we reaction to this case. tried to provide you balanced analysis and what comes next but the biggest thing is we don't know it's a crazy year. we h have got you covered, fair, balanced and still unafraid. "the ingraham angle," which you don't want to miss, happens now. ♪ >> laura: i'm laura inimram and is "the ingraham angle" from washington tonight. we start with a fox news alert. >> laura: i read through this so-called january 6th charging document indicting donald trump on four counts, two counts of obstruction, two counts of conspiracy this is a complete embarrassment. at this point they might as well hang a banner over that main entrance to the department of justice building tonight covering the credo with biden 2024. now, if the democrats special counsel jack smith was ever a

serious lawyer he has the sole distinction of being a political hack. >> the attack on our nation's capitol on january 6th, 2021, was unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. since the attack on our capitol, the department of justice has remained committed to ensuring accountability for those criminally responsible for what happened that day. this case has brought consistent with that commitment. >> laura: ha. well, by listening to this guy, you would think that trump himself was smashing flew the glass at the capitol that day. >> that was one of the most item go jake presentations i have ever seen in a high profile criminal case anyone who listened to that. any normal person alleged donalp carried out the capitol riot. >> in order to get a conviction,

he will have to use material, that, in my view, is clearly protected by the first amendment. >> >> laura: now, this case should never survive a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment. but will judge tonya shut kin, an obama judge, ever do the right thing. i want to remind you don't that she worked for hunter biden's law firm at one point, boise and schiller. we will have more on that at a later date. but i have my doubts about her. trump said nothing and did nothing to trigger any criminal charge on january 6th any. his crime was believing and saying that the election was rigged. that's what they want to send him to jail for. now, excuse me. how is that any different than when the democrats claimed rigged in 2016 or in 2000 bush v. gore and why wasn't stacey

abrams called for calling a fraud geap's governor race. why today? why did jack smith decide to hand down this absurd political diatribe today? oh, i'm sure the time something purely coincidental. now, not only is biden at 44% approval, a low now in that new cbs poll, he is plummeting in the polls against trump basically even across the country and trump is dominating meanwhile in the g.o.p. primary. doesn't look like anyone is going to be able to stop him right now. after yesterday's devon archer testimony, we now can all see with our own eyes that joe biden is wobbling under the weight of his longstanding corruption. the bidens have been ons take getting rich selling influence and trump's crime is disagreeing with the outcome of an election? complaining to a governor over the phone, speaking at a rally?

this is just another in a long line of political hit jobs under the guise of federal law enforcement. we care about the system they have charged grandmothers and military vets who merely walked into the capitol through an open door. and they did that to send a message to the public at large. do not even think about standing up for someone like donald trump again. don't think about it. we could send you to jail. and now they are indicting a former president of the united states to protect biden and the entire d.c. establishment from scrutiny. the doj does not care about what is happening in this country right now. where real crime is running wild or chinese spies are calling all over the place. they don't bring the same fanfare, the same emotion to tackling human trafficking or the fentanyl explosion. jack smith and merrick garland have one overriding goal, dragging the decrepit joe biden across the finish line in the

next election and, yes, by any means necessary. the doj is effectively the biden campaign headquarters at this point. they have nothing else. of course he is not going to run the traditional campaign or really campaign like we have gotten used to serious candidates campaigning. he can barely stay awake during a podcast. if the doj can actually get away with this, then anyone whoever speaks out against the d.c. establishment and does so forcefully, anyone who takes a stand on issues from china to the border, to trade, they are all vulnerable. now, thomas is i joked yesterday that it would help desantis if he got indicted i will tell you tonight if it looked like desantis was close to beating trump, he would be indicted. they can swamp you with legal bills. maybe desantis sending migrants to california. he kidnapped them. i could see that being charged.

look, they can harass a poor 54-year-old building manager at mar-a-lago as they did last night or the personal valet of donald trump in an effort to squeeze the whole process. and squeeze out some type of cooperation from those two people. they don't have any money. they don't have any status. but they can be targets just like anyone else. look, as i see this, if this is allowed to stand, this is not your country anymore. because, look, as far as they're concerned, the establishment, the populist, they got to be in charge from 2017 to 2021. and the swamp intends that never happens again. they will not let it happen again. so, no. i do not take any of this document seriously tonight. because these people are not serious. they're frauds. and this document is designed to do one thing and one thing only, drive trump out of the race so they can move on to their next victim.

