after all of this, you hear the hunter biden is finally decided to plead guilty when basically he had nowhere else to turn at this point. he's deep into a corner. he has made it difficult for the doj, for his own attorneys, all the people who spent hours and time preparing for this, then he marches in there today. as you have pointed out, this story is not finished. we have to see if we agreed to this drama. not happy about the fact they didn't know this was coming. great to have everybody. we've had a lot of breaking news and we have showed you so much of the former president laying out his economic policy and that was good to watch. then all that's happening here we are all over the story. literally at 3:00 p.m. eastern with martha maccallum, as she also gets into the hunter biden news as well today. today. "america reports" now. >> for four straight years i

thought for american workers like i would fight for my own family. i took care of our economy like i would take care of my own company. this election will decide whether or not we reward kamala harris with reelection, and four more years of crime, economic calamity, and international humiliation, or whether we change that direction, and once again build the greatest economy in the history of the world. >> sandra: that's former president donald trump laying out his vision to business leaders with the new york economic club right here in manhattan. that's happening right now. all of this as his 2024 rival, vice president kamala harris, is on the road arriving in pittsburgh where she'll be preparing for tuesday's high stakes debate. and that is where we are as we top a brand-new hour. welcome, everyone. i'm sandra smith in new york. good to be with you. >> john: i'm john roberts in washington. this is "america reports." the former president also promising gasoline at under $2 a

gallon, and that he would appoint elon musk as his government efficiency czar. both beefing up their economic plans, and the contrast cannot be more clear. >> sandra: the former president is pitching a federal commission led by elon musk to cut wasteful spending, and vice president harris is proposing to raise the capital gains tax, pitching tax deductions for new small businesses. all while taking on the big corporations. >> john: fox team coverage starts now. charles payne with analysis just ahead. can't wait for that. but first, to alexis mcadams, live at the new york economic club where the former president just finished speaking. alexis, quite a speech. >> hey, john and sandra. that's right, and he actually is still speaking right now, so i'm going to talk a little softer than i usually do. we are in new york city where former president trump has been talking for about an hour and he is still going, really trying to outline his plan for the economy. because when you go out and talk to voters in america, no matter where you are on the trail, they talk about the price at the gas

pump, the grocery store, and overall inflation. they don't feel like their money and their dollar is going as far as it used to, and that is what former president trump is focusing in on a new york city, telling americans who are watching that he's going to get the economy back on track. watch. >> my plan will rapidly defeat inflation, quickly bring down prices, and reignite explosive economic growth. kamala harris will take more money out of american pockets. my plan will leave the typical family with many thousands of dollars more than they have right now. >> sell at today's event that is still going on right now, trump has introduced a government efficiency commission, recommended by elon musk. they have become pretty close, like buddies. they've been talking on x and doing those interviews. elon musk has agreed to do it, according to trump, a and i mean trump is taking it even more aggressive swipe at regulations then during his first white house term. he also says he's going to conduct an audit of the entire

federal government, something elon musk talked about on x, saying they are spending way too much money in america. we checked in with an american billionaire and hedge fund manager jonathan paulson a few moments ago. he told me he's been a major donor to trump's campaign because he believes that he's going to put the economy back on track. >> former president trump has talked about you on the trail. he floated your name publicly as being possibly secretary of treasury. would you want that position and what would you do if you got that position? >> i wanted to do whatever i can to help the president and help the country. >> is that a "yes"? >> whatever i can do. thank you. >> so tbd there, but he's going be on stage asking the president if you questions later. vice president harris is in pennsylvania prepping for the next week's presidential debate. if you can believe it, it's already here. harris is going to be talking about big corporations and the ultra-wealthy, how they should pay more in taxes, and that she will offer small businesses tax

breaks. >> we will provide low and no-interest loans to small businesses that want to expand, and this is very important, we will cut the red tape that can make starting and growing a small business more difficult than it needs to be. more difficult than it needs to be. >> really trying to contrast her plan with trump, but he says he's also here for the average american and will put more money in their pocket. he says vice president kamala harris is going to take that away. we will keep you posted on any more major headlines that come out of new york city. john? >> john: alexis mcadams for us at the new york economic club. thank you. sandra, and a son like that idea of gasoline for under $2 a gallon. >> sandra: almost everybody. and charles payne is here, host of "making money" on fox business. i'll make hooks a lot of money, lower gas prices. he's laying out his plans. is he articulated in planes at the american people -- that might sway voters? let's put it that way. >> i think so.

