called on stuff that he said people now about 2 1/2 years ago. so why couldn't they have made those charges and made what is expected to be a new series of indictments then? we just don't know for sure. we do know, we're seconds away from finding out that will do it here. "the five" is right now. ♪ ♪ >> hello, everyone. i'm dana carino. jesse watters, and greg gutfeld. his 5:00 and new york city. and this is "the five." fox news alert. donald trump says he expects to be indicted again by special counsel jack smith. just moments ago, the former president writing on true social lives. i hear that deranged jack smith in order to interfere with the presidential election of 2024

will be putting out yet another fake indictment of your a favorite president, me, at 5:00 p.m. provided and they do this 2.5 years ago? why did they wait so long? they wanted to put it right in the middle of my campaign. prosecutorial misconduct." a grand jury who will decide whether or not to indict trump over election interference, they met earlier today. he's outside the d.c. court house where they ran meeting. can you give us your report? what did you see? >> good afternoon. obviously, that truth social post was made by the former president at 4:41. being that there was going to be this 5:00 news. we have not yet yet. all day long about whether or not we could see indictments come. security around this courthouse did pick up your noticeably the first thing we notice is when we came here, dana, it was no federal protective service but

some patrol cars out in front of the courthouse still here behind me. the grand jury as you mentioned gay men met today. slowly they trickled all afternoon out. we believe it appears they are gone for the day. we are really watching and waiting. but if you go back to when we first began to really watch closely, it was when that target letter on july the 6th went to trump's attorney. in that target letter there were about three areas that the source said that the president could possibly be charged on good one as deprivation of rights under color of law pertaining to civil rights charges of sorts. all along with a conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the u.s. and a third area of charges that could include witness tampering. we don't know if there's even going to be an indictment or what's in there. this is just what we know what is the nature of the target letter which as you know typically leads us to a possible indictment. we are really on high alert last thursday out here because we

knew that trump's attorneys met with jack smith and his counsel and jack smith's office. nothing came thursday afternoon probably over the weekend. here we are on tuesday afternoon with the former president saying he expects a press conference that will make announcements of these indictment charges. we can't confirm that. we're just watching and waiting. >> let's get to david at the department of justice. we will talk to you and take it around the table here. hi, david. >> we are waiting for some sense of news from the department of justice. nothing from special counsel jack smith was obviously attached to the department of justice waiting to get that information. as a former president is correct and he is indicted, this would mark his third indictment. there could possibly be a fourth indictment. that is down in georgia. that is a state charge being run by a fulton county prosecutor. she has gone on the record multiple times.

in fact giving a television interview recently saying that her office is ready to go. that would be -- that is an investigation relating to the conversation that the former president had on the phone on tape with brad at the georgia secretary of state shortly after the election saying that he needed him to find some 11,000 votes. we are looking to see what happens here with shaq smith to see if the former president is indeed indicted as he says. we are also looking to see what happens in georgia with the next few weeks and will... come on the record to say that everything would be done what ever everything means by september 4th. right now we watch and we wait. clearly, clearly there is new is on both fronts. >> thank you. it is interesting. president trump is so media adapt. it is interesting to watch. you could put out a little post or tweet or whatever it is.

whatever method he's using. then media around to it. this does seem like it might be happening perhaps tonight. >> needs front running it. we don't know anything. i don't know where jack smith is. he was supposed to come out at 5:00. i don't know where he is. i don't know. if you don't think this is political, look at this. hunter accidentally admits his laptop as it is for the day after trump gets a notice he's going to be indicted. june 8th, the fbi document drops that bonnets are the $5 million bribe. the next day, june 9th, mar-a-lago indictment. july 31st, devon archer testifies that joe is on the phone with hunter business partners but one day later, august 1st, speech in january 6. this is all coordinated. i look at these charges. they said they are going to hit it with. one of these charges is conspiracy to make a false statement. it is a crime for a government

official to make a false statement and they knew the statement was false. everyone in the government laws. i don't know how you can charge that. construction of an official proceeding. remember that january 6 the situation. they delay the certification for a couple of hours. that means when code pink disrupts the hearing, you can get it with obstructing an official proceeding. when you have witness tampering. this says it is illegal to contact anybody before they testify before congress. you are saying the democrats never talks to any witness before they testified in front of a congressional hearing. come on. these and other charges i don't know. deprivation of rights. i don't know. that looks like a work charged. conspiracy to defraud. trump this title with biden. "new york times" poll out there they are both side. how are you trying to throw your

opponent in prison and you still don't have a lead? how's that possible? joe biden is a 39%. greatest economy in the world. if item is tied with donald trump statistically, he loses the election. joe biden or any democrat has to be handled donald trump a republican by at least 2-3 percentage points nationally because of the electoral col college. he loses right now. donald trump is currently winning this election if it was held today according to "the new york times." much can happen is you are going to have impeachment. i believe you will have the inquiry in ball. impeachment going into 20/20 for. contrasted against trump's federal court cases in 2024. both guys i can to be going haywire. you know, the american people -- >> the lawyers are going to make a lot of money. >> had at the democrats take that "new york times" poll today? >> we wet the bed.