joining me now is timothy par la tore former attorney for donald trump and timothy tolman former u.s. attorney. as an attorney and a member of two different bars, i am disgusted tonight reading this indictment. am i wrong in feeling like this is a prosecution of a political disagreement and a political opponent going into a presidential election? reading that indictment the thing that jumped out of me is exactly that they are not citing anywhere where he admits what he was saying was false only what january 6th tried to do he received advice from some people and received advice from other people that contradicted that so he should have decided to follow the people that we agree with. and so, how you can then spin that into actual knowledge that these claims are forever false,

i don't think you can get to that point. it really is all about what his state of mind is and the indictment was somewhat underwhelming on that point to me. >> laura: well, underwhelming, i don't know what document you read, tim, but i think it's beyond underwhelming. this -- i read a lot of indictments in my day, and serious cases involving white collar criminal -- my old life, bret, what am i missing here? donald trump thought the election was rigid. we all know it he said it forever. now that eventually is a federal crime. really? >> you know, laura, when you watch a hollywood movie where they are portraying some fantastic amazing athlete but they are using an actor who just doesn't have the right swing or can't make the jump shot? that is what this prosecutor is and that is what this indictment is. it is cringey. it's so tough for me having drafted these, presented these to grand juries to sit and watch

him manipulate and the legal wrangling that he has to go through in this document to actually criminalize thought, criminalize legal advice. criminalize a legal position and a strategy whether they are right or wrong that they had believing that this election was rigged. and so you don't see any reference to mens rea, their criminal intent, because they can't put it in the document. they can't find criminal intent in donald trump or any of these four lawyers, political consultant, and a civil lawyer in doj. those are the co-conspirator in this case. >> well, tim, msnbc is trying to frame this as a moment where america is at a crossroads. but for another reason than we are. watch. >> it is one of the biggest cases ever in the history of the united states. it is up there with dred scott. it is up there with brown vs. board of education, because it

goes to who we are as a people. and jack smith today did something to restore confidence in the rule of law in unimaginable ways. >> laura: tim, that is the former solicitor general for the obama administration. that's the individual who argued cases before the supreme court. so his point is because it's historic it must be good. we'll talk about that legal analysis for a moment. >> well, first of all, neil cat tall is a liar. when i went on msnbc after the trump indictment mar-a-lago and talked about prosecutorial misconduct. because he didn't want to address the substance of those arguments, he lied. he made up court cases and said this was already rejected by the appellate courts. so for him to have any credibility whatsoever when talking about donald trump, to me is completely shot i don't

think he read that indictment before he made those statements. when you look at this thing, they are talking about how you have to find that he had knowledge and, yet, jack smith hasn't even -- his team has not even finished their investigation. they haven't interviewed some of the most key witnesses on that point. they rushed to an indictment this week. >> laura: bingo. >> until waiting until later this month when they actually finished their investigation. whether that's because of hunter biden or whether he was afraid that fanny willis was going to beat him to the punch, either way he brought a sloppy indictment before he finished an investigation. >> laura: i mean, bret brett, speaking of have no credibility the former fbi director andy mccabe was on the other networks. this was his analysis of the indictment. >> all conspiracy statutes, so they require that the person charged entered into an agreement with another person to commit the criminal act and then, of course, executed at least one act in furtherance of

that agreement. >> a majority of house republicans vote toed disenfranchise the voters of pennsylvania and arizona. >> if you indicted in this case, i'm not sure we will but if you do it will be someone who just went beyond their vote in congress. >> laura: bret, they are now at the point where they are not going to try to just put trump in jail, but, i guess, a member of congress who supported donald trump. do we see where this is going? that's what they want. >> that's right. that's what they want. they want to go after politicians. they want to go after anybody that disagrees with them. you look at section 241, that's the charge they are bringing, a civil rights claim against him and that's their conspiracy? that charge, in the language of the statute says a conspiracy to injure another who is trying to assert their constitutional -- you know, to exercise their constitutional rights. that does not apply here, but they don't care.

they know they can get the indictment and then they can pursue the case and get the objective that they have in place i mean, this thing is not just weak, but there are problems when, you know, i agree with what you said, laura, this is a motion to dismiss, which is rare in a criminal case. >> laura: right. >> they didn't present any of the evidence that might have been exculpatory to the grand jury; instead, they ramrodded this through. i can't wait to see what happens to them in court. it might be at the appellate level. >> laura: yeah. well, tim, can you speak to that for a moment that a motion to dismiss in this case because to survive a motion to dismiss, what does this prosecutor have to have established in that indictment? >> well, he has to establish that he has evidence of every single element of that crime. and so. >> laura: right. >> who knows what they presented to that grand jury. the big problem is that prosecutors they don't have to present everything to the grand jury. if you have 20 witnesses saying

it didn't happen and only one who said it did. you can just put that one witness in. we are kind of seeing that here because they haven't interviewed the most important witnesses on that key element of knowledge. they waited until after the indictment to even have those interviews scheduled. so are they going to then go back to the grand jury and say hey, sorry, we didn't give you everything, here's a lot more information? >> i very much doubt it. i think they are going to have issues of brady violations with the withholding lawyer exculpatory information. >> absolutely. it's a mess. here's the other thing, a case of this magnitude is going to go on long past the election. >> laura: i love he goes well, we seek a speedy trial. former president of the united states tied at the very least tied with biden right now no, we got get a speed from trial.

