we want to wring in the cnn legal analyst and former prosecutor jennifer rogers into the conversation and behind the doors here, both sides are anticipating the verdict from the jury, and both trump's attorneys are there as well as e. jean carroll we saw walk in a moment ago. jennifer, it is standing out to me that the jury got 90 minutes instructions and deliberated for 2 1/2 hours only. what does it say to you? >> well, we will find out soon enough, but usually, if it is an uneven case if one side has much more evidence than the other side, then a quick verdict is favoring the side with the evidence. so they would find for e. jean carroll here, because that is the weight of the evidence, and maybe a juror or two stretching out the deliberation, but if nobody did that, they are going with the weight of the evidence, and that is a finding for e. jean carroll. >> and jennifer in the span of weeks then, we would have a former president indicted by manhattan district attorney of course, and the former president, and again, we don't know the outcome of this. >> we will shortly. >> but we

we want to pivot now to jennifer rogers, who has watched this case closely. ifer, your reaction to the sentence of 18 years for steward rhodes? >> well, it's a hefty sentence for sure. the judge accepted the calculations of 21 to 27 years and went under. which judges very often do. most judges think that the sentencing guidelines are too harsh. what's notable to me is that, has been said, the judge imposed six levels, all the other oath keerp also also get that kind of enhancement. the judge had some flexibility there. but what the judge is trying to do is place this sentencing context, not just with the rest of the oath keepers who are being sentenced now and in the days to come, and the proud boys and so on, but also in the history of seditious conspiracy defendants. there aren't that many convictions to look at, but many of them had lengthy sentences, having to do with terrorist attacks where people were killed. so the judge is looking at the context, not just of this case or of the january 6th case as a whole, but beyond that to seditious conspiracy cases.

now cnn legal analyst jennifer rogers joins us now. reporting yesterday. i want to sort of set the context for viewers before i get your take. back in december after republicans took the house, made it clear they were going to target hunter biden, the justice department investigation that was supposed to have been nearing an end hadn't resulted in any charges. hunter's lawyer, kevin morris and hunter wanted to pursue a more aggressive, forward leaning strategy but some senior officials and senior democrats inside the white house said, look, we don't know if that's a good idea. i'm told they were concerned about what that would mean for hunter. if you were in the room for this meeting back in december, which side would you be on? would you encourage a client to, yeah, go fire off some letters, throw some punches, or would you have advised maybe not the time to be too forward leaning here? >> well, i think, paula, it depends on who you are. since i'm a lawyer, i would take the view that he should be aggressive if that's the legal strategy

>> so as we follow all of these next steps for congressman george santos i want to bring in jennifer rogersore on this. you've been looking through this indictment as well, jennifer. what surprises you in here? what sticks out to you here? >> i'm surprised they started four months later with a big financial investigation which doj takes very seriously with crimes. >> why do you think they moved so quickly? that they have evidence or a top priority? >> it is a top priority. we have an elected official who has committed crimes and they have to move swiftly. >> the unemployment benefits and the theft of public fund, we hadn't heard that before and the allegations to congress is a new charge and also the way that they've charged this. this scheme that they're telling people that they're taking money for this non-profit and he's using it for clothes and thinga violation and they charge it here as a wire fraud. which is fine, you can charge it any way it fits and it is a more serious offense that way and it will carry a higher offense and that shows again how serious doj is about elected official

jennifer rogers is with us, and republicans are running with it, and it is all over the social media,l over some of the television sites. what is your big take away, because you see this report, and it is 300 pages long, and it cost millions of dollars to do, but there is any teeth to this? it doesn't seem like it. >> there is nothing there. this is a rehash of what the doj inspector general found four years ago. there was some problems with the crossfire hurricane investigation and all documented by the inspector general, and the doj changed policy to account for it, but the core of the mueller investigation in which russia did interfere with the election and that trump and his team welcomed the interference, and all sorts of connections with the team and the connection, and all of the connections still stand, and this is nothing to undercut it, and it is a political opinion piece effectively. >> and durham did not recommend any new charges, and this is the thing that is the drum beat of donald trump is that all of the people would go to jail conspiring against him and not one? >> so

with us now, cnn legal analyst and former federal prosecutor jennifer rogers, great to see you, counselor in, politics aside, how unusual is it for defense lawyers to ask investigators or prosecutors for a meeting late in the game? >> not at all. it happens all the time, in fact, with high-powered and high-paid lawyers like these you expect it to happen and that piece of it is totally normal. >> talk about that because that's why i say it's in a vacuum. garland isn't the investigator here so why is that significant? >> he's trying to go over his head, it means he's not going over his head and they either met with jack smith which i think merrick garland will not allow to happen. say they did get a meeting with jack smith and not merrick garland because that seems like a loaded thing here. what goes on in these meetings when you're talking to the people who are investigating you? >> so what happens usually is the defense lawyers say give us a chance at the end of the investigation to come in and convince you not to indict our client. so prosecutors take the meetings both for courtesy and a