i like what he's saying, i like the way he saying it. listen, particularly with the tariff part. old school economists and things like that. he is walking us, first of all, through history, how we became the biggest country in the world. we didn't have taxes until 1913. i got the revenue in 1919 from the country. 48% came from excise tax, 30% from duties. so tariffs is how we made our money. individual taxes were only 5.9%, corporate 5.6%. imagine if we could start getting those down again. and there are some other lessons. he brought a dell maxima known as the napoleon of protection, and historians look back at what happened with him. it is ironic because it cost the republicans the election, but going back and looking at the tariffs he imposed in his time, it sped up the template so

quickly in this country that it was actually more beneficial than the short increases of prices for consumers. then again, many people don't know about the fort norm mckinley -- the mccumber tariffs in 1922, but in 1920 we had the worst depression in his country outside the great depression. and as we came out of it, one of the tools we used were tariffs. member, there was the thing called the roaring '20s right after that. >> sandra: as you are speaking, just highlighting something coming from the president's speech just now, this is an important one, because how the candidates lay out their plan to perhaps increase housing or lower housing costs for americans, voters who believe the american dream is sort of dwindling away when you can't afford to buy neck at home anymore. the former president just said to the economic club that he would open portions of federal land for large-scale housing construction, in zones that will

be ultra-low tax and low regulation. this is interesting. is this a plan that you would support? >> it is something interesting. our government owns 50% of the land in this country, so not only is it interesting but it is something people have been pushing for for a very long time. the idea ultimately is there is this, where there is the so-called $50,000 for small businesses that no one ever is going to really qualify for. what is implementable? what can we really do to implement and jump-start things? the affordability is the question right now. the lack of homes, the lack of affordability. of those places we can build them cheaper and people can go and buy them on their own, there might be -- >> sandra: and boost skilled labor, bring some of those wages down. if you increase the workforce -- >> all of that is important. >> sandra: and part of that obviously is inflation, because the cost to build those homes has skyrocketed. in a lot of cases it doesn't make sense to build the homes. >> we should point out a big chunk of those costs are

regulations. trump spent a lot of time talking today about how he took down regulations. i don't think the american public understands, if you look at the cost of anything, look at a gallon of gasoline. how much is crude oil? how much are regulations and other stuff and they are? every time the government passes a new law, you have to pay for it in one form or another. >> sandra: this is more from the former president earlier on how he plans to defeat inflation, because those high prices are the biggest burden right now. >> to further defeat inflation, my plan will terminate the green new deal, which i called the green new scam, greatest scam in history, probably. a $10 trillion scam that is throwing money right out the window. >> sandra: so that was the target of his speech just a short time ago. meanwhile, on the other side, kamala harris enter economic vision for the country. this is ian sams, national spokesperson for her campaign, defending her economic vision.

listen. >> the vice president is doing that by talking about her economic vision, and it is really different. it's a new way forward not only for the democratic party, but for the country. >> can you tell me what is really different cannot i got the capital gains rate, but what else on the list makes it different from what's been going on the past few years? >> sure. she wants to take into effect the national law the take on corporate price gouging. there are distinctions here in this candidate's message that she is sharing. >> sandra: whoa! okay x next to be prepared to articulate to those listeners, viewers, how her plan is different. what she's going to do now that she can be doing right now the white house. he doubled down on her pitch to go after price gouging. >> right, to go after corporations. to me, this is the biggest threat of a harris presidency: dampening american spirits. dampening american spirits. this -- by the way, i'm going to do a big town hall next month

talking about this, and my whole thing is the so-called war against big business is really a war against a successful small businesses. walmart was started in rogers, arkansas. it's a sort of pull yourself up by the bootstraps. target was started in a small town near minneapolis. all these great american businesses were started in the heartland by rugged individuals. same thing around the world. anywhere there's been prosperity, the sort of protestant work ethic is at the root of it. so she's not going to war with big businesses, she is going to war with people out there thinking they can be independent from big government by doing it themselves. that's what she can possibly destroy, what is at the foundation of our economic success. >> sandra: as you say that, i will throw out the latest poll on who you trust more to handle the economy. that falls to trump, 46% from all respondents. 38% kamala harris. speaking of which, he's not taking questions at the economic club.

>> mr. john paulson, founder of paulson and company, and the founder and ceo of girls who code and moms for us. we are going to go in alphabetical order and therefore you have the first question. >> thank you, bob, and thank you, mr. president. i would like to ask about the united states economic sanction programs. these programs have been used, as you well no, to advance our foreign interests, but they also have economic implications. in the most recent was the program against russia, in response to the ukrainian invasion of ukraine, where for once we got the support of all our allies. semispecific question is, would you strengthen or modify any of these economic sanctions programs, particularly russia, including the pipeline you mentioned? >> it's a great question.