is he kidding me? i'm just going to say something i'm not supposed to say on tv. is that in and of itself was a laughingstock line tonight. >> especially since, laura, they waited two and a half years to bring the case. now hurry up and give me my 70 days. >> laura: exactly. all right, tim and brett, stay there. we will be back to you in a few moments. i want to remind everyone, again, we have been talking about the timing tonight. so on june 8th, the fbi released documents to congress alleges the biden took the $10 million bribe from burisma well, the next day, after that, the same jack smith indicted former president trump in the mar-a-lago documents case. then on july 26th, hunter biden sweetheart deal blew up when it was revealed that the doj tried to protect him and give him immunity from future prosecutions which was completely ridiculous. then the next day, again, jack smith added more charges against

trump in the documents case and what is called a superseding indictment. are you with me on the pattern mere? then yesterday former biden business partner devon archer told the oversight committee joe biden was on 20 phone calls with his son's business partners and that in fact burisma execs were on the phone calls as well. and helped with, you know, they wanted hunter's help in pressuring washington to fire that ukrainian prosecutor who at the time was investigating burisma. so that's what we learned in that. and then, just like clockwork, once again, today we get the latest indictment related to january 6th. >> joining us now house oversight committee chair james comer. congressman, are the american people at this point supposed to suspend all belief and common sense and think that this is all just -- a series of coin kansas denseness these charging documents, in the timing of it? >> i think the american people see what's going on.

whether or not this is a weaponized departments of justice trying to divert attention away from biden corruption or whether they are trying to take out their chief top political opponent in the upcoming election, the american people see through this. this is a sad day for the rule of law and sad day for the justice system in america. >> laura: right now we see that they are charging him with two counts of conspiracy. that require an intent that in the document, as i read it, has no evidence of intent they are withholding it from him if they have that evidence. but i don't see it in that document. mens rea required under the statute,period. >> that's right. as someone paying close attention to both of these investigations but can i tell you with confidence there is whole lot more evidence out

there donald trump committing crimes. that's a fact and i think, laura, the american people see that. to say that jack smith has overwhelming evidence that donald trump was the person that was behind the january 6th attack on the capitol and say there is no evidence that would show joe biden had any knowledge of thinks family receiving millions and millions of dollars from all these foreign nationals that we now know joe biden had spoken to or had dinner with or been -- or met with or messaged? i think that's preposterous. i think the american people see through. this i think that every time donald trump gets indicted from this point on, he is going to see a bump in the polls. he is going to see increase in fundraising. i think what jack smith is doing is having unintended consequences for what their ultimate goal is and that's to take donald trump out. or wound him grievously they think. wound him, force him to raise

money or spend money to pay for all these legal bills. and congressman, the indictment sounded at one point when you are reading it like they were describing some of the acts of the biden administration that you have been documenting. saying that faith because we see that faith in every institution has collapsed under democrat rule, including the supreme court military. so prosecutors claim in the indictment that for the two months after the election of 2020 trump spread lies to create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger and erode public faith in the administration of the election. well, the biden administration does nothing but spread lies and distrust in public institutions. i mean, that's what they do on a daily basis. >> i feel like someone broke into our notes on the oversight committee and plagiarized them. only they put them down for donald trump instead of joe biden. i mean, it's a joke. it's an absolute joke. the damage that joe biden has

done to our system of government is irreparable. and americans have no confidence in the department of justice. they have no confidence in the fbi. they're losing confidence every day in the entire government and that's not a good thing. they have no confidence in the irs. we got change that and all that joe biden is doing every day and merrick garland every day is making a bad situation worse. >> laura: they don't care. >> they don't care. they want to win and have self-preservation that's the ultimate goal for the deep state in washington, d.c. that self-preservation and donald trump stands in the way of their self-preservation. >> laura: now, to your point, congressman comer, this happened on fox where the irs whistleblower addressed president biden's involvement. watch you weren't allowed to follow the normal investigative steps that would have toe potentially shine more light on

these issues every time we needed to ask questions about president biden's involvement in regions to the business dealings we just weren't allowed to do that. >> laura: congressman, again, with the two tiers of justice here, they weren't allowed to you investigate into that connection. but they have dozens and dozens of prosecutors and lord knows how many civil servants going after trump on multiple fronts. >> the two most damaging things for the irs investigation have been revealed in the last two weeks by the oversight committee. first of all, we learned that the fbi and the u.s. attorney did not share with the irs investigators that there was a form alleging biden took a bribe from ukraine when they knew the irs was investigating suspicious wires from ukraine going into biden bank accounts. they knew that but they didn't share that form 1023 from a credible human informant and then what we learned this week that devon archer said that

hunter biden was told that he had to call washington and get help and get that prosecutor shokin fired. i find it hard to believe the fbi didn't know about that conversation that devon archer had with hunter biden. if they had done any type of investigation whatsoever they would have known it. these are two key facts that the irs investigators would need to move forward with this case. they were told to stand down. we see that every american sees that. and this is a terrible terrible point in the history of our american justice system. >> meanwhile it's full speed ahead against trump. as fast as you can get these trials done as fast as you can, push it out. congressman, thank you. now joining me now the latest on how this all went down today, david spunt, fox news correspondent live from doj. david? >> hi, laura, i have been looking through this indictment, it's 45 pages. this is the final page with special counsel jack smith's signature. he made a lengthy statement a few minutes. didn't take any questions a few