is our practice. i think it is important. there are a bunch of other poll clarinets that have biden up now. he used to beat down on the real clear politics average. now he is up to "the new york times" poll is a very reputable poll. it had a lot of components to it that are quite startling for democrats like the gains that you can estimate amongst black voters, black men. and with latinos. the edge for joe biden was basically nailed. it was three points. this happens frequently. talk about this going into the midterms. there was discussion for the democrats are going to lose latino voters and that is and what happened at all. you have to play every day like it is the most important day of your life. you can't take any constituency for granted. your pro vacation. the one i am pro vacation. >> i would like one else also. a little bit about the indictment. listening to what jesse said.

i completely understand the fact that there are a lot of people that feel that way when you look at the fact that trumpets side with biden right now and he is on the middle of august we would expect. that's what we are calling it. i don't know what else to say. there are some incredibly important facts that have come out about the january 6 case. steve bannon is on tape talking before the election about how they are going to act as if trump wanted before he even knows what's going to happen coming up peter navarro who goes on to be bragging about this. he wrote a book about how steve bannon has orchestrated the whole thing. it's like a football team and that he is the quarterback. i think they were the green bay packers. maybe he's from there. that is disturbing. deprivation of rights is about nullifying people's constitutional right to be able to vote and have their vote counted. this idea of minimizing jan january 6th down to code pink screaming about abortion rights or whatever and the atrium and

what happened on january 6th is not going to fly with the majority of americans. >> the fbi deprive people of rights. when i covered up the laptop. the cia. who finagled the laptop. you know what i'm talking about. that's corruption before the election. that denies people their rights. >> have in "the new york post" story be taken over 24 hours and will happen on january 6 are so utterly incomparable, i'm actually shocked at you. >> you are not shocked. you are not shocked. >> we actually don't know if there's going to be a press conference. we don't know if there's gonna be indictment. something is going on. >> just like old times. slow news and all of a sudden, trump tweets or truths. if we are not careful, they will reelect trump. indictments and impeachments, they are the spanish. i know that you said what happened on january 6th is disturbing. but disturbing as an illegal. if it were, i would get the

chair. i think for me, there's nothing that will never be more offensive, disturbing then the riots, you know, the nt five riots and the blm riots. it got nothing good i think that's why the indictments on trump and the impeachments, they feel like a political prosecution. a political persecution. that's why it makes them strong credits can make it even more of a folk hero that he already has. i guess he says, i mean, that timing is always so convenient. you know, and it's just a coincidence of course. it does raise one question. why do all the coincidence only break in one direction? something good happens -- something bad happens to the democrats. somebody saves them. that never happens to the republicans, right? and never breaks in the direction. it only goes in one direction, in one way.

we investigate and punish republicans, and you take it. the trip -- you still get punished and you will take it. now, what politics is, as lawyers versus lawyers. this is what politics is now. part of an event note -- you don't need posters anymore. you don't need votes. just but the lawyers against the lawyers. now you hope your team, republicans or democrats have the best values so they can go after the other guy. it feels like the republicans don't. it never feels like they have the best lawyers like they got them -- >> mike benson impeachment. >> that was a long time ago. >> that is bill barr and all that -- >> that is where they went. that's why the republicans don't have any good lawyers. they are on the supreme court. >> that was a great day for all of us. and unborn children, jessica. you want it does keep the indictments -- even with the coincidences which are really

interesting. i often believe that the government gets credit for being really good and competent in what they do. usually it is just a coincidence. those three right in a row is pretty telling. i also the other thing is, you don't have many people are neutral on trump or biden. out in "the new york times," it's 43/43. a small bit of independence who are persuadable. make sure that the thing people care the most about which is their pocketbook and their being nickel and dime to death about all these little regulations and the taxes. they are feeling like they are suppressed economically. i don't believe that it is working around them. we are really talking about any sort of economic plan. and 10-point plan. into the ether. >> that's why the media loves this. they keep trump in the news with the indictments and allows biden to be at the beach while his team touts on twitter and act like that's working for it if you look at the your head in the

election, it is election interference. this is going to change the election. an election that we have never seen before. there's talk about donald trump being pulled off the campaign trail. he's going to have to be fighting one of these many indictments in court. in looks pretty fishy and smells when the president of the united states has the department of justice that continues to indict president joe biden's top political opponent on these charges. there's a big difference between a grand jury returning an indictment. it doesn't have to be unanimous and the prosecutors having to come back and prove these cases beyond reasonable doubt. the reason they're so much skepticism about these indictments is because the justice department does not have a good track record when it comes to going after donald trump whether it was counsel, the russian collusion troops for years on and then when it comes to the american people looking at this and president trump becoming more popular in the g.o.p. primary.