the problem with what we have with sanctions -- and i was a user of sanctions, but i put them on and take them off as quickly as possible, because ultimately it kills your dollar and it kills everything the dollar represents, and we have to continue to have that be the world currency. i think it is important and we would be losing a war. [applause] if we lost the dollar as the world currency, i think it would be the equivalent of losing a war. that would make us a third world country. we can't let it happen. i use sanctions very powerfully against countries that deserve it, and then i take them off. because, look, you're losing iran, you are losing russia. china is out there trying to get their currency to be the dominant currency, as you know better than anybody. all these things are happening. you are losing so many countries because there is so much conflict with all of these countries that you are going to lose that, and we can't lose that. i want to use sanctions as little as possible. one of the things that we have with tariffs is that, i will say to them, you don't honor the

dollar as your world currency -- is that right cannot you not going to do that? "no, we are not." i say, that's okay, i'm going to put tariffs all over your product. and they say, "sir, we would love to honor the dollar as the world currency." tariffs, in addition to monetary and the money we will take income a bigger than you've ever seen in his country before, it gives you tremendous political power. for something like that, as an example. i stopped wars with the threat of tariffs. i stopped wars with two countries that mattered a lot. a lot people would have been killed. and i threatened tariffs coming into the united states. if they don't make peace. we didn't have conflicts like we have right now. wwe had very intelligent people. but the biggest threat you have is you lose that currency, and we have lost something you'll never get that, and we can keep it if they are smart, but they

use it too much and then forget about it. these countries like russia are going out now and doing its own thing, going out bragging about how they don't need us anymore, et cetera, et cetera. the sad part about russia is that ukraine would have never happened if i was president. so we wouldn't really have to be talking about sanctions. but it did happen, and one of the things i'm going to do, little bit relevant to your question, if we win i believe i can settle that war while i'm president-elect, before ever get into office create i can get that war settled and get that war stopped, because it is a horrible, horrible war. in far more people are killed in ukraine. far more people then you are realizing. they will knock down this massive building. they will say nobody is injured. a lot of people are killed. the real numbers are far greater than what people are looking at. so i think it is a very important thing. sanctions have to be used very

judiciously, and you can win. we have things much more powerful, actually, than sanctions. we have trade. but we cannot lose our dollar standard. very important. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mr. president, for all the details on your economic policy. as you alluded to, tariffs on the other side of sanctions. given that china is our major trading partner with our largest imbalance and possibly our chief national security threat to the united states, how can we better institutionalized trade policy and national security policy to be coordinated? >> i had a great relationship with president xi of china. really a very close relationship. look, he likes china, i like us pete i don't want to sound foolish but he's a dear friend. he's a tough guy, a fierce person. very smart. when he say he is smart, the fake news goes crazy.

"he said president xi is smart!" he controls 1.4 billion people with an iron fist. he is smart. but we had a very good relationship with china until covid. when that came in, it was a whole different ball game as far as i was concerned. we made a great china trade deal, maybe better than the usmca, and i never talk about it, because what happened with covid. for the whole world. $60 trillion, deaths, nobody even knows how many deaths. end it all came out of wuhan. it changed my relationship, but i think i will have a great relationship with china. i had one before, and they respected us, but they respected us because they no longer thought we were fools. these two think we were fools because we built china. they would take over $500 billion a year and use it for their military and other things, and we got nothing out of that. we got some cheap product. you can buy 19 pencils instead of two.

who the hell cares? you can buy $16 for your daughter instead of two nice dolls. we have very little out of that relationship. they got a tremendous military power and they still have it today. but i believe we will have a very good relationship with china and with a lot of other countries that we are not getting along with too well today. i think we are going to get it straightened out very quickly. very important that we get along with the rest of the world. we have things today called nuclear weapons. i rebuild our whole military including a nuclear capability, so i got very familiar with it. i say this often, because i had an uncle who was the longest serving -- i believe the longest-serving, i was told that by mat -- but he was there for 39, i guess, or 41 years. longest-serving professor in the history of mit, and nuclear was

something he knew a lot about. we used to talk about it and i would say, uncle john, there's no way. he was telling me about this incredible power that was being unleashed, potentially. and i say, uncle john, you could never. you know what? he was very modest. because i've seen the destructive capability, and this world is going to have to get along, because if that is ever unleashed, we already have too many countries that have remnants of it, some of it. but probably five countries, and kim jong un, when i went to the white house after winning in 2016, a set of president obama, which is a ritual. you sit and you talk. and i said, with the biggest problem? and he said north korea is the biggest problem. i don't think it is solvable. i said, have you tried calling them were talking to him? and the answer was yes, but he wasn't responded to. but i did, and we were very safe. it started off a little rocky,

if you remember. little rocket man, i called him. he called me things, too. he's got a red button at his desk. i said i have a bigger red button, and my red button works. [laughter] and then it started getting a little nicer, and one day i got a call that they would like to meet, and it was a great thing. we had a great meeting. two meetings, actually. two great meetings, summits. and we had no problem with him. now they have a problem because they're not liking this administration. they don't respect this administration at all. so we have to get along. we have to get along. we can't have world war iii. you going to end up in world war iii, just like he should have never had to rush to go in. it happened if a competent person led us. it would have never happened. he led them into it. i'm not blaming biden, but you know what? what he was saying was exactly the wrong thing. i said, we're going to have an invasion because of a lot of the rhetoric. it was stupid rhetoric. but it would have never happen.