moments ago. let me go through some of these charges. there is four specific counts former president donald trump is charged with in this indictment. i want to read them. the first is count 1, conspiracy to defraud the united states. laura, count 2, is conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. count 3 is obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. count 4 conspiracy against rights. special counsel about an hour ago take a listen. >> described in the indictment. it was fueled by lies. lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the u.s. government, the nation's process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election. >> jack smith said that his investigation is not over into other people that may be charged, laura. the former president donald trump bracing for a potential fourth indictment in georgia.

a state charge. this would be by fulton county district attorney willis who said that her team is ready to go to give a little bit more information. this is about a phone call, the former president had with georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger when he asked rarchraffensperger to find 11,00 votes. she expects something to happen before september. meanwhile back here in washington, d.c., the former president has been summoned to appear in federal court in washington on thursday. in just two days so we'll see what that turns out to be. but there is going to be a heavy police presence there on thursday when he makes his appearance. laura. >> laura: all right. david, thank you. first here now reaction to today's indictment. vivek ramaswamy, 2024 g.o.p. presidential candidate. vivek, your view of this 45 pages, speedy trial necessary. and it looks like the presidential race for biden is being run out of the doj.

>> that's exactly right, lawyer. i have said this before in each of the two indictments i will say it again. this sets an awful precedent in our country. they recall going full banana republic third world on this. that sets a dangerous precedent. on this specific indictment, laura, i think there are couple of concerning facts. using unprecedented legal theory. alvarez was a case in 2012, still good law that holds that public officials and candidates for elected office can make false statements, period. so he is, by definition, using an unprecedented legal theory here. i think the more dangerous part of this is, laura, it doesn't even relate to trump, it relates to the legal system. by criminalizing the behavior of four co-conspirator, lawyers who were giving good faith legal advice to trump the job of the lawyer is to actually provide legal advice. trump was seeking legal advice. i think this indictment then pushes the boundary even further on just legal grounds. and a general rule of thumb is

if you are going to try to indict a political opponent and a former president in the middle of an election, it better darn well not be based on an unprecedented, untested flimsy legal theory. that's exactly what we have here, which is dangerous. >> laura: yeah, the novel application of the law. that's great timing to put that into play. now, vivek, i mentioned this briefly earlier. but this judge, amy shut kin handling this case in 2022 the a.p. called her the toughest punisher in the january 6th cases. she is a former assistant public defender, no, ma'am mate nate bide obama and consistently taken the hardest line against the defendants of january 6th of any judge serving on washington's federal trial court

samantha powers, powers, connections to harvey weinstein and jeffrey epstein. this is quite the connection that we're drawing here it doesn't. shows jurisdiction and venue matters deeply. jack smith knows exactly what he is doing. laura it, strikes me as the truth of the matter here, they are not going to stop until they get him going or get him coming. say this as somebody who is running against trump. i'm polling at third in the republican primary now it would be easier for me if donald trump were elim nateed from competition. that is not how any of us should want to win because that is bad for this country. that's why it's important for those of us con competing against trump to take a strong stand against these politicized indictments also why laura i'm sharing this now earlier this

evening i followed suit against the doj following up on earlier foia requests trying to get to the bottom of what biden and merrick garland told jack smith. that is transparency the public really deserves here. i do not believe that this special vale of a special prosecutor is really as separate as they are making it out to be. i filed foia request in relation to the last case which, contrary to law, they rebuffed, did not respond in substance, filed that lawsuit today and filing a new foia request. either way, laura, we have to get to the bottom, the truth of the matter here. the politicize persecution. >> laura: vivek, i don't think the american people are going to note truth unless there is a change in leadership. republicans are staking the future on these investigations and we are learning a lot, which is fantastic. >> that's right. >> laura: but you have got to beat them at the polls. that means early voting. ballot harvesting, 50 state campaign, getting more minority voters, that multi ethnic

coalition that you have talked about. that's where it's at. that's how you drain the swamp. the investigations, everyone knows biden is a crook now and they apparently don't care. >> exactly. >> laura: a lot of people don't care. >> that's why this has to be a landslide. 1908 reagan-style landslide, laura. that's why i'm in this race. we're going to have to bring young people along with us. that will make the difference between a razor thin election and a landslide moral mandate. and if i am elected, you have my pledge, laura, that we will open this kimono up. roll that log over, see what crawls out from the jeffrey epstein client list to what's happened in these cases, we, the public, can handle the truth. it's not like you can't handle the truth. no, we can handle the truth. there is no such thing as a noble lie. the public deserves to know. >> laura: we were actually going to have you on originally to talk about why young people, especially young men in high school, young boys in high school are becoming perhaps more conservative. and i think not just the cancel