right now we are joined by cnn legal analyst joey jackson and jennifer rogers, former deputy assistant to president trump. juron smith and also democratic strategist ashley allison. thank you for being here. let's start with the legal minds. here because we are starting to get the contours of jack smith's case, potentially. and when you start talking about not just moving around boxes, but also maybe showing it off as well, what kinds of differences that make, joey? >> it's troubling. what happens is, that when you look at the law, abby, you look at what's called men's race mens rea -- doing something knowingly. at the end of the day, moving around boxes in that timeframe and what made that evidence. it evidence is a consciousness of guilt. if you don't think anything -- in the box, what is the basis for moving them if you don't think you did anything wrong why do anything with the boxes at all? so what's troubling with respect to the obstruction of justice charge, when you look at the shifting and movement, and then of course it gives the special counsel reason to believe it was somet

let's bring in cnn legal analysts jennifer rogers and joey jackson.think that donald trump shows up to take the stand? >> no way. >> not at all. >> how -- give me your assessment of that deposition and what that would mean to a jury. >> i don't know that a jury would evaluate that favorably for a number of reasons. first of all toggling back to when he testifies it becomes all about him and i think also his attorneys don't want to credit the testimony too much and him showing up may seem to suggest ethey're in a bit of trouble so he doesn't come. in terms of the deposition testimony i just think, you know, you can't be obnoxious in a deposition. >> why? what happens when you're obnoxious? >> well, when you don't recognize your own wife that's a problem or someone who's not your wife. and you indicate someone not your type but someone you're married to that's problematic. and an attorney that asks questions and say you're not my type either that becomes a problem. and you explain away an "access hollywood" tape in which you're saying some pretty inflam

right now we are joined by joey jackson and jennifer rogers. and ashley alison. thank you for being here. let's start with the legal minds. we are getting the contours of jack smith's case potentially. when you start talking about not just moving around boxes, but also maybe showing it off as well, what kind of difference does that make? >> it's troubling. what happens is that when you look at the law, you look at what's called guilty mind. we spend a lot of time assessing not only factually what someone does but we assess what their mind frame was when they did it. there's a distinction between doing something intentionally or doing something recklessly or doing something knowingly. at the end of the day, if you are moving around boxes and that thing, what may that evidence? it evidences a consciousness of guilt. if you don't think anything is to see in the boxes, what's the basis for moving them if you don't think you did anything wrong? why do anything with the boxes at all? it's troubling with respect to the obstruction of justice charge when you look at the

with me now to discuss, jennifer rogers, a cnn legal analyst and a former federal prosecutor. suggested that he would make an appearance at his trial before it ended, the judge has given his legal team until 5:00 p.m. tomorrow to make a decision. do you see any chances that he would want to testify? >> i don't think so. i don't think so, fred. he's a terrible witness and we saw that play out in the deposition that was released on friday. that's why e. jean carroll's lawyers played almost an hour of it. because instead of taking the tack that you would expect someone in that situation to take, which is to say this is a terrible thing, a terrible allegation, rape is horrible, i don't condone it, but i didn't do it, he instead was arrogant, he was insensitive, he was insulting. he insulted e. jean carroll and her lawyer numerous times and didn't do himself favors on the substantive help when he talked about the access tape. he would be worse on the stand where they could bring in all sorts of impeachment testimony, as well as anything suggesting that he might be untruthful. so th

>> huge question indeed, paula reid, stay with us, i also want to bring in cnn legal analyst, jennifer rogers, and david chalian. what consequences could trump face if he breaks this protective order? could he actually be held in contempt of court? >> he could, wolf. i mean, there's a lot of leniency and flexibility for the judge here to control his courtroom and to punish people for violating his orders but he could hold the former president in contempt, which is what he warned the former president about today. he could fine him. he could potentially exclude evidence or make other evidentiary rulings based on this contempt order and in theory, if it were bad enough, and i wouldn't think he would do this on the first violation, but even send him to jail. >> it's interesting, david, this trial now next year is going to run parallel to the republican presidential primary. the trial scheduled for march of next year, how is that going to impact trump's candidacy as the clear front runner. >> yes, wolf, when i saw that date emerge, i just looked immediately at the primary calendar. it was like, wo

let's say more of the story from that correspondence jennifer packet and we go way dw has reported a problem since we was banned from roger. jennifer, what more can you tell us about these reported attacks? well, russian media reports that drones hit at least 3 residential buildings in moscow. and according to moscow department of transport, the traffic in the area was blocked and the gps signals were jammed after the alleged drone attacks. drones were also allegedly shut down in moscow suburbs, and the videos of this, especially smoke in the sky are now being circulated on social media. well, as you may or must on may, i suggest that daniel actually said not to spread or important, not just spread on verified information, but rely on official sources. he also stated that no one was seriously hurt. and according to russian media, about 25 drones were involved in the attacks. and most of them were actually shot down or allegedly shut down in the moscow suburbs. but russian authorities did not specify the concrete number of thrones involved just by some background for out of us. this isn't the 1st time i drove has exploded