not only for that reason. oil was down low. oil was almost at $100 a barrel, so putin is one of the only people -- nothing is easy in life, but putin, at $100 a barrel, war works. at $40 a barrel, it didn't work at all. so we are going to go back to and intelligently run place, a place for other countries aren't using the word "nuclear." that word was never talked about during my -- because i knew the power of it. i talked to putin about it, i talked to president xi about it. remember the talk where we were going to reduce nuclear capabilities substantially? all three of us. we are going to reduce it very substantially, and then we had the election, and after the election they didn't talk about that or anything else, frankly. we need to be very careful,

because the destructive capability -- when people talk about global warming, i say -- the ocean is going to go down when hundreds of an inch within the next 400 years. that's not our problem. our problem is nuclear warming, and we better be smart, and we better have smart people at the top who know how to deal. because these people don't know how to deal. putin came out today, he endorsed kamala. i didn't know, was i supposed to call him up and say thank you very much, i appreciate it? that he endorsed kamala. i have a feeling. i don't know exactly what to say about that. i don't know if i am insulted or if he did me a favor. but we have to get along with the world. we can't have water, because the destructive capability, you can be the head of the biggest bank, wherever the hell jamie is

sitting. you can be the head of the biggest bank in the world, a couple of nukes, and your bank doesn't mean a thing. you've got to get along. this is such an important job. it's a dangerous job, too. i a very dangerous job.if you loog president is very dangerous. that throbbing feeling i have. oh, that throbbing feeling. it's a very dangerous job, and you have to do it right. if you don't do it right, bad things will happen to the world. things like you've never seen before. okay, thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] john paulson behind me, to your right, mr. president. >> hi, john. >> first, let me thank you for your presentation today. president trump, in the last fiscal year, the fiscal deficit under the biden administration was approximately $2 trillion.

under the policies you have announced, the deficit would come down from items such as increased revenues from tariffs, as well as eliminating the tax incentives for the green new deal. these gains would be mitigated by a decreases in revenues from policies such as no tax on tips. overall, what do you estimate will be the impact of the fiscal deficit from your policy is? >> we just hit record highs at numbers nobody thought was possible. over $2 trillion, nobody thought that was a number does she go back four years, nobody thought a number like that would be possible. it's crazy. it's just horrible, actually. $2 trillion, and i view it -- a lot of people say -- a lot of people say that trade deficits don't matter.

i think they matter a lot. i think they matter a lot. we are going to have tremendous growth. what i'm talking about is all about growth. the tax is relatively minor compared to the growth. we are going to make our money back on growth. we are also going to grow like nobody's ever grown before. i think, if this all works out, you're going to have the auto industry come back to america. right now china is building two auto factories in mexico, massive auto factories. and they think they're going to make their cars in mexico and send them back into the united states with no tax. it's not going to happen. under this administration it's going to happen, and they wanted to do that during my administration and i said, if you do it, we are going to put a 200% tariffs on every car and you will never be able to see it. you will never see one car coming across our border. if i would have let them do it, we would have had these factories. well, now they are building massive factories, more than two. they are going to kill detroit. the head of the united auto workers union in detroit has

done a terrible, terrible job. just a terrible job. we are going to bring tremendous growth back. remember, we are also taking in a certain percentage -- i won't name the percentage today, that he'll be a certain percentage that will be higher than people had heard in the past, and we will be bringing in billions and billions of dollars, which will directly reduce our deficits. thank you very much. good job you have done, by the way. very good. [applause] >> thank you. the final question is to you. >> thank you. president trump, you talked about how the increase in the price of food, gas, and rent is hurting families. but the real cost that is breaking families' backs and preventing women from participating in the workforce is child care. child care is now more expensive than rent for working families. it has cost the economy more than $122 billion a year. making it one of the most urgent

economic issues facing our country. in fact, the cost of child care is outpacing the cost of inflation. with the majority of american families of young children spending more than 20% of their income on child care. one thing that democrats and republicans have in common is that both parties talked a lot about what they're going to do to address the child care crisis, but neither party has delivered meaningful change. if you win in november, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care affordable? if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance? >> well, i would do that. we are sitting down -- i was somebody, we had senator marco rubio, and my daughter, ivanka, was so impactful on that. it's a very important issue. when you talk about that, child care is child care.