culture and all the, you know, anti-masculinity stuff that's going on, i think just the basic sense of fairness. that people are recoiling from. it's just not fair. and it's pragmatic. speak to that as it relates to this breaking news tonight. >> i think there is part of our human nature, laura, that demands the truth. we as human beings, the thing that makes us different from animals is that we relate to one another based on actually telling the truth to one another. we now live in a moment where the government repeatedly hides from us the truth about be it the origin of covid-19. be it the hunter biden laptop story, and the truth of that matter. the truth about what happened on january 6th, and now the truth about what's really behind these politicized indictments. i think we, the people, are at a place where we just want the government to tell us the truth. tomorrow, laura, i'm actually going to nashville, speaking of young people, calling, this is prescheduled, calling on them to

release that manifesto of the transgender shooter. >> laura: we have been asking for that. >> they are hiding it. they are deeply related to a government that does not trust the people with the truths. if i'm running and in charge that's what i'm going to deliver. >> laura: sunshine as always the best disinfect tant. great to see you tonight. now back to timothy parlatore and brett tolman. another section of this indictment donald trump did divine, expire, known and unknown spirits. to dishonesty, fraud and deceit to impair fraud and deceit the government lawful function. how did any of that happen? what do we know at least from this indictment as have you read it that indicates any of that happened? >> >> yeah. can you put all kinds of whip

cream on manure and it's still manure. right? and this description, this description of his conduct is basically saying we're going to try to describe describe in a way that united states statute. will when you actually defraud the united states, this is what i have used that statute before to go after fraudsters who stole money from government contracts. but here? they are going to use this to try to suggest that donald trump, when believing and receiving election advice didn't buy it, the results? he claimed like so many politicians it was a fraud. and he wanted to pursue his legal avenues of contesting it. and so they did. and that's the description that is missing in this indictment. >> laura: tim, what's interesting, also, that's not in this indictment is an incitement

charge. initially talking about incitement to riot. look at trump's speech go peacefully to the capitol and we are going to make our voices heard. we hope that they listen to us. it was urgent but that was the first fraud. and they abandoned that, obviously. >> yeah. i mean, i think that would have been way too easy to get dismissed right off the bat. and back when i was representing him, we kind of had discounted the idea of any incitement charges because of the content of his speech so we were much more focused on these charges, which is the conspiracy to defraud, which all of which we were looking at the intent element of it. and whether he knew that these claims of fraud were false. whether he knew whether the election was, in fact, legitimate. and that's something that i just

don't think they are going to be able to overcome. and nothing in this document indicates that. >> laura: bret, the best defense for trump at this point going into a motion to dismiss the case, again, knowing who this judge is and her background and we would hope that she would be fair but i don't have a lot of faith in this given her track record on the j 6 defendants. what would be the best defense be? is it related to the members ray a issue in all of these counts that's obviously missing here or is there something else i'm missing? >> no. that's right. though have to establish in their motions point out the lack of evidence that shows, that satisfies one of the elements of the crime. the most important element, the mens rea one is where we are sitting back and saying, you know, when i read an indictment, i want to see the intent of the individual to commit the crime. here we don't have anything that even comes close to identifying

that criminal intent so that's where i would focus. build your record. they will lose probably on the district court and maybe even at the appellate. but the supreme court is one that is going to look at it, i think in an impartial way and understanding how important mens rea is to criminal law. >> and tim, before this trial even gets going, could this end up at the supreme court on a challenge to the motion to dismiss given the importance of this case to the future of the country? i mean, the whole future of the country really depends in many ways it could on how these cases are administered. i mean, that sounds like it's hyperbolic to say so but i don't think so. >> no. it's not. because, as a criminal defense attorney, you sit there and you always say, you know, this is case where maybe this will be the one where i go to the

supreme court. but, in this case, you sit there and say because of the issues involved, because they are bringing it, you know, with a novel, untested, constitutionally questionable theory, and because of who it is and what the gravity is, this will almost certainly go to the supreme court. it's very different from most criminal cases where you sit there right from the day of the indictment you know it's going to end up there. >> >> laura: if you can criminalize the opinion of a political opponent. this time it was after the election but next time it might be before an election. criminalize that you can see where that would happen, right, when an emergency is called or a nonemergency. but if you can do that, you have changed -- they are talking about attacks on democracy. they have completely eviscerated the true meaning of a representative democracy if,

indeed, that's what justice is in the united states tonight. >> that's right, laura. one thing we should never want is a creative prosecutor. >> we should not want a prosecutor that sees it as his responsibility to try to be clever or to try to come up with a conclusion and then match back in law the way he wants that conclusion to be supported. power to the prosecutor. if now we are going to make decisions based on politics and try to maintain our power by going after political adversaries then you are not exaggerating. the fabric of this country will be ripped and torn apart. horrific rewards for it. >> laura: tim, another part of this indictment about the conspiracy, one of the conspiracy counts, that the purpose of the conspiracy was charged was to overturn a legitimate results of the

presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the government function by which those results are collected, counted and second certified. knowingly. who out there believes that trump didn't believe that this was a fraudulent outcome? i have never seen trump equivocate on that. i havener heard him equivocate on his opinion. but knowingly so everyone out there is not a lawyer, that is the intent that is required to charge someone under this statute. knowingly how hard is that to prove? >> oh, it's very hard. and, in this case it's going to be even harder. because even trump's biggest adversaries will admit that he does truly believe that there was fraud in this election. he believed this then and he believes it today. not only are they going to have to prove that he knew that there was no fraud.