the majority think that the federal government is far too powerful. if you can get something to stick and you continue to run someone like trump through the ringer without actually having anything, people lose faith in their institutions. this does not do anything -- >> about the lack of trust in institutions. >> and the death of norms as well. the one we want to bring in former assistant attorney. i think that you can believe that january 6th was horrendous. you can also believe that this could -- what katie just pointed out. people losing faith in their institutions and feeling like this does seem political. what about the charges as jesse went through them, a few of them, how do you understand these charges that might come down? >> i am inclined to agree with jesse. i think these are more dicey charges. as a reason for that. this indictment if it comes down as it has been reported with the charges that jesse was alluding

to, they are really making this a proxy for impeachment. ithey weren't able to disqualify him. no one certainly no one on the democratic side is happy with that result. a lot of other people are unhappy with it as well. it has fallen to the prosecutors to try to do with the political process didn't do. the problem is that when you are trying to strip political power, you are stripping a benefit. if an event is very different from a right. from a right when you're depriving people of their liberty or their property, you have to be much more exacting and the accused gets many more rights than you get in and impeachment process. it is just not a good fit. when i think they are really trying to do here is accomplished through the criminal law while they weren't able to pull off with respect to impeachment.

i think it is interesting that it is a deprivation of rights is the rubric that this may be brought under. it seems to me that smith is depriving speech and of fair trial rights. he is going to try to push this case to trial before the next election. he is doing that under circumstances where he is already brought another indictment and tried to get a judge who also schedule that for before the election. at a certain point, you have to ask in a due process sense, limit speech and supposed to prepare for trial? >> jesse watters got a question for andy. >> they are trying to make fighting the election stick and make a criminal, does that make it harder for any politician to fight against what they consider a fraudulent election going forward? he just believed to be election was stolen. and he was trying to use everything in his power to push it as far as he possibly could all the way to the end. it just seems like that's

politics. isn't that just politics? >> jesse, i would broaden it beyond that. i think that we go to a very bad place if we are now going to criminalize -- criminalize frivolous legal theories. when i was a prosecutor, if a frivolous legal theory was a crime, i could've indicted five people a day. you are in this circumstance where they don't have evidence that would enable them to the charges speaking in connection with the violence of the capitol riot which i think if you had that kind of evidence you are in a different place. since they don't, they are now in the position of these extravagant legal theories that if they are pushed to their logical limits will begin to imperil everybody's rights. it's not just a right to object to actual election fraud if there is actual election fraud. if you're going to make frivolous legal theories of crime that's going to be down to the defendants of is accused of

a crime in america. >> i am curious as to what you think of the fact that during the january 6th commission we heard from all of these witnesses who said that trump did know that he had lost the election, that he was being told by everyone in his inner circle that that was the case and that any of his lawyers when actually having to face a judge and show up in court kind of ran away with her tail between their legs and with advance the kind of lives that they were promoting on social media and in interviews. >> jessica, it is a really interesting aspect of what a criminal trial would be if it plays out this way. because i think with the jury would be told is what they have to make a determination about is what trump really thought. i think there were a lot of people, liz cheney in the front of the line in the january 6th committee who basically wanted to make this an objective person test. that is to say everybody from bill barr on who was the best

informed people about fraud was telling trump that there was no election fraud. he was inclined to believe the people who seemingly were not as good sources that were telling him what he wanted to hear. but the jury is going to have to decide is when he takes the position that he didn't believe or he did believe that the election was stolen, is that an authentic belief on his part? or is it fraud? i think it's gonna come down to what they think he really thought. >> we might be closer to finding that out if he could stand by just a second. you have breaking news david. >> we know when indictment was handed out. one of the lead prosecutors on jack's mid statement before the magistrate judge here in washington, d.c. this is all a formality handed out the indictment. what is curious typically a name is red or initials are announced for the defendant in the indictment. that is not the case here for our producer was in the

courtroom. no initials mention. we know there is one indictment. this is an indictment relating to efforts to overturn the 20/20 election. also events that led up to january 6th all in the same f font. however, the magistrate judge sealed it. we don't have a name right now which puts everything kind of in a weird position because the former president has already come out to say listen, this is essentially his indictment. he is the person who is going to be named. we don't have it officially yet. we are waiting to see we can get some more guidance from the justice department, the special counsel team. it could also be unsealed. we know there is a single indictment that was handed up unnamed, no initials. >> and really is baltimore. you are not allowed to say the name. >> i want to live in the present and i look forward to the future. we keep being forced to live in the past. i think that january 6th is never ever ever ever going away.