it is something you have to have. in this country, you have to have it. but when you talk about those numbers compared to -- >> john: well... >> sandra: a little glitch they are, john. the former president will continue. it looks like it's on the last question at the economic club. delivering his message on economic prosperity, and his pitch to american voters. and what he would do if reelected. to your point, perhaps the headline is the promise for gas below $2 a gallon, john. see you on the, as well. apparently it's back, the signal. let's go back for second. >> i want to stay with child care, but those numbers are small. compared to the economic numbers i'm talking about. but growth is also headed up by what the plan is that i just told you about. we are going to be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care is talked

about as being expensive, it is relatively speaking not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we will be taking in. we are going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we will worry about the rest of the world. let's help other people. but we are going to take care of our country. it's about america first, it is about make america great again. we have to do it, because right now we are failing. so we will take care of it. thank you. very good question. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. trump. it is great that you accepted -- >> sandra: former president donald trump taking on the tight housing market and his pitch to how he would get more homes built, to get more people in them at lower prices, taking on child care, inflation, gas prices, tariffs, and beyond, to a very important audience. he is taking questions in new york. >> john: have you added up the

cumulative wealth in that room? what is interesting, though -- i think this is probably the most intriguing proposal that he laid out today, and that is that elon musk has agreed to join his government should he become elected president, as the government efficiency czar. end with a finetooth count will go through every level of federal government to cut out waste and inefficiency. that would really be something to follow. >> sandra: and a big part of his plan when he was president, and is now, is deregulation, john. that's a huge thing for businesses in this country, being able to let them do their thing. they have been stifled for quite some time, and that's part of the former president's pitch. >> john: for about an hour and half, the former president laying out in great detail his economic plan. we have yet to hear any level of detail from kamala harris about that, that obviously it is going to form a big part of the upcoming debate this coming tuesday. >> sandra: it will. >> john: moving on to other topics, guilty but still innocent. that is how hunter biden has

offered to plead in his federal tax case. it is a stunning change as jury selection was just about to begin. fox team coverage now, shannon bream joins us in a few moments with her thoughts on this. first we go live to jonathan hunt in los angeles. prosecutors were blindsided by this, jonathan. how are they reacting? >> well, they are shocked, they are surprised. they were caught unawares. any other word you can find in the thesaurus that is a simile for shock and surprise. leo wise, one of the same stomach prosecutors, said "this is the first we are hearing about this." the first inkling we got, john, that this might be an unusual day in this case was when hunter biden pulled up outside. every other hearing i have attended here related to this case, he has arrived via secret service suv and been driven into the underground parking garage. today, parked right outside,

walked in right in front of us, didn't say a word, holding his wife melissa's hand, flanked by secret service agents, followed by one of his lead attorneys, abbe lowell. and then the shocker in court when abbe lowell announced that he was indeed changing his plea, hunter biden, to guilty. as we understand it, that is what is called an alford plea, where he accepts that the prosecutor could prove the case on the basis of evidence, but he does not admit that he carried out those crimes. in other words, he asserts his innocence while pleading guilty and accepting that they could indeed get a guilty verdict in front of a jury. so it is complicated what happens now. court is due back in just about 30 minutes. then we will begin hearing with the prosecution has to say about this. they presumably have been in touch with the doj, and one of the things we understand it is into this is that an alford plea

might have to be signed off by someone as high up as the attorney general merrick garland himself. so there is a lot of moving parts now, john. we are a long way from getting to sentencing. now we have to see what the prosecution says in about 30 minutes' time, and what the judge says about it and what are now the immortal words of our legal editor, kerri urbahn. "it's messy." john? >> [laughs] could be a sticky wicket, which would be more in keeping with your hometown. thank you, jonathan. appreciate it. join us for more on this is shannon bream, anchor of "fox news sunday" and fox news' chief legal correspondent. [laughs] leo lies, this is the first we're hearing about this. certainly reminds me of the last plea deal. wait a minute! this doesn't seem right. what is this? but jonathan mentioned this, an alford plea, which is something where you actually plead guilty but you still maintain your innocence. which is really weird. but here's what the statute says

about the alford plea. attorneys may not consent to the plea known as an alford plea except in the most unusual of circumstances, and only after recommendation for doing so has been approved by the assistant attorney general responsible for the subject matter, or by the associate attorney general, the deputy attorney general, or the attorney general. so it looks like the doj has got to sign off on this. given the sensitivity of the case, would it have to be garland who signs off on it? if so, does garland stick with his prosecutors and say, what is this? or does he side with the president and sign off on it? >> so tricky, because the president has said as regionally to my recently as yesterday, he's a private citizen, the president is not going to get involved. we were suppose to be starting jury selection today. but when you get to this, a couple things. hunter biden is now a convicted federal criminal under the