they have to prove that yard but here's the other thing that's going to make this case even more complicated is that they actually have to go in and take every single allegation of fraud and disprove all of those beyond a reasonable doubt, too. so not only do think have to prove that they were false, they have to prove that they knew they were false and that he knew it at the time that it was false it's incredibly high mountain to climb. i just don't see how they could possibly do it. >> laura: and, bret, just given what we have seen from -- given what we have seen about hunter biden investigation. and the hands off -- oh, we can't go there. oh we have got to give him a heads up on that search. there is no wonder that people have declining faith in the federal government and then this is oh we have got to give them the benefit of the doubt. they will definitely find intent down the road or with that next witness. it's a completely different approach based on the political

allegiance of the accused. that's how i see it as a member of the d.c. bar. that's how i see it. >> and you should see it that way. you know, it's revealing of merrick garland to be petty, small in his mentality and his approach and making decisions to be on one hand the protection for biden with absolute corruption that should offend all of our sensibilities and then, on the other, to green light someone like jack smith to be as creative as possible and to pursue -- he was a president at the time when he believed that the election was fraudulent and to go back and to charge that conduct criminally based on his belief and based on h adamat position that the election was stolen from him. that's a scary day in our department of justice and administration of justice system. >> one family got really irish rich off of being in office and

the other family donald trump got poorer and poorer as time was going on. tim and brett, stay with us. great analysis. joining me now tom cotton sits on the senate intel committee. senator, obviously you are also a lawyer. your reaction tonight? i will a chance to read through this diatribe of an indictment. but your thoughts? >> >> well, laura, i think your word diatribe is well-put. i have only had a chance to skim through it. something like you would get from an msnbc producer for a special on that channel. these are all constitutionally protected activities in which former president trump engaged. political activities and free speech protected by the first amendment you don't have to agree with him. you don't have to think he was right. i don't see how these charges can go forward without a serious constitutional challenge from the former president. i also want to point out that jack smith is an ideological zealot. he charged bob mcdonnell, the former governor of virginia on

similar crimes years ago and got a conviction and reversed unanimously at the supreme court because his legal theories were so farfetched. i think it's very curious that merrick garland chose that man to pursue the former president. and finally, i want to point out that every time a republican has won the presidency in this is tri, the democrats tried to stop the certification of that victory, yet, none of them faced criminal charges over what is obviously a first amendment protected activity. >> laura: speaking of msnbc, senator, i need to show you how two former prosecutors from the southern district of new york described this indictment. >> i think it's a masterpiece. there is an h elegance to it and grace to it how it is composed and how it is just jammed with facts. >> this indictment, i mean, he is in his taylor swift "speak now" era jack smith. this is a speaking indictment.

[laughter] >> laura: senator, this is a speaking indictment. ooooh, this is like the same type of spin they tried after the devon archer testimony yesterday on a different topic though. >> yeah. and, well, on the topic of speaking, jack smith also spoke about this indictment. again, he sounded like one of those msnbc pundits. he didn't seem like a prosecutor who was pursuing criminal charges on well-established law but rather on novel legal theories that's not the way you should be pursuing not only a former president, laura. we have to remember that donald trump is also the leading candidate for the part -- opposition for the party in power now. this is taking us into third world banana republic territory when, again, have you novel legal theories totally untested by a prosecutor who has a history of ideological zealotry in pursuing these political cases and goats out and sounds

likes msnbc pundit or nancy pelosi giving a speech. this is all extraordinarily regrettable and i think it's a very dangerous step that the biden administration has decided it take. lure lawyer you mentioned merrick garland. people question mitch mcconnell. if it were not for mitch mcconnell. merrick garland would be on the supreme court. okay. that's terrifying. he spoke out about this in the last hour. watch this. >> immediately after the januarr democracy, career men and women of the justice department engaged in what has become the largest investigation in our history mr. smith and his team experienced principle agents, prosecutors, have followed the facts and the law wherever they lead. any questions about this matter will have to be answered by the filing committee.