because the media and the democrats control the narrative. and they don't want it to go away because they will continue to use the capital by the events there to exploit score points against republicans. it's not about the law. it's not what happened about the capital. it's about being able to reuse it over and over. they don't care about the law. if they cared about the law, where where they in those riots? i have to use that example. dozens of people died. they certainly didn't care about the ashley babbitt when she died. it's not really about the law. this is a political act. why are they clinging to it? it is because democrats right now, they have a real problem with issues. they suck on issues. no offense, jessica. so they need to take you off the field of legal battles. that's what this is about. they suck on crime. they suck on the economy. they suck on the border. give me something else.

oh, my god, education. they super suck. they are super suckers. travel. energy. you pick anything. they suck eggs. what are they gonna do? they got to give the republicans off the field by going after them in court. >> you can go on and on. >> in fact, i will for the next hour. >> we might need you to. >> andy mccarthy when he first came on when he was talking about how because they didn't get the political result they wanted out of impeachment that this is another way to do pass in basement and future impeachment and the past perfect impeachment that they are trying to do. >> the participle phrase of impeachment or whatever it is but they are trying to do it through the lawyers. maybe they will have a case. maybe the indictment will be mind-blowing. maybe we will have evidence that we haven't heard before. it feels like so much of lives as legs. we know that so many people have

been prosecuted under that january 6th legal problems that so many people had in this country. why do you think of that point about it being a different type of impeachment just through legal means? >> democrats saying that only donald trump on the republicans were trying to overturn an election on january 6. that's actually not accurate. when president trump president trump was elected, democrats worked in the government through the fbi to upend his presidency. they did meetings with james comey at the white house and entrapped stafford's. they went on with this impeachment by asking questions about ukrainian corruption involving joe biden which we now know especially after the testimony yesterday was a very valid question to be asking. you had the accusation for members of congress of russian collusion for years which is special counsel which the entire country had to go through did not come up with the end.

it's also denying an election. they did everything to delegitimize the fact that he had been elected by the american people to be the president. they did that behind the scenes using the legal system. it is the same thing they do with the supreme court. he try to get the supreme court to do things when they can't get what they want through congress. image of the priorities of the department of justice. i've talked to prosecutors who are still there. they have been taken off very serious child trafficking cases, child cases to come deal with that january 6th case. offer violent offenders. for trespassers on the capital. it's an issue of priorities. if you are looking at this thinking what is the equal application of the law when you had in the summer of 2020, and blessed night after night attacks against portland's federal courthouses. those charges being dropped against those people. i think that's the issue. when you have it one-sided even if they were nothing nefarious -- which i don't think it's true. it doesn't look good. and people lose faith in the legal system which does not turn

out well for democracy as the left likes to say. >> here in the studio, you are not in here with us. one of the things we asked the stage manager to do was to put on the tree. as a monitor. you can see with the other networks are covering. every body as we all talking about the possible trump indictment. >> there is a 7-present panel on cnn. seven people. they are calling it "the seven." >> last night, or were they the only ones that cover the news about the devon archer interview? it was an interview on capitol hill. >> they don't want to look at where. they are going to be forced to cover it during the impeachment inquiry which we believe is going to begin -- the department of justice as they have a policy that they don't go heavy-handed in an election year. they're going to put speech in an at least 2 federal trials in an election year. that is best utilization of their own policy.

you also have january 6th. i feel comfortable speaking for jessica. >> you really shouldn't. >> i won't. i will speak for the rest of the country that has their head on straight. not every not he believes january 6 was hiroshima. a lot of people don't even know what january 6th was. for the people that watch it on tv, they are overwritten or they don't see is not as a holy day of the way you guys do. again, the documents case. i'm talking about one bite did with it. what trump did with it. regular americans on main street on fussing over where the documents went. they really don't care. it doesn't affect them. in the '90s, you had sex. it was titillating. it was a different culture back then. if you find cash bribes that go into biden's offshore bank accounts, that's going to light

up the country. that is a cash bribe from a foreign company that is in the bank account. goodbye. okay? sex and cash bribes. that's going to do it. documents and january 6th not going to do it. you have another thing. greg said it. this is like welfare, they call it. legal warfare. if this was political, this will be, like, a political war crime. this is overkill. this is political germ warfare. these are political war crimes. it is an atrocity. it's not just dropping one atomic bomb. if you drop 15 doesn't come in jessica, enough is enough. this is the establishment terrified of donald trump's reelection because of all the money that's going to dry up and all the influence. they are terrified of the payback. that is what this is about. what happens if you trigger a reelection by donald trump. if you think he is gonna go after the bidens? he might go after dr. -- at this point after you have

been rummaging through the underwear drawer, turning his life upside down. payback is going to be a you know what. you guys start at that. >> you are going to comment and then we will have jonathan turley to comment for us as w well. >> okay, great. americans fully understand and care about what these crimes that donald trump is alleged to have committed. the majority of americans think that he committed felonies and the majority of americans don't want him to be president again which is your general election problem. andy mccarthy has a piece out called trump can't win. which sends a pretty clear signal about what he thinks. election interference, riddle me this, jesse. what do you think, he was doing in october coming out and saying, hey, everybody, i just wanted to let you know that we did look into hillary clinton's emails again but now that's closed. go have a nice day.