earlier trial, under gun charges. he will be sentenced in november. it will be more lenient because he's a first-time offender. should he then get convicted in this case, if it were to go to trial, the sentencing would be tougher. do not going to be a first-time offender at that point. so that's something he's got me thinking through. remember, too, the judge put out an order last week about all the evidence prosecutors wanted to bring in, about prostitutes and paying for sex club memberships. >> john: did he think to himself, i don't want to go through that? why did he make this decision so late in the game? >> anyone who is prepared for a trial can tell you this is sort of a nightmare, because there are probably dozens of people involved, and this is a high-profile trial. you want everything, dottie is come across the ts it takes millions of dollars and

months. to say they are blindsided today will not sit well with them when they have to in some ways move forward with this idea of an alford plea for it actually happen. >> john: you and i are on exactly the same wavelength. i was about to point out, in the past six months, they spent $3.4 million on this case, and the gun case, as well. if hunter biden walks it right up to the 11th hour where the steps of the course hasn't says, you know it? i'm going to plead guilty, that's probably $3 million worth of taxpayer money that could have been saved, had he done this back then. >> not to mention hundreds if not thousands of man-hours for these attorneys i could have been working on other cases that they had out there. it's going to be very frustrating to them, and possibly to his team, as well, if this deal does not go through. it's not a plea deal because doj didn't negotiate any of this. it's his team going up and saying, you're about to pick a jury. we decided we don't want to go through this and now we need your cooperation at the 11th

hour for this thing to get done. >> john: to this idea of an alford plea, again, it allows you to maintain your innocence while throwing yourself on the court and saying, look, it was probably going to end up in the guilty plea anyway, so we'll take the penalty. >> but i won't say i'm guilty. >> john: but i won't say i'm guilty! it's another example, i think, of the plea deal that was just 13 months ago. hunter biden walked into the courtroom in delaware and thought he was going to wash his hands of the whole thing. if you're going to plead guilty, why don't you just plead guilty? why this kind of weasel move, legally, to maintain your innocence? and just canister yourself on the mercy of the court. >> it's one of the weirdest things in american jurisprudence that you will see show up in a courtroom, this alford plea. it's tough to acclaimed normal common sense people do, that if you plead guilty can't also maintain your innocence. you think back about this two

irs whistle-blowers who risked everything to come forward, this whole case began to crumble, and now we are in the latest twist. who knows? the doj could say no, we are going to trial on this thing. >> john: according to the statute, this has to be signed off on by higher ups and i don't see how anybody less than the attorney general signs off on this, given to the subject is. wow. this could, as we were staying with jonathan hunt, really become a sticky wicket. >> it could. whiplash. >> john: great to see you. thanks so much. sandra, remember 13 months ago when biden walked into the courtroom? we expected that he signed a plea deal, he's walking out scot-free, and then the judge said, wait a second, this plea deal absolves them of any wrongdoing for the rest of his life? that doesn't make sense to me. >> sandra: that's where we will be a few minutes from now. we are going to go back to that tax trial as it resumes. we are waiting on that right now, john.

hunter biden, this text trial will be back underway shortly. as he is offering to change his plea to guilty. we are going to get brand-new reaction for andy mccarthy. he'll be here after the break. also the white house is now weighing in through karine jean-pierre and kamala harris commenting on this. all of that when we return. with chase freedom unlimited, you can cashback 3% on dining including take-out. cashback on flapjacks, baby backs, or the tacos at the taco shack. nah, i'm working on my six pack. well, good luck with that. earn big with chase freedom unlimited with no annual fee.

(♪) hey lexus, show alternate routes. technology that's ready for the road ahead. the lexus nx. han is 22 years old. he's not just a pet, he really is a part of our family. knowing that he's getting good nutrition, that's a huge relief for me and my dad. (sings) old bean piglet head yes that is your name. if you saw his piglet head you would say the same. toot toot.