>> laura: senator, he is out bragging tonight. it's the largest investigation in u.s. history. most of the charges, of course, like trespassing, doors open, people walk in some bad actors indicted and charged for much more serious things. this the is the focus of the u.s. government now? this? >> yeah, so merrick garland and jack smith are just leading what i would say is the most ideologically charged investigation in american history. obviously we all agree that anyone who committed acted of violence especially against a law enforcement officer on that day or committed property crime should be pursued but they have been throwing the book at grandma's who just happen to be wearing a red maga hat and were on the grounds of the united states capitol. again, this is the type of politicized environment that the department of justice has put arranged this investigation after two and a half years and

tonight's indictment is just the capstone indicting not only a man who is the former president but the president's chief political opponent today coming areology chackets' what you you are,. >> laura: you and i have talked about how the biden administration always pretends to care so much about norms and dignity and bringing respect back to the united states. that joe biden was going to be the conduit for that. will, with all your experience in foreign affairs, what do you think other countries, other governments are thinking about our country now with all of this playing out? >> i'm sure many of our friends and partners around the world are dismayed as they see a scene more reminiscent of a third world banana republic in the party in power is pursuing not

just the former leader of the country but today's chief political opponent of the president. i'm sure a lot of our adversaries like china or iran are very pleased that they see this kind of unprecedented action by the administration against his chief political opponent that is bound to cause more division in the country, cause more distraction in washington at a time when we need to be confronting our adversaries. you don't have to believe anything that president trump said or did january 6th, the days leading up to it. you don't have to believe allegations of fraud in the election in 2020, but i think anyone should be dismayed that the administration in power is pursuing its chief political opponent on such flimsy novel, untested legal theories that go right up against the president's first amendment rights. >> is he going to seek is a speedy trial he wants this done lickety split, senator cotton as fast as possible.

why? >> well, obviously they want it done before the election. that's also why he brought the indictment in washington, d.c., a city that is about 97% democratic and got a very liberal obama judge i can't say it's a great setting for the former president the trial court. you would like to think though that there would be an upfront constitutional challenge against these charges that even if they fail at the district court would go up to the court of appeals or as your previous guest said supreme court on such case of magnitude. >> laura: how ironic is it, senator, that the underlying professed concern by the biden administration is that democracy was under attack? these are the same people who want to pack the court, who want to abolish the electoral college and who now are showcasing to the world our country as, you know, possessing a system that criminalizes political differences. how does what they are doing to trump not hurt the democratic

reputation around the world? xi has got to be laughing tonight. projection when they talk about donald trump republicans shredding our norms. that's exactly what joe biden and the democrats have been doing for the last two and a half years, in particular with the department of justice turning it in many instances into the enforcement arm of the democratic party of the progressive left in america another worrying example of that again, you don't have to agree with anything the president said or did but you can recognize that it's the same kind of first amendment protected activities in which democrats engaged in after every election this century when a republican was elected president. laura bush lawyer do you have any doubt, senator, that if trump went away tomorrow and just decides i'm done with politics. he is not going to do that but let's say he did, and another challenger got close to beating biden, maybe it's desantis. do you have any doubt that this

justice department would seek to prosecute or investigate governor desantis on something he did perhaps sending the migrants over to california or up to new york, maybe federal kidnapping charges? do you doubt that this would be used as enforcement tool for political victory? >> no, laura, i don't think you can rule that out given merrick garland's conduct in offers. it's not just donald trump. remember it's moms and dads protesting at school board meetings. >> laura: right. >> catholics going to a latin mass. or pro-life activists singing hymns outside of abortion clinics. at every turn this administration has used the department of justice as a weapon against conservatives and republicans while excusing misconduct by the progressive left. remember, they wouldn't even arrest people violating the law by protesting outside supreme court justices' homes. it took a democratic hit man showing up from california before they even conducted --

made an arrest in those cases. >> laura: in the hunter biden case, of course, the solicitation of bribery done with a wink and a nod, that's no problem. you can get away with that. but having a different opinion on election results that's a federal crime or four federal crimes. senator, thank you for joining us tonight. now barks back with our legal . >> the defendant had a right, like every american, to speak publicly about the election. even to claim falsely there had been an outcome determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. so, they concede that he had the right to have a different opinion. but, what? so they throw that in there to try to protect themselves, bret, but then they violate what they claim they are still protecting. >> yeah, laura, that's what they are doing, in fact, it was quite

a shocking statement when i first read that at the beginning of this indictment. they are giving some, you know, credibility to the notion that candidates can, you know, say what they want to say. there is free speech, and they can be wrong and they can even say things that are false. that's longstanding law that has been established in this country. so they give that and then at the same time, they try to unwind that and go through their legal and factual wrangling to try to pull back those protections and that development of case law over the years. that's when you knew that they were in trouble. and when they were going to trying to force a round peg into a square hole in this instance because they start out with that sort of acknowledgment. as opposed to when i drafted speaking indictments, i would start out with the most outrageous conduct of the defendant that was alleged in the indictment. and it would be -- it was grab you. it would shock you.