there is a clear line between jim comey walking out on doing that for no apparent reason except loving to be in front of the camera. and hillary clinton -- >> you're making the point that the fbi has entered. now >> my point is that this is not just to punish republicans printer has been "interference on the other side in a democrat who is much more qualified for that job ended up losing. in terms of the comparison to the certification of results in 2016 or what happened there, joe biden never was asked was asked to not perform his duties. no one said hang joe biden. >> oh, my god. the one the house floor and refuse to -- >> not going to a ceremonial party and storming the capital. >> d.c. do you remember that? >> i'm gonna take all of this as a victory if you just go -- no they didn't go to best buy. >> you got people to agree on

something. everybody agrees that jim comey loves the camera. jonathan turley, you might agree. you are a fox news contributor even watching maybe even watching us. i don't know what you think about our legal analysis. let's hear your. >> let's see what new evidence they might have heard of the more intriguing things is the suggestion that they have a witness tampering claim and may produce some new evidence we haven't seen. but you know, jack smith has a reputation for stretching criminal statutes beyond the breaking point. you know, he went after the virginia governor. secured a conviction there. unanimously overturned because he just stretch the law too far. >> something can i just interrupt you for one second and let you know that president trump's campaign has been out a statement saying that he has been indicted. i know that the -- the grand jury apparently -- they are saying that shortly after at 5:00 p.m. the magistrate judge

in d.c. accepted three new indictments. the first two were read aloud but not the third. that is the latest that we have here. i will let you continue. i wanted to just get that out there so we have the news on the record. >> ride, and as we expected, this is the other shoe dropping. the suggestion that shaq smith might be using the civil rights act and section 241. that would be a stretch. it has been used in some election cases of interfering with the right to vote. it goes to the concern many of us have. if you're going to go after a president or former president, you should do it on well-established grounds. you should do it with overwhelming evidence. we can all do make the documents case. that indictment is a fairly conventional indictment. president trump has denied the allegations. he will have his day in court for this one could be more problematic on a legal basis.

this is where jack smith may be yielding to his weakness. he may be stretching the law a bit. that's why we are going to be looking at things like witness tampering to see how much new evidence he has. you will notice that not being discussed and all of this is a conspiracy for incitement. not being discussed is seditious conspiracy. those were the claims that went into the second trump impeachment rebels where the claims that democrats that said where lead-pipe where the evidence was absolutely clear. they do not appear that aspired to be in this indictment but we will have to see. the letter and that was issued to trump did not include those specific allegations. >> all right, jesse watters. >> what is the charge everybody keeps talking about on the left that have speech and is convicted it disqualifies him from ever holding public office ever again? is that part of this?

>> no, i'm got to tell you -- >> i'm sorry. we do have -- it's official now. the indictment has come down. president trump has been indicted. the indictment has not been. i think that you are in the middle of a very good point answering the question from jesse watters about the democrats think that there is something in here that says president trump can actually serve as president again if he were to win back the election of 2024. >> you know, the democrats have been playing with this for years with a 14th amendment on the claims of this qualification. it is sort of a story you tell your kids at night if you are a democratic household so they sleep restfully. in methods you. i'm highly skeptical. i don't think that a convention would prevent donald trump from running. either way, if he is elected, it wouldn't prevent him from pardoning himself. it would prevent other

republicans from pardoning him that if this doesn't go to tr trial, shaq smith might never see jerry. you do a preemptive pardon. >> i'm going to interrupt you again which is very rude. i'm going to owe you a drink. he has the indictment. you can read it to us. tell us one of the charges? >> we've got the printer going behind me. 45 pages. here it is right here. donald trump has been indicted. 4 different counts. before i read through this. count one is conspiracy to defraud the united states. conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. count three obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. count four is called conspiracy against rights. i want to go through this and look at it right now. we sent it out so everybody should have a copy in our email. right now it appears 4 different counts. this was the indictment that was not read in court now is

unsealed and we are waiting to see if we get any type of reaction from special counsel jack smith we will be watching for. >> earlier you said that indictments didn't have some initials are some people that's what happened to that? because not everybody named? >> apparently we are told from a producer and the court room were two cases where nationals were read. deciphering her those initials may be. waiting to see if we find those. this specific case right here there was no dte red or djt or donald trump announced on the courtroom. this is united states of america v donald from defendant. we were wondering if perhaps it might be donald trump and xyz as we saw with the retention of documents case where his aid embodiment is also indicted. this is united states of america versus donald trump. 4 counts again. count one conspiracy to defraud