>> sandra: fox news alert, 42 minutes past the hour and we are awaiting this trial to resume soon in the hunter biden case where he now, we have just learned, intends to change his plea in this federal tax case to guilty. you will of course remember that he was indicted in december on three felony and six misdemeanor counts of failing to pay his taxes over several years. that is a live look outside the courthouse in los angeles.

andy mccarthy is here for us, former assistant u.s. attorney and a fox news contributor. i will get your thoughts in a moment on what's about to happen here. as we just got this in. kamala harris, on the campaign trail, let's just ask about this, and here's how she responded. >> madame vice president, leading part hunter biden >> madame vice president, will you pardon hunter biden? >> sandra: sometimes a nonanswer is an answer and that was the answer, andy. she was asked and there was no answer. anyway, what does all this mean, and where do you see this going this afternoon? >> well, it did to make bins on how conflicted. we had a nonconflict at special counsel who didn't already try to give the case away. for us without any charges at all, and then on a sweetheart plea. if you have that kind of a prosecutor, he would tell hunter and his lawyers to tell their

story. if you want to come in and eat the whole indictment of the guilty plea and plead like a normal defendant does, by admitting guilt, then no one has to sign off on that. he's got a right to do that. but he wants a special accommodation and we are in jury selection and we are ready to go to trial, and i'm the prosecutor and i'm ready to go to trial, i say let's go to trial. because i think two things are going on here. first, he knows he's going to be pardoned. somebody who actually was interested in a plea negotiation would be trying to negotiate which accounts to plead guilty to do in order to minimize the potential damage. he is offering to plead through the whole indictment because he knows, at the end of the rainbow, he gets a pardon. so he figures he is playing with the house money and he can use that in his negotiations with the prosecutor. but if i'm the prosecutor, i think he is so desperate not to have this go to trial for

political reasons, not to have this influence peddling family scheme played out nationally for the next 5-6 weeks in the run up to the election, if i hang tough, he'll come back and say, okay, you got me, i'll plead guilty, and it won't have to be an alford plea, it'll just be you normal plea. >> john: talk about the idea of a pardon later and who might do it. i want to come back to this alford plea, because the statute around the alford plea says that the agreement has to be signed off on by either the assistant attorney general responsible for the subject matter or the associate attorney general, the deputy attorney general, or the attorney general himself, which would be merrick garland. with the case this high-profile and this sensitive and knowing who the defendant is, it would have to be the last on that list. garland who signs off on this. and would garland say, tell your story? or because the to it is the

president, somebody said sign the damn thing and let's get it over with? >> the gamesmanship to appoint weiss, who is not eligible under the rules to be special counsel, listed in tilled the pretense that garden and garland and thebiden-harris demt have to do with this case. i think he would say, this is what i appointed weiss four, for purposes of this case he is the attorney general. so i'm not convinced that either garland or another higher up in the justice department has to sign off on this. i think this is what they have weiss four. i think that's why they put him here in the first place. frankly, if you take it from weiss' perspective, from a normal perspective, an alford plea should be unacceptable in this case. but from weiss' perspective, he already try to give the case away for nothing and then on a

sweetheart plea deal, an alford plea is probably better than what he's already offered hunter in this case. >> sandra: obviously, if this was actually accepted by the judge, which we will know soon, andy, this guilty plea would keep biden from having typically trial, or prosecutors, they've lined up two dozen witnesses, some of whom were expected to offer embarrassing, as it is noted in the "l.a. times" today, and salacious testimony about his drug use and spending. it would spare him all that publicly. correct, andy? >> it would spare him and it would spare the white house and everyone else who's got an interest in not having a democratic influence-peddling scheme played out for the next five weeks in front of an intense national coverage. so it's not just hunter here. the firearms case, sandra, that was all hunter. that was his problem. this case is the white house's problem. >> john: let's get back to

this idea of a pardon. you say he's playing with the house money, that he thinks he's going to get a pardon. his father has said repeatedly, and the white house press secretary has said repeatedly, that the president that the president of the united states would not give a pardon. that was said back when biden was running for reelection. he's not anymore. he could pardon him on the way out the door with the goodwill of the democratic party behind them saying, think that you didn't run for president. kamala harris could pardon him if she wins the election. donald trump has said he wouldn't pardon hunter if he wins the election. so where do you think the pardon comes from? >> well, let's keep this straight. the biden who said he would never pardon his son is the same biden who said the lord almighty would have to come down and have him not run for president. and then the next thing, he wasn't running for president. it's the same biden who said he had nothing to do with hunter's business, and now we have reams of evidence that it was just a

lie, as if anyone didn't know that all along. so i have always thought that the promise not to pardon hunter was operative until about nine oh 5:00 p.m. on november 5th, at which point some time between then and around christmas i would expect president biden will pardon his son, and there will be any need for kamala harris to do it if she wins the election, because he has that window between election day and inauguration day to do it. >> sandra: speaking of this being a white house problem, karine jean-pierre was just asked about this, and he was kjp's response. >> on hunter biden changing his plea, does the white house a comment at all? does that change the president's calculus on pardoning his son? >> to your first question, i am not able to comment at this time. on your second question, which i guess is part of one question, it is still no. >> was the president aware he