and it would make the leader understand that this was a very serious case. that didn't happen here. >> laura: tim, another part of the indictment, again people would have though know we read the indictment and quoting from from it. each of these conspiracies the defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud. targeted a bedrock function of u.s. government. tim, to reference "destabilizing lies" after this justice department facilitated the russian collusion investigation, all the other hits on trump, the fisa application, the fraud and the filing of those and the dossier, that didn't destabilize the public's view of the implementation of justice in the united states? that's the standard? well then they violated it. >> that's a great point, when you think about it. first few years of his

presidency, he was essentially handcuffed because he had everything going on with the mueller investigation. and it was all ultimately determined to be based on misinformation. i mean, this is an administration that had, you know, at some point tried to create this position within dhs of a minister of disinformation criminalize you for saying things that we disagree with. and senator cotton said it perfectly just a few minutes ago that you don't have to agree with whether a donald trump or giuliani said about election fraud to say that this is not something that should be within the purview of the department of justice. we don't put people in jail because we disagree with them. we put people in jail because they're dangerous. >> laura: well, putin does. yeah, putin does. xi does. i mean, they put people in jail all the time. they just disappear all

together. i mean, they would love trump to disappear, i'm sure. brett, i think they want him in jail. >> they skipped the trial, too. >> laura: they would be happy to skip the trial at this point. brett, they want people in jail and they want donald trump in jail. i honestly think that's been their goal from 2015. they didn't want him to win in 2016. they wanted him behind bars and wanted to send a message to anyone like trump who has his views coming down the pike. i think there's a lot of stuff that he will uncover if he gets back. in they don't want him anywhere neither levers of power. your reaction to that? i know it's a big statement but that's my view. >> no, you are exactly right. in fact, that was my first thought when you saw him demand the speedy trial. if they get the speedy trial within 70 days, conviction rates are 95% in this country on federal cases. you have a judge that will be able to apply the guidelines in the most harsh way, the sentencing guidelines in the most harsh way, they are looking at this not just for a few

months in prison, they are looking to put him in prison for years. and they want to do it as soon as they can because that's -- they have seen what's happened when they just do the charges. and then you get a judge that pushes the case down the road. they know that if they can get to the end of this quickly, then he will be in prison, be much more difficult for him to run. [laughter] >> laura: this is the united states of america. i'm just going to say we are the beacon on the hill for the rest of the world. this is how you do justice this is how you're supposed to do justice. this is how far the equal application, right? well, we were. tim, is that in jeopardy tonight? >> i think it is. i mean, it's not just this one case though. you know, it is something that, you know, as a criminal attorney i have seen the erosion in doj over the past several years where they are bringing cases that are based on politics and not upon honest and integrity,

principles of justice. you know, this is, perhaps, you know, the most recent and the most public of them. but, you know, this happens every single day where they are putting people in jail. and depriving them of their rights and cheating and cutting corners to prioritize convictions over justice. so it is something that, you know, there is definitely been an erosion and, perhaps this is just one of the mothers public instances of it that the next administration will take to actually change things. >> laura: yeah. well, the deep -- the rot runs deep at doj. gentlemen, thank you for staying with us for this hour. joining me now, ned ryun, founder and ceo of american majority. ned, destabilizers of democracy. who are they tonight in the united states. >> you have got to start with a.g. garland. that weethat we sell knew what b

was day one. did wasn't the equal application of the law. weaponize justice system. use it as a weapon of intimidation to silence those that might challenge the status quo in d.c. and have others to have second thoughts about challenging it. this is, of course, targeting political opposition. of course there is political interference in the 2024 elections. it's, of course, a very weak premise of trying to criminalize disputing election results, if that's the case. we have to question al gore. we have to question john kerry. we have to question hillary clinton. but, laura, the point i want to make is this: did he heart of all the sound and fury we are discussing right now this boils down to one thing. it's who decides? donald trump's greatest sin in the eyes of the ruling class was that he came to d.c. as the great outsider thinking we were still operating on our constitutional republic and as the duly elected president of the united states, he thought he decided both domestic and foreign policy. the administrative state actors and democratic allies and

corporate propaganda said we don't think. so we think we decide. that's what's at issue. that's the rub. who decides? it is it our duly elected representatives or perpetual state of the bureaucrats. the american people are going to see over the next are course and months and years this conflict common more so we have two very different governing philosophies that work constitutional republic vs. administrative state. they're like oil and water. they do not fit together. at some point we are going to have to decide what path we are going no one voted for the bearcats at doj. many are doing political work. they are political actors a lot of them. not all, but a lot. >> 100 percent. ministries come and go but the state remains. i think that is something a lot of american people are waking up to the were living under a delusion of a constitutional republic and the thuggish

administrative state saying we are the ones that decide. >> is not donald trump who's trying to deprive people of their rights. it is the us government right now that is trying to deprive people of the opportunity to vote for him. in the next election. so who is running the conspiracy here tonight? in washington d.c.. thank you. thank you to all staying of the site. jesse is next. >> welcome to jesse watters prime time. tonight. >> i'm reliving the same day over and over. >> donald trump, january 6. more charges. >> the wind is really windy! >> biden knows nothing! he's just a weatherman. >> turn this around. that will end your precious little field trip pretty damn quick! >> $400 million for a migrant bus.