the united states, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. obstruction of an attempt to obstruct esco conspiracy against rights. 25 pages. on the back it has jack smith's signature right here. it just says right here, it says donald j. trump brothers is on the final page did knowingly combined, conspired, confederate and agree with coconspirators on -- to injure a press threaten and intimidate one or more persons in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to them by the constitution and laws of the united states. that is the right to vote and to have one's vote counted in violation of title 18 united states code section 241. >> let's take it around the table for some reaction. now we have the news. it is official. >> david brought up the point that it's only president trump who has been indicted this round. there could be other people like we saw last week in additional

charges i wanted to ask jonathan turning the question about the volume of legal work that has to be done. the reports they came out of president trump spending a lot of the campaign money that's been given to them by donors on the legal defense when you have 40 plus counts in the classified document case, the other indictments that are coming. interested in this year volume of what that actually looks like for attorneys getting ready for these indictments in the trials next year. the amount of resources from the candidate himself when he is trying to be on the trail. president joe biden you when your eyes are squinting there. very tiny print. >> so silly. they lead off this thing the president mind about election fraud and knew there was no fraud. how do they know that he knew that there was no fraud? if this goes to trial, only now going to have to go back and

find fraud in the 20/20 election? is this when we are going to go relitigate? does this opening up the entire 2020 election in a court setting to donald trump going back and proving that there was indeed fraud and presenting evidence of fraud and having that challenged in the court? is this really what we are going to do? now they are saying that it was a conspiracy to fraudulently claim there was no fraud. that is the first phase. i will let you know when i get to the second page. >> there's another little bit of news. apparently president's speech and will appear in a federal court on august 3rd. i believe that is friday. president trump to appear on this latest indictment. greg gutfeld committed you have any thoughts as we go around? >> what do you think of my sketches? usually when i am bored i will draw men and hats.

i'm sure there's a psychiatrist out there that i can tell you what is wrong with me. i look at this stuff. honestly, i do see again. it's law fair. we are not supposed to understand this. this is supposed to be out of our hands, out of our control. donald trump is probably one of the most consequential leaders of our lifetime. he was outside the box. he didn't play well with others. this is the payback. he is not one of the kids. he's not one of them. he is the outsider. this is payback. it's going to elevate him even more. it's not as fun as the other topics we were going to do. >> a bear in china. in a man's suit. >> it's jessica. one of the things that we had talked about earlier that we can circle back around now. whether these are on the merits of the indictments come out. the indictments just politically it's a fact that those indictments so far have not heard president trump

politically. they made them stronger. he called them the spinach. like the pac-man ghosts. every time you eat a ghost, you get a little bit stronger. >> that's more updated them as stupid one. >> and so, i wonder if the democrats think about what could happen if the reaction in the country is either to shrug their shoulders or to think even worse, that there are these two systems of justice and why is that this being applied to the biden administration? i'm not trying to equate januar. it hasn't helped democrats politically so far. do you think that is going to change? our ve -- >> running on issues. you can laugh all you want about trying to convince people about bidenomics. but that doesn't mean that it isn't what they are talking

about. i have not seen one democrat speech that is leading with pain, this guy. do you think is going to look good in an orange jumpsuit? they are talking about issues like the dobbs decision which was a complete lightning rod in the midterms and will continue to be. democrats are doing exactly what they should be doing which is continuing to govern and talk about the issues that matter to americans. i think this has been true almost since trump came down the golden escalator. that people's views are very solidly baked in. people who think that the biden family is corrupt and that they are the worst people on the planet then really cared about denying the seventh grandchild. i was one of our topics. we were going to talk about that. that is done and dusted. the people on the other side who said i can absolutely never support donald trump also done. it's just those few people which is why the margins in these elections are so slim.

why doesn't work and in the republicans favor with all of this is that those people tend to think that donald trump is guilty of these things. they voted him out in the last election in 2020. is getting stronger as a candidate in the polls. he is not financially. as the indictments continued to roll income is able to fund raise less pretty spent $40 million on his own defense. sounds like a bit of fraud. >> but they are real charges. these are grant cherry -- >> i was thinking with these indictments if you are the speech in or president trump himself, given that these indictments are coming out, he will be in court on thursday august 3rd. thursday august 3rd. to me if i were him, i would definitely want to be on the debate stage on august 23rd. then he could be in a position to look at all of the people

around him including chris christie, a big critic of his and say, who here thinks that this indictments of me was fair and see what happens and be able to put them all on record and try to seal up a commanding lead that he already has. something -- >> certain candidates like nikki haley have come out and said this is a distraction. we don't want to be talking about this with the nominee next year. the truth is republicans are in a place where they are trying to defeat trump. they really can't go after him on this issue because the doj has been so corrupt and there's so much information about how the fbi was behaving during the 2016 election and during president trump's first term and you end up defending the institutions that a lot of that time are going after republican political candidates. when your questionnaire your statement about the money being going away and that being political warfare as well. it is. this is a way for them to plead