was going to plead guilty? >> i don't have anything else. i'm not able to comment on it. but i will say it is still very much a note to the questions i had gotten about if the president is going to pardon his son. i don't have anything else to add. >> can you comment on whether commutation would be on or off the table? >> that is also no. >> does this have to do with the president no longer running? >> i don't have anything to say beyond what i just said. >> sandra: still very much a no, said karine jean-pierre, andy. >> very impressive. let's be rational about this. if you were a normal defendant who didn't know you had a pardon already banked, you would negotiate a plea. there's three felony counts here and six misdemeanor counts. you would be negotiating with the government in order to create a ceiling beyond which you knew you wouldn't be sent to prison. that's the whole reason for a real negotiation, to try to

minimize the damage. he wouldn't say i'm willing to plead guilty to all the cans and anything else you want to throw at me, unless you know it doesnt really matter in this case whete count or the whole indictment. you are not going to prison anyway because you're going to be pardoned. or at the very least your sentence is going to be commuted, but i think once a political pressure is off you will just be pardoned. >> john: on the issue of a presidential pardon, it is a no, right up until it is a "yes." that's the way it works in this town. >> just like the campaign, john. >> john: exactly. i'm in, read until i'm out. thanks, andy. let's bring in tom dupree, former deputy assistant attorney general. this is a prosecutor -- not a pizza prosecutor, sorry. this is a defendant who played fast and loose. there's no question about that.

look at the plea deal 13 months ago. it indemnifies him against any future prosecution for any crime that he might commit until the day he dies. that was the plea deal that ellen noriega said, what do you-know-what is this? now they're playing fast and loose with a guilty plea and saying, we are not going to plead guilty, you're going to enter an alford plea. what do you think about all this? >> look, i think the judge in california is going to have the same reaction the delaware judge had, that this judge is going to say, what the heck is going on here? how come you didn't mention this before? number two, this doesn't make any sense. to the point andy made, why on earth would you plead guilty to everything without getting the opportunity of something in return? and exchange for them dropping a chart or two. the only rational asked the nation for this is if he knows he has a pardon his pocket. that's why he's willing to do it. i can't imagine -- if they were normal prosecutors, they would

never accept something like this, to let the defendant have his cake and eat it, too. and stay on one hand i'm guilty, but on the other hand i'm actually innocent. it just doesn't fly. >> sandra: that is something. what did you think of the white house response they are? is a pardon coming? >> i think a pardon is coming. i understand why vice president harris is dodging those questions. i suspect, in her heart of hearts, she knows the world has changed from the time that biden made the pledge that he would not pardon hunter biden. he is now not going to be a candidate for reelection, and that frees into something that would obviously be deeply unpopular and controversial, that he's not going to pay a political price for it, because at that point, in december or whenever he issues the pardon, he's no longer going to be a candidate for the presidency. >> john: what do you think of this idea that the statute for an alford plea demands that a higher-up in the doj signs off on it? he goes all the way up to the attorney general. andy said a little while ago he thinks that is why garland

appointed david weiss, because david weiss would have the authority to sign off on this alford plea. what you think about that? >> i think that's the right analysis. the justice department in this case has gone kind of the extra mile to at least create the appearance that merrick garland has nothing to do with this. that is why weiss has the job he has. so i think, in this case, if the government needs to sign off on this, i do think they would go all the way up to garland. weiss would probably make the call himself, maybe his supervisor. >> john: given that, and as andy said, the fact that david weiss was about to say don't tell anybody about this plea deal, but i'm okay with it, do you think he'll give him a pass on this? >> he's going to be torn. i think it has heart of hearts he wants to give him a pass. on the other hand, look where they are now. they have hundreds of people assembling in this courtroom to serve on the jury. the spotlight of the world is on him, and for him to say yeah, we are good with this alford plea, i don't know. even for someone of his views,

that might be a pretty bitter pill to swallow. i would expect and i would hope the justice department pushes back hard on this this afternoon. >> sandra: that sets up quite an afternoon. tom dupree on that for us. thank you, tom. >> thank you. >> sandra: speaking of which, we are waiting. for this child to resume any moment now. a live look at the l.a. courthouse, surprising prosecutors with plans to change his plea to guilty. it is the last minute move and attempted to protect his father? we last leo terrell. he will join us at the top of the hour, just ahead.

ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even

a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. we realize some home maintenance jobs aren't worth the risk. that's when we call leaffilter to protect our gutters. leaffilter's patented filter technology keeps debris out of your gutters for good, guaranteed. call 833 leaffilter or visit leaffilter.com >> john: a live look at the federal courthouse in los angeles where there has been a surprise twist in hunter biden's federal tax evasion case. his attorneys have entered a surprise plea, essentially avoiding a prolonged trial. that could have aired a lot of dirty laundry. the reversal came directly from his attorney, abbe lowell, right before jury selection began. with that, welcome t