. >> the two now former employees identified as rachel rogers and jennifer ferguson say they recordedhis incident and in the video, john, you can see the individuals come into the store, they take turns grabbing handfuls of clothing while the two women yell at them to get out. they do eventually run away in the lululemon employees continue to film. ferguson and roger said they called police. because the incident they felt was a part of a string of robberies at that location. lululemon denies the two women were fired for calling the police, but following the suspects may have played a part in their terminations. we did get an opportunity to take out the lululemon employee handbook and it does say that company has a zero-tolerance policy for chasing or physically engaging with the suspect during a robbery. a spokesperson for the company telling fox news' "the safety and security of our employees and cast as always lululemon's top priority and we have policies and protocols in place to uphold a safe environment. another policy, jon, is that employees called 911 after a robbery suspect le

charles: yeah, mike, the two former employees identified as rachel rogers and jennifer ferguson say theyo you see 3 masked individuals come into the lululemon store and appear to take turns grabbing handful of clothing while the two women yell at them to get out and the mask men run away. ferguson and rogers say they called police because the incident was part of a string of robberies at that particular location. now lululemon denied the two women were fired for calling the police but following the suspect's may have played a part in their terminations, mike. we looked at the lululemon says the company has zero tolerance policy for chasing or physically engaging with the suspect during a robbery. a spokesperson for lululemon tells fox news that safety and security of employees and guests is always lululemon's top priority and we have policies and protocols in place to uphold a safe environment. now i do also want to mention that lululemon's policies for employees is also to call 9-1-1 after, you know, a guest leaves the store after a robbery or a theft. two tri-- the two ladies did in. n

. >> the two now former employees identified as rachel rogers and jennifer fergusons and they recorded the incident in the video you see three masked individuals come into the store they appear to take turns grabbing handfuls of clothing while the two women yell at them to get out. the masked man to eventually leave and run away as a lululemon employees also exit the store to continue filming. they did not physically stop instead ferguson and roger said they called police because the incident was part of a string of robberies at that particular location. lululemon denies the two women were fired for calling police. following the suspects may have played a part in their termination. we looked at lululemon employee handbook and it says the company has a zero tolerance policy for chasing or physically engaging with a suspect during a robbery. a spokesperson for lululemon tells fox news in part in a statement quote for safety and security of our employees and guests is always lululemon's top priority. we have policies and protocols in place to uphold a safe environment. i do want to point

. >> joey: jennifer ferguson and richard rogers were at an an ally and a little lemon when masked out> no. no. no. no. no. >> no. no. >> seriously. get out. get out. get out. >> joey: if i sold overpriced [indistinct] i would say they are dream employees. lululemon thought differently. they just fired them up early management site of this zero-tolerance policy. zero-tolerance for what? reporting crime not participating in it? i mean, we know left-wing prosecutors have stopped holding criminals accountable. apparently corporate america feels the same way. no bother fighting crime. letter kernels win. fox & friends we can host joins us now. will, i know that we are not going to litigate this. we're not going to solve lululemon's problems. american society, is this what we accept as normal behavior? >> in chrisley so. by the way, great to see you. a great job tonight. it is increasingly so. sadly this is what we expect from an american behavior that we have this incentivize the idea that america should stand up for themselves. for each other. you know, we have a vacuum of accountability,

see why the country can't get enough of the five and five million fox news channel, jennifer ferguson and rachel rogers worked at an atlanta lululemon when masked robbers came to the store, they chaseded them out and called the police . >> let's take a look. no, no, no, no. no, no, no.no no, no, seriously. okay, get out. get out, get out. but the other car i sold overpriced vandyke's. i think i would say these aree a two dream employees. they risked their safety to defend the integrity of the store. but lululemon thought differently. they just fired them. apparently, management cited the company's zero tolerance policy . ce for w zero tolerance for what?t reporting crime, not g in participating in it. sto i mean, wepp know left wing prosecutors have stopped holding criminaliminals s accoua apparently, corporate america feels the same way. no other fighting crime. just let the criminals win. will cain is the host of fox and friends weekend. he joins us now. will , listen. i know that we're not going're o to litigate this. we're not got going to solve lululemon problems. but for american societymon's pr

. >> entre los invitados se encontraban los cantantes dua lipa roger federer en cuanto al deporte y en cuanto a los deportes. jennifera valla puede participar. >> envíe su música la página que aparece en pantalla (información en pantalla). >> el plazo de presentación desde el 1 de mayo hasta el 31 de julio de 2023. >> que podrían ir combinados hoy. >> es algo extravagante hay qu >>> esta noche en noticias telemundo continÚa la cazarÍa humana por francisco oropeza. quitarle la vida a 5 personas entrll