donald trump dry when it comes to campaign fund-raising. that is exactly what they are doing with all of these indictments. it would be great for him to show up. >> it's hurting state republican parties. the swing state republican parties have the worst financial records. they are the ones that are supposed to pay for get out the vote pilot -- i don't want to see harvesting but get those ballots mailed in. jonathan charlie, you've stuck around. katie had a question that she wanted to post to you earlier. it had to do with the amount of legal work that is going to be required here. >> for these lawyers, it probably feels like death by a thousand paper cuts. he's looking at now is there an indictment. he is expecting a fourth indictment. this is not like frequent wire miles. these lawyers have to work on each of these cases. they've got a land of witnesses. they have to have access to their clients to deal with

specific representations to be made. at some point that judges are going to have to acknowledge that you can't just, you know, destroy a defendant by exposure. you have to give the defendant a chance to focus at least on one chase. it's got to go first. on top of that, a may date for the first federal indictment for they had it with a superseding indictment with new counts. a new defendant. that's can i have no way on the court as to whether it is fair now to stick with the original date given that change in this additional indictment and one coming. >> there are six unnamed coconspirators. we don't none of those are yet. does this mean they are indicted as well? >> i have been reading through this indict. they don't name some of these individuals. we can guess who they are. i have to tell you.

i really quite astonished by much of this indictment so far. and regurgitate southbound on the allegations against the tenant. there is room for criticism in terms of the claims being made about stolen elections. and it's criminalizing all of that. it states in the indictment the president spent months earning false rumors and allegations on election irregularities. really? is that a criminal issue? is that the basis of this conspiracy? it seems to me rather loose at the joints. you know, i am a bit surprised. i haven't seen anything in the indictment so far which is new. we heard about witness tampering and things of that kind. this is largely going through the states, arizona, georgia, restating what has been in the press. it even includes reference to that phone call where the president says all you have to do is find 11,000 votes.

for those of us who look at that phone call, that doesn't seem to be a criminal matterou y look ae president seems to be saying, all i need is 11,000 votes. looking at a recount, we are not talking about a huge threshold for us to show at the election should have come out diffe differently. smith throws at him. i think as i said before the indictment came down as the concern is this with play to smith's weaknesses. he tends to stretch the evidence, stretch the law when he wants to go after someone. i'm still looking in this indictment for something that is really sort of a moment. >> that may just pass you a little bit. you said that we can guess who the coconspirators are. i'm actually not sure. do you want to speculate? >> refers to attorneys that analyst said they would probably

be john eastman, giuliani. those types of people are likely to be the reference points here. >> the indictment reads like a transcript of an msnbc show. they said the defendant and parent of the federal big government from functioning. isn't that literally the republican party platform? to reduce the ability of the federal government from functioning? they say it is a crime to ask mike pence not so certified. i wonder if you would agree tht was a crime. apparently the campaign managers told the defendant donald trump he had a 5-10% chance of winning these challenges. but he still thought on the indictments. how dare he wins 5-10% chance. i wonder what the guys in vegas would say. you know how suspicious activity in philadelphia, detroit, and arizona and nevada. they are going to have to litigate suspension selection

activity and all of those st states. they are going to be presenting evidence. the defense is going to be presenting evidence for the prosecution's collapse and knock it down. we are going to relitigate all of these deep blue democratic districts over the entire country in court in 2024 in an election year. do you think that it's healthy for the country, jonathan turley? do you think that's a road the democrats want to go down to defend the integrity of philadelphia's election sec security? trump said the voting machines were not secure. we are going back to voting machines at trial in court in an election year. we are going to bring in voting machine executives who explain everything's fine. they are up on cross examination. we are going to go through that again, jonathan turley. lastly they are saying lying about an election is illegal. then hillary, lock her up.

>> john kerry too. good point. jonathan turley, you should respond. not me. >> this is what i was addressing before the indictment came down. i was hoping if there were an indictment that you would have this moment where you say i get it. this could be debated. you've got something new year. i haven't seen anything particularly new. the indictment goes through and says all these people told him that he lost the election. all these people said that pens couldn't do that. once one of the people writing at the time said the president was wrong about vice president pence. he was also hearing from attorneys that said that we can win. that pence can do this. you're gonna be criminalizing a difference of opinion. most attorneys did not support that view. it goes to what do you need to bring an indictment against former president. what if the public expect? for a lot of people, this is

going to look like the indictments will continue. that's not what you want. >> jonathan turley, thank you. we appreciate your expertise. i'm sure i will be seeing a lot more of you as this breaking news is unfolded. bret baier is going to take over in about 9 minutes. it's been a rollicking hour. what do you make out things so far? >> it is find something. first put it in 30,000 feet perspective for this is the former president of the united states being indicted for the third time. but it is interesting, jesse makes an interesting point. these charges are obstruction counts. they deal with overturning the election. they don't deal with inspiring as far as actual movement of people or the attack or the riots on the capital. there was some thought that there was good to be something about the coordination behind the scenes with folks in the oath keepers. it's not inherence far as we can see. a couple of other points for the

