere in new york. that's a total disgrace. by the way alvin bragg on the issue, chris, of repeat offenders, he spoke last year at an event where al sharpton was

featured. watch. >> he did so to cover up crimes relating to the 2016 election. donald trump, executives at the publishing company american media incorporated, mr. cohen and others, agreed in 2015 to a catch and kill scheme. that is, a scheme to buy and suppress negative information to help mr. trump's chance of winning the election. >> reporter: all right, that was a different spot obviously, sound bite. but chris that was obviously about the indictment where, again, the underlying criminal activity that would make these 34 counts actual felonious actions, again not mentions in the indictment, just various theories were floated. >> i call it the frankenstein indictment. you take a state misdemeanor statute and then you graft it, or try to graft it onto a felony

statute, add some electricity and you get the frankenstein. you know, i don't -- i agree with all the legal scholars that you've had on fox. this case is not going to get past the first couple of motions and i'll bet it's 10-1 i'll put money on it that it will never get to a jury. i think the da's on trial here and i think that's going to be the real -- he's had his ten minutes of crime -- i'm sorry, ten minutes of fame and now i think he has to go out and be a real lawyer and he has to face up to trump's $2,200 an hour lawyers and i think they'll rip him to shreds i don't think he's a real attorney. >> laura: no, this is another embarrassment for the democrat legal complex. chris great to see you. thank you >> acting new york supreme court justice juan merchan is the judge presiding over trump's days so what do we know and will he try to muzzle the former president? all the details on that next. stay there.

♪ >> reporter: did you that today was not judge merchan's first case related to trump. nate foy live at the courthouse with all the details, nate.

>> hey laura good evening justice juan merchan is the one that was over the tax fraud file with a $1.6 million fine and the former co allen weisberg serving a five month prison sentence and the judge involved until the steve bannon case right now. the judge did not impose a gag order but said not to insight violence while speaking or posting on line. former president trump pleaded not guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business in the first degree. judge merchan allowed pictures taken of the former president trump in the courtroom but no video cameras. he posted on truth social the highly partisan judge and his family are well known trump haters. it was an unfair disaster on a previous trump related case, wouldn't recuse, gave horrible jury instructions and impossible to deal with during the witch

hunt trial. his daughter worked for kamala and now the biden-harris campaign. kangaroo court. here's trump's lawyer joe tacopina talking about it. >> my client has a right to talk about anything, he's politically persecuted. i have no reason -- i've not been before him on this matter so we have to let this process play out. >> you can expect several legal challenges from president trump's legal team. tacopina said tonight on hannity he doesn't expect it to go to trial but if that does the prosecution wants that to happen in january right at the beginning of republican primary season. as for the next court hearing set for december 4th when president trump will come back here to new york city, laura. we'll send it back to you. >> laura: nate, this is insanity. thank you so much >> all right, nate mentioned this no gag order, the judge warned trump about making social media posts that could insight violence or jeb dies the rule of

law. the legal eagles david schoen and sol weisberg former assistant u.s. attorney and deputy independent counsel. david as we saw with january 6th, the standard for incitement to violence is very fungible in the eyes of the left. so how dangerous a precedent would a gag order be in a case like this where so much is on the line, only the future of of the country given the 2024 stakes. >> yeah, i think a gag order would be completely benefits the public interest. and new york law is not terrible on this, go back to 1988 a case new york times company versus company roth wax with the judge tried to gag lawyers and the court very clearly said any such order would have to be supported by detailed findings and cannot be overbroad. we have to use the least restrictive means and only curtail speech that's absolutely -- goes to the integrity of the system. i want to say one thing though about the matter of the judge

being assigned to this case. you know, i know the banner says trump impeachment lawyer for me that was a great honor but i've been a civil rights and criminal lawyer my whole career i represented the democratic lawyer last year and a socialist candidate for president in 2020. i am concerned about the integrity of the system and about process. there is a real problem now the judge was assigned to each of these cases, an historic practice in this office that was commented on by in a report in 2002 by new york city bar top lawyers in the city complained about this judge shopping practice. the case -- they lost a case challenging it but a federal judge said in the franken leo case in 2004 that the impartiality and appearance of impartiality of the system is directly at steak and at risk by this kind of judge shopping process. at that time the da's office promised they stopped it and the process was assigning, picking a judge to preside over the grand jury and then keeping that judge for the trial.