special counsel will speak live at the top of the hour, 6:00 p.m. eastern time. we confirm that the judge in this case will be judged on issue check-in. she was nominated by president obama printed on the bench in d.c. since 2014. she is the judge in this case. you have seen all the statements even ahead of time from the former president. saying that this was going to happen. we are going to have his attorney who is dealing on this case on special report. >> who is that? >> joe. >> no relation. >> katie has a question for you. >> given our promotions today. big time. >> great to see you. 30,000-foot version. you cover in a lot of elections including presidential elections. i just wanted to get your thoughts about a month and next

year is going to look like both with republican primary and a general election with all of the 70 against the former president on the current front runner. >> is fascinating. we have never been here. it's never happened before. a former president has not been in this position before. he is up so big and every poll that it is overwhelming. he talks about it a lot. though these things make a difference? in the g.o.p. primary, it's hard to see any difference. every indictment is led to his poll numbers going up, not down. the question is whether the republican party and the other candidates who will be that stage in milwaukee going to make a big deal of this or not. now the g.o.p. primary affects this when it looks toward the general election whether he can win. a former president is in a politically and interesting position and strength in every poll. legally, he is facing these indictments that are serious. but his team is saying they can fend it off one by one.

>> thank you. go get ready for your show and you will have the prosecutor. i understand giving a press conference. we will all look forward to t that. guys, that was quite an hour. final violence now. you can talk about it if you wanted to. >> bret baier. >> forgive me. it is really hard for me to take this seriously. i don't think any sensible american -- go they should what is happening very seriously. both the actual charges, you can't take seriously. there are feelings masquerading as facts. opinions trying to be post office crimes. it's garbage dressed up with a legal thesaurus. it's criminalizing thoughts. it's criminalizing speech. you have every right to think an election might be ranked or fixed. as every institution perfect? what if we criminalize the idea

that if you said the justice system is flawed? what if we told you, you know what? you are saying the justice system is rigged. you are going to jail. that has been common refrain. i think it's amazing to me how hatred for speech and has turned the haters into what they claim to condemn. these are all the things they would have accused him of that he never did. this is why i can't take it seriously. this is why i draw things. >> the frame for my office. >> zombie man. >> jessica: yeah, i think it is really interesting as bret raised that there is nothing about january 6th, the date itself and i wonder what the process was. because they certainly explored that and they are going through the oath keepers and proud boys and people who were conspiring to go over to the capital in their private trial. why was that not a piece of

this? jonathan turley paint add two sided picture. jack smith is a prosecutor that goes too far but he has commented multiple times on our network and written about how the mar-a-lago indictment classified documents was an air tight case that him and andy mccarthy were talking all the time about how they were shocked at the level of details that they had the pictures of them doing all this and now with the superseding indictment it only gets stronger. so how can you have it both ways? how can jack smith be a guy who goes to the extremes and also someone who puts together a indictment you were praising. >> jack smith withholding information from the judge. just this week it was found that his prosecution team was also withholding. >> video evidence, right? >> katie: from the defense. so he does -- there is evidence in that case that he is stretching as jonathan turley said. listening to jonathan talk about

this and ask the question about whether these statements were criminal to me criminalization what the left likes to call disinformation and misinformation. they want it to be illegal. all these polls showing if you say something online that they don't like or something like that, that you should go to prison for it. and it sounds like, based on what jonathan was saying about the lack of real charges. based on something somebody said. that's not going to fly. jesse watters? >> jesse: when the left lets out a primal scream when he said some beauty contestant was fat and criticized the a gold star family and what was next locker room talk. >> jessica: john mccain wasn't a hero. >> jesse: to week hysterical

melt down. after a while american public bakes that. in the impeachment, and then the s.o. country. both sides you are not taken seriously after all of those times. i do know this. if it does get appealed it goes to the supreme court. i know the supreme court well. i don't know the judges personally this is what they tell me about the supreme court. the supreme court values the fabric of the society. they are not going to throw a former president in prison at 79, 80 years old over paperwork, over a charge that they are bringing in from 3 45 years ago that's never been used. they don't have a dead body or cash in the freezer. this is a political prosecution.

it is legal mumbo jumbo. i'm bothered that jack smith put me through. this. >> greg: me too. >> jesse: i feel like we are the victims here. everybody else in the country is a victim. >> dana: watching you as a speed reader was impressive. that's going to be it for us. >> special counsel jack smith is going to speak any moment after indicting former president trump. bret baier is next. hello, again. >> bret: the live toss is back for a day. >> dana: i love it. we missed you. >> bret: good evening, welcome to washington. i'm bret baier. breaking tonight, the 45th president of the united states has been indicted for a third time unprecedented in u.s. history. events surrounding the capitol riot january 6th, 2021. the efforts to overturn the 2020