it absolutely tears away the appearance of impartiality and that's a very important process question. >> laura: sol, some in the media are claiming this case, even without the particulars in the indictment, would be what the founders would have wanted. watch. >> this is totally unprecedented in our history, but it is not out of character for our history. and i think it's really important to understand that what's happening today is very much in line with what the founders envisionedd. >> reporter: sean, when jonathan alter is citing the founders grab your constitution. your response? >> grab your articles of confederation. you're in real trouble when that happens. i don't know what on earth, what on earth he means by that. it's so ridiculous. it's even a matter of history.

the founders, as you know, were quite partisan and, you know, the federalist went after the democrats with the alien sedition act and jefferson turned the tables on them. so it makes absolutely no sense. it's kind of akin to dana bash's spirit of the law statement. but david makes a really good point. it is not -- i don't know whether or not this judge is biassed or not. he seemed to go out of his way to show that he didn't want to issue a gag order. but i know that the appearance, the appearance of propriety is very, very important. and every judge should think about this when he or she decides whether they should stay on case. >> laura: well, david, one thing struck me as potentially concerning tonight, and everyone knows i always speak my mind on these legal issues. i thought trump's speech was really very strong in tone and speech and it was factual on what biden's done to the

country. but in mentioning the other case, which is the documents case, and going into some detail about that case and making comments about that case, is there any danger in litigating that separate investigation while talking about this investigation, or am i being overly sensitive here? >> no, look, you've made a good point, i think. but i think that president trump feels under siege with these cases. he sees them as they are simply an attack on his candidacy and all part of one sort of bundle of attacks. so he's frustrated and he's talking about, as he feels appropriate, talking about these other so-called investigations. and it's a shame because, you know, obviously the goal is to distract him from the real issues and as i've suggested he must keep talking about the real issues. that it's what people want to hear from him and his lawyers need to fight the case. >> laura: sol your reaction to

that referring to these other investigations, obviously you have the smith investigation on january 6th in dc and the georgia investigation ongoing. >> well, i think that if i were -- you asked me on here for legal and political questions. i think all of those prosecutors in what looked like far more substantive investigations are not happy with what alvin bragg is doing because it certainly makes them look bad by association. >> reporter: yeah. david and sol, thank you both >> my thoughts on what today means for the country going forward next.

scout is protected by simparica trio, and he's in it to win it. simparica trio is the first and only chew with triple protection. oh, fleas and ticks ♪ intestinal worms... wow heartworm disease, no problem with simarica trio. this drug class has been associated with neurologic adverse reactions including seizures. use with caution in dogs with a history of these disorders. for winning protection. go with simparica trio.

[music “this little light of mine”] in the world's poorest places, children with cleft conditions live in darkness and shame. they're shunned, outcast, living in pain. you can reach out and change the life of a suffering child right now. a surgery that take as little as forty five minutes and your act of love can change a child's life forever. please call, scan or go online to give a new smile. thousands of children are waiting.

. >> laura: tomorrow when the voters wake up, the biden voters, in new york and california and chicago, the economy will still be terrible. china's power will still be growing. and americans will still be getting poorer. now the regime doesn't care

about these things. they're already rich. and they just want to keep what they have. but what about all those people who voted for biden? sure some of them are going to be happy to see a political prosecution and persecution against trump. but i think most of them would like to get a better job or maybe buy a house or see their kids get a decent education or even walk the streets at night without being afraid. so arresting trump, it doesn't fix any of those problems. the only way the solve them is by replacing biden with a competent, strong administration that has enough popular support to get the job done. in 2024, we don't need these people to vote for us or to vote for trump or even to vote for populism. we just need them to vote for themselves, for their communities and for their families. because until we get a better government, they're all going to suffer.

that is it for us tonight. i hope you enjoyed our legal analysis especially. i like going back to the law, it's where i'm comfortable. thanks for watching. remember it's always america now and forever. we'll keep posting tonight and tomorrow on instagram and yes on twitter. and, remember, fly your flag even on non-holidays. gutfeld is next. ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] >> jimmy: hey girl, jimmy failla in the house because greg is off. you can't really blame him it's kind of a slow news day, right? some people